LITTLE CHILDREN: One Of The Year's Best Films

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 1:55am

Psychological dramas set in suburban conformity tend to run into one another, but LITTLE CHILDREN is indelible. It sticks out in your mind, refusing to go away, lingering...lingering...lingering...

New Line Cinema should be ashamed of itself for the way it handled this movie. Its level of promotion is about one step up from Fox's treatment of IDIOCRACY. They have one of the year's very, very best films and they're burying it so that no one can find it. I do not know why this is the case. This is a shame because the acting in this film is superb. Jackie Earle Haley, whom I was not familiar with before watching this film, gives perhaps the best performance as a tormented child molester attempting to get his life back together with futility.

[roquat]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 2:07am

They pushed Todd Fields' last picture, IN THE BEDROOM, to commercial success and Oscar nominations, so why are they punishing this one, which is getting even better reviews? No wonder artists find it nearly impossible to develop and grow in Hollywood. I wanted to see this movie as soon as I heard about it, but it is nearly impossible to find.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 2:10am

Not even Mel Gibson was treated nearly this bad.

This is a man who worked with Kubrick! He clearly knows what he is doing.

[jimnysf]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 4:01am

I loved this film when I saw it a few months ago. Sadly, the theatre was empty and not many people have even heard of it.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 8:19am

I don't know where you guys went to see the movie, but when I went to see it in New York the showing was sold out.

[chealion313]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 8:43am

I really wanted to see this movie, but it was only showing in two theaters in New York, none in NJ, where I live, and unfortunately I couldn't fit it into my schedule to see it. I'm dying to see it, but I guess I'll just have to wait for the DVD.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 10:10am

Thomas Newman's score is probably his best since American Beauty.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 3:07pm

It also must be said that the ending is extremely satisfying and that LITTLE CHILDREN does not suffer from "too-long-itis". It runs, in fact, the absolute perfect length.

[AC126748]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 5:17pm

It also must be said that the ending is extremely satisfying and that LITTLE CHILDREN does not suffer from "too-long-itis". It runs, in fact, the absolute perfect length.


I would disagree with you there. I felt that it dragged a bit, especially during the beginning of the third act. Also, I hated how the mock documentary narration that began the film seemed to disappear for a decent chunk of the movie, and then just start again out of nowhere. I loved the novel that the film is based on, but the movie itself left me dissatisfied. Kate Winslet, Jennifer Connelly, and Jackie Earle Haley were all superb (I didn't care for Wilson), but something just didn't work for me. I think it has more to do with the fact that I loved the novel so much and took issue with a lot of the changes made; the book was a dark comedy, while the movie was just dark. Also, the children were younger, which I think made a big difference. I'm rambling, but I really was expecting more than I got.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 12/23/06 at 11:14pm

What was wrong with Wilson?

Speaking of which, I thought the metaphor involving the children was completely well-handled and not heavy-handed whatsoever.

[touchmeinthemorning]

Posted: 12/24/06 at 1:31am

I'll jump in on this one, too.

This is absolutely one of the best films of the year. It is original, well-acted, stylistic, and tight. I laughed, I cried, and when Wilson was naked, I touched myself a little.

I loved this movie!

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:32am

I just watched this tonite and it is now my favorite film of last year. Great acting, writing, directing, cinematography, score, etc.

And, yes, Patrick Wilson is ****ING HOT.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:35am

I felt that it dragged a bit, especially during the beginning of the third act. Also, I hated how the mock documentary narration that began the film seemed to disappear for a decent chunk of the movie, and then just start again out of nowhere.

Yes! I noticed that too and it bothered me. Great book, great movie. As for its poor publicity, I was happy that Meryl Streep acknowledged this in her Golden Globe acceptance speech.

[TheActr97J]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 4:01am

I haven't seen the film yet, but I just started the book today at the airport and couldn't put it down. It's a fantastic novel as well.

[chris d]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:25am

the movie is great. more people should see it, yes. I guess the subject matter made the studio a bit hesitant about how to handle it. I think it's worth noting the film, while "heavy" and disturbing at times, is quite entertaining, with funny, satirical moments. I think anybody who has grown up in the suburbs (like me; LI) could relate to Little Children.

[misschung]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 10:32am

Personally I found it less disturbing than say, American Beauty - which was publicized up the wazoo

[B3TA07]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 11:53am

"Thomas Newman's score is probably his best since American Beauty." Oh! Something to make me want to see it!

[Roninjoey]

Posted: 5/6/07 at 12:19pm

I actually preferred the movie to the book, although they were similiar almost to a fault. Still, the movie had a sort of tightness whereas the book felt meandering, with more attention given to auxiliary characters. The bit with the husband with the panty fetish was great though.


And the movie had Patrick Wilson.

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 4:56am

The husband was Broadway regular Gregg Edelman who was fantastic in this film. Actually, I thought it had one of the best ensemble casts of any movie last year and it wasn't even nominated for the SAG award.
This movie was better than THE DEPARTED and BABEL, yet it failed to garner any major nominations apart from some very well-deserved acting nods at the Oscars. Watching the DVD just made me realize how unfairly treated was this film.
It definitely was one of the best films of the year, better than AMERICAN BEAUTY, IMO, yet very reminiscent of it. Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson had a lot of chemistry and Jackie Earle Haley gave a mesmerizing performance.
All throughout, a great film, though I wish the ending had been a bit different.

[LittleFish8386]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 9:51am

I don't see how the subject matter is any worse then American Beauty or Unfaithful (the latter of the two I love). I thought the movie was fantastic and smart. Has it come out on DVD yet? I definitely need to get my hands on it.

And of course, a naked Patrick Wilson just adds to the movies many redeeming qualities.

As far as the ending, I think that is the most realistic conclusion those two characters could come to. The movie is not about young love--it's about obsession, lust and a love that can never be. If they ran away with the children and lived happily ever after, it would have been completely false and contrived. They had demons that they worked hard and conquered. Just like the bad cop and child molester had demons that they overcame at the end of the movie. The part that bothered me most about the story is why the heck they kissed when they first met. The hug I could see happening, but I highly doubt two complete (sober) strangers, would kiss on a playground.
Updated On: 5/7/07 at 09:51 AM

[misschung]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 9:59am

wasnt the kiss in the book, though?

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 11:35am

Love love love love love the book.

My English teacher just asked me to write a paper about this book. I'm not sure how I'm going to write a good paper and NOT make the other kids feel awkward but I'll work it out. Mention more the depth of the story I suppose.

[beacon1]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 1:43pm

I loved the book and really loved the movie. It played such like a fable with that fabulous soundtrack by Thomas Newman--and the trains wailing in the distance. So "otherworldly." LOVED IT.

Here are Patrick's comments about this movie:

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/80-05072007-1342580.html
(you need to scroll down to read the section)

Wilson’s adult ‘Children’

When Patrick Wilson finished the script for “Little Children,” he recognized the flawed male character and felt he had to play him.

“I called (director) Todd Field and told him that I’m not that guy but I know him,” Wilson said during an interview at the time of the theatrical release of “Little Children” (New Line; $27.99, DVD), which recently arrived in stores. “I grew up in Florida and came back after a summer acting camp and knew what I wanted to do with the rest of my life. My character in the film never has that type of epiphany.

“I understood my character’s sense of not knowing what he wanted to do, but I never had those feelings, though a lot of people around me did.”

In the R-rated melodrama, which is based on a novel by Tom Perrotta, he plays a house husband who stays home with his child and feels trapped professionally and emotionally in a stale marriage to his wife (Jennifer Connelly of “A Beautiful Mind”). He begins an affair with a married neighbor (Kate Winslet of “Titanic”) who shares his bleak view of suburban living.

The result is a steamy and destructive sexual relationship that leaves little to the imagination.

At the same time, a pedophile (Jackie Earle Haley of “All the King’s Men”) moves into the area, an event that terrifies the local parents and sets in motion some vigilante-like efforts to punish and terrorize him. (Winslet and Haley received Oscar nominations as best actress and supporting actor for their performances.)

Wilson is best known for his leading-man roles in “The Phantom of the Opera” and “The Alamo,” which cast him as the dashingly romantic Raoul and the fearless commander William B. Travis, respectively. He took his career in a more challenging direction after signing to play a sexual predator who uses the Internet to meet a young teenage girl (Ellen Page of “X-Men: The Last Stand”) in “Hard Candy” (2005).

“Things that scare me interest me as an actor,” the 33-year-old actor said. “My wife said I should do ‘Hard Candy,’ because most of the characters that I’ve played have a heroic moment at the end and, although they may have flaws, are searching for good.

“My character in ‘Hard Candy’ didn’t have that.”

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 7:26pm

I agree that if they had run away with their kids, the ending would've been unsuccessful, but I did wish they had had some kind of cathartic conversation for my own catharsis I guess. Either way, I thought it was one of the best films I've seen, it really thrilled me and captivated me. I can't remember the last time I was so involved with the characters in a film.
I do have a question though, why did Jean--the babysitter--act so disdainful towards Sarah when she came back from the trip? How did she find out she was out there with Brad?

[beacon1]

Posted: 5/7/07 at 7:46pm

According to the "Shooting Script" book, Jean is offended that Sarah is trying to pay her. Jean stayed with Lucy because she is Sarah's friend and genuinely cares for Sarah and Lucy.

I also thought it was as if we were seeing things through Sarah's eyes...she wondered if Jean suspected something.