Little Children Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES PLOT SUMMARY
Echoes of "Madame Bovary" in the American suburbs. Sarah's in a loveless marriage, long days with her young daughter at the park and the pool, wanting more. Brad is a househusband, married to a flinty documentary filmmaker. Ronnie is just out of prison - two years for indecent exposure - living with his mother; Larry is a retired cop, fixated on driving Ronnie away. Sarah and Brad connect, a respite of adult companionship at the pool. Ronnie and Larry have their demons. Brad should be studying for the bar; Larry misses his job; Ronnie's mom thinks he needs a girlfriend. Sarah longs to refuse to be trapped in an unhappy life. Where can these tangled paths lead?
| Kate Winslet | Sarah Pierce |
| Patrick Wilson | Brad Adamson |
| Jennifer Connelly | Kathy Adamson |
| Gregg Edelman | Richard Pierce |
| Sadie Goldstein | Lucy Pierce |
| Ty Simpkins | Aaron Adamson |
| Noah Emmerich | Larry Hedges |
| Jackie Earle Haley | Ronnie J. McGorvey |
| Phyllis Somerville | May McGorvey |
| Helen Carey | Jean |
| Catherine Wolf | Marjorie |
| Mary B. McCann | Mary Ann |
| Trini Alvarado | Theresa |
| Marsha Dietlein | Cheryl |
| Jane Adams | Sheila |
| Todd Field |
7.90 out of 10 (8577 votes)
Visitor Reviews
It wasn't about children at all . . . !
posted on 29 Aug 2009As a Christian mother of three, I rented this movie with the hopes that - finally - Hollywood had created a movie about the joys of raising children, those blessed gifts that God has given us! Instead I found sinful garbage, foul language, and a decidedly un-Christian ethic being preached at me and my family. Avoid this like the plague. It was so offensive, my child's head literally exploded. You should read the Bible, instead.
Well-Acted but Painful to Watch
posted on 29 Aug 2009I thought the acting was pretty impressive, especially the actor who played the pedophile. But the constant narration/voice over in this movie ruined it for me. In my opinion, if you can't translate a book into a screenplay without constant narration to fill in the blanks, then maybe you shouldn't make the movie. When the deep voice of the narrator first came on, I seriously thought it was supposed to be a joke. But 20 minutes later I realized this was going to go on throughout the whole movie. I managed to block it out after a while and focus on the plot. All in all, a well-acted and filmed movie, but still not enjoyable to watch. And the semi-redemptive ending did not ring true to me. It seemed forced and out of touch with the tenor of the rest of the movie.
Snokel at the pool
posted on 28 Aug 2009This is how to think of the snorkel at the pool scene: "I know. We'll have Ronny come to the pool in snorkel and flippers, and jump in. He'll swim around for a few minutes and ogle the kids, then someone would notice him, and it'll be a big freakout. Wait a minute. That won't work. The minute that guy shows up at that pool they're all screaming. He could never get into the pool unnoticed. That scene has no integrity." And you don't do it.So many of the scenes in this film are like that, so stagey and unlikely: anything with Larry, anything with the football team, May and Ronny---just a cartoon, all of it.
Pretty Good
posted on 25 Aug 2009Top 10 of 2006? Probably not. I think alot of critics should be a little embarrassed about that. But then again crash won an oscar two years ago soooo. Recommended. A great theme. A nice comparison with MAdame Bovary which is a favorite of mine. This thing had promise until that guy cut his wanker off. Actually it was headed downhill before that but.. A very chilling scene with the guy from the Bad News Bears and all those miniature dolls. Almost as chilling as the stadning ovation KAte gave handsome football man when he scored a TD. A lame "Crash" like ending which was annoying at best. Kate Winslet makes this one. She can destroy you with her facial expression. I love her so much I sat through "The Holiday".
Probalby One of the Worst Movies I've Ever Seen.
posted on 24 Aug 2009From the first scene to the last, almost every moment of this movie is a misstep. Unbelievable, ridiculous, unintentionally funny, and downright dumb. Let's take the very first scene. Three housewives are sitting in a park with their kids. They see the handsome Patrick Dempsey character walking his kid, and start giggling like schoolgirls about how mysterious he is, and call him the "Prom King." All three of these women are boring caricatures, indifferent from each other. Then Kate Winslet's character shows up. She is, of course, the more sensitive one of the bunch. They offer her character $5 if she can get his phone number. We're supposed to believe that three 30-something women giggle like teenagers and are afraid to talk to a single father just because he's handsome? Of course, Kate does get his phone number, as a prank, and then kisses him briefly, and then the women all run to get their children like chickens with their heads cut off, for fear they'll see Kate kissing this guy. Nonsense! We're supposed to believe modern women behave this way?? Why go on? Almost every moment of this movie is equally ridiculous and unmotivated, and I nearly walked out. Other than Patrick Dempsey, even the acting is poor, and the dialog dull and often insipid. As a movie about the "underside" of suburbia, see "Blue Velvet." It's much more imaginative, intelligent and entertaining.
Evokes genuine interest
posted on 18 Aug 2009Relationship drama is on the menu and Todd Field is the waiter, with expert skill and neat presentation. 'Little Children' zooms in on suburbia, navigating the world of desperate housewives and husbands. The dish proves a pleasant diversion, with crisp performances and a tasty centre.So tasty, in fact, that Little Children is one of the most interesting films of recent years. It is far from the greatest, and is not devoid of faults, but a genuine evocation of interest should be attributed to Field's story. Every character unflinchingly demands our attention. We want to know more about precisely everyone in the community. In the front row for fascination sits Ronnie, the resident child molestor, who pends between likable and freak. He is the overriding nominator for 'Little Children' – and his presence greatly upsets the parents.Yet most salience is given to Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson as Sarah and Pierce – two lonely, bored and desperate housespouses who, in the midst of having nothing to do, innocently begin an extramarital affair with each other. Through calm narration, the film introduces Sarah as an anthropologist and remarks how she is different from the contingent of housemoms. However it becomes apparent that the director is the anthropologist and not Sarah. Indeed Field studies human relationships accordingly, interweaving loneliness, desperation, jealousy, lust and betrayal. Sarah, in fact, loses her 'objective' stance and melts in with the rest as she indulges in her passion with Brad.It needs to be said that 'Little Children' often tips over into comedy and it is this refreshing edge that bumps it up to 8/10 on my scale. It treats serious subjects, such as pedophilia, infidelity and loneliness – but it does so with the spark in the eye. A consistent cloud of laughter seemed to hover in the air of my theatre at the Stockholm Film Festival and Kate Winslet was undoubtedly the catalyst. She gives a fine performance with excellent emotional transparency, layered skill and above all with an inherent funny bone that translates to a goofy woman. The humour is surprisingly in-tune even with the other characters with all their quirks and afflictions, such as child-molestation and online pornography.Toward the end, 'Little Children' patiently crafts a sense of impending doom that deserves much credit. Nevertheless, the ending isn't the best imaginable. The film could benefit from being slightly shorter. Lastly the use of cute kids as tearjerkers is a disappointing cheap-shot used a little too often, and seems mostly a tiresome American phenomenon. Yet as a whole entity Little Children is a very interesting film that makes the best possible use of characters, relationships and suburban drama. Throw in a few exceptionally neat steadicam shots – Scorsese-style – and the experience is complete.8 out of 10
I have a psychosexual disorder.
posted on 14 Aug 2009Does this movie dserve the acclaim it has received? Maybe. Reminiscent of Lost in Translation or American Beauty...It has some very Freudian themes. But also very redemptive, no I'm not talking about the pervert Ronnie, I'm speaking of the guy who keeps projecting his anger towards him, Larry the ex cop. Who does redeem himself in the end. Though the conclusion had a little of Deux Ex Machina-isms, I still liked this. I would have also preferred it if Jennifer Connelly didn't wear her hair with bangs.Could have done without the spoonfeeding narration though.I give this a 3/5
Bad Behaviors on parade ***spoilers***
posted on 12 Aug 2009I liked this movie and I hate that I liked it. Why is it that it had to sink so low into depravity to make its point? I believe with a more nuanced touch it could have told its story quite well without rubbing our faces in the slime of bad behavior. It was not necessary. It was over the top. Shall I list them? masturbation fetishism internet porn adultery graphic sex hints at child abuse/exhibitionism Further, every man in this movie was scum. You had: an adulterer a stalker/bully a pedophile/exhibitionist a porn addicted fetishistThe women too were portrayed as shallow, if not as depraved. Certainly not a pretty picture.
interesting try but overrated
posted on 08 Aug 2009Saw this film last night--while it was a mostly enjoyable couple of hours, I really feel that it's overrated. For starters, the whole way through I felt like I was watching the distilled cinematic version of a novel, and I had no idea about the source material going in. Jennifer Connelly is fantastic and should've been given more screen time in the final cut (not sure why--or did she?--agree to be second banana to Kate Winslet). I think the two leads are miscast . . . Patrick Wilson does not ring true as the self-doubting ex-jock (the whole skateboarding metaphor is a joke, particularly later on). His performance is okay, but I'm just not buying him in the role. Way too pretty, and I agree with what others have said: that it's highly unlikely two beautiful, privileged spouses would be at such different places in their lives so early in their marriage. Same goes for Winslet--too pretty and smart (the film suggests she's an ABD lit. academic) to be married to such a top-drawer weenie, plus I found her US accent this time out was a little too distracting/patrician for the suburban role.There's no nuance in the secondary characters--I found Noah Emmerich's performance to be annoying/uninteresting . . . he was just kind of like a wet pair of diapers that won't go away, and if he's one of the "little children," that's not nearly enough to hold my interest. Similarly, the suburban moms are presented in a totally ridiculous way: let's see, we've got a Witches of Eastwick-lite blond mom, a red-haired mom, and a black-haired mom all sitting together on the park bench (you see, they have to sit together 'cause they're all essentially the same stock character). But Winslet is different, 'cause, like, she's on the other bench. Just too cartoony for me, and again later in the book club segment blond mom is presented as a one-note drone. Not to say those moms don't exist, but I really don't see the point here other than to hit the "stupid" viewer over the head. This is a pretty easy target for the filmmaker/screenwriter. Other than in Jackie Earle Haley's character, where's the complexity? The best movies have character actors who offer layered performances.The dragnet cop–sounding narrator also didn't really work for me. A little too droll by half. And I must say that I'm growing very weary of the show-ending-intercut-montage-sequence-with-voice-over device that every drama on TV currently exploits to the hilt, and now apparently filmmakers feel the need to use. Please, directors, avoid the bravura montage sequence . . . I'm begging you! Magnolia really created a monster with that.See the movie and decide for yourself. I'm not sorry I saw it—I was just expecting more. Love that Connelly, though. I think I'd probably watch her reciting the phone book.
LITTLE CHILDREN (Todd Field, 2006) ***
posted on 04 Aug 2009I had watched – and been sufficiently impressed with – this director's acclaimed previous film, IN THE BEDROOM (2001); the follow-up effort proves to be altogether more accomplished. Again, we're treated to a variety of suburban neuroses – which I can't help feeling some of the characters bring upon themselves (more on this later).Anyway, the director has the temerity to stretch the melodramatic proceedings – essentially revolving around three interweaving plot threads – to a hefty 137 minutes. That it doesn't collapse under its own weight is due to a perceptive script (compounded by pointed narration) and excellent performances; the actors generally manage to steer clear of hysterics (which only really come into play towards the end). Both the talent and beauty of leading ladies Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connelly is on display here – though the latter's role is rather small and colorless. I'm not familiar with either of the actors playing their characters' respective husbands – in this case, it's Winslet's husband who fares the worst (as he's inexplicably absent throughout most of the film, except when the director needs to harp on his particular mania!). Jackie Earle Haley is effectively understated in a difficult role as a convicted paedophile; he obviously incurs the wrath of the neighborhood which is full of kids – and is hounded by an ex-security officer who, as it happens, had been disgraced himself after accidentally shooting and killing a child! As I said, the director makes it hard for the audience to empathize with anyone (despite paralleling Winslet's character with one of the most famous tragic heroines of literature, Madame Bovary) because the people concerned can hardly help themselves. The two couples don't really do anything to save their respective marriage but, in the end, the straying partners – no doubt burdened by the presence of a child in each of their lives – seem uncommitted towards taking that decisive step to freedom. Connelly and her husband manage to remain together after a stupid skateboarding accident, but things seem less certain in Winslet's vapid household. As for Haley, every time he manages to move us by his predicament (a combination of 'sensitive soul' and 'mama's boy') is then offset by some needlessly punishing exhibition – the incident at the pool, the way he ruins his one chance at a date, and the inevitable final act.Well-made and acted, therefore, but essentially contrived – and, like the director's previous outing, the film doesn't lend itself easily to rewatchability in view of its subject matter (not so much the controversial issues as the soap-opera elements) and considerable length...
Fine Rendition of a Movie I have already Seen
posted on 31 Jul 2009In my personal evaluation system for films, Little Children earned a 3.2 on a 4.0 scale.My system is for me, so it is completely subjective. LITTLE CHILDREN:Escapism: 2.0 Story: 3.0 Acting: 4.0 Filming: 2.0 Intellectual Value: 3.5Random Comments: Winslet is excellent, but she always is. Connelly needs to eat something. Wilson makes a great bimbo. Last time I saw Haley in anything, it was the original Bad New Bears. He was phenomenal._________________________________________________________________I love reading film reviews and viewers comments. I do not feel that I can contribute anything new. Therefore I try to be brief and add my votes and non-critical, random comments for those who are merely interested in one more opinion.I will spare the reader long-winded definitions of my criteria. Escapism is obviously completely subjective. I prefer this word over "entertaining." Filming is also difficult to define. It certainly includes cinematography. Often I ask myself if the film would have lost anything were it performed on stage. I find this to be a decent starting point for reflecting on film technique. As with escapism, intellectual value is also subjective.
Parental Guidance Recommended
posted on 31 Jul 2009James Joyce once advised us to "wipe your glosses with what you know." There aren't many Giant Novelists around anymore because we don't seem to have enough of the right kind of majestic stresses that produce the urge to capture and explain them. No more Great Depressions, World Wars, that sort of thing, so no more "From Here to Eternity" or "The Grapes of Wrath". Nowadays we wonder about whether to buy that SUV with the 20 mm. cannon on top, or to put the moves on that guy's wife we met at the community swimming pool.That's what most of us know and it's come to be a genre of its own, suburban literature, with its own emblems like John Cheever and John Updike. I suppose this movie sticks pretty closely to the novel it's based on, and it comes out just about right. It's about the kinds of people we know doing the kinds of things we know about. Or at least many of us know -- I never led a life even remotely resembling that of these characters -- but we can still find the life styles familiar.There's a distant, self-satisfied husband who we see having cybersex with an internet figure called something like Curious Kathy. Eventually, in a hilarious scene, the guy wants MORE, as always happens, buys a pair of sexy panties, imagines that they belong to Curious Kathy, and is discovered behind the closed door of his office with the panties half drawn over his head, masturbating wildly while goggling at photos of Curious Kathy on the internet. "We'll talk later," says his wife (Kate Winslet), closing the door.There's the guy (Patrick Wilson) who is pretty straight, staying at home and taking care of the kids and pretending he's studying for the bar exam, who has the gorgeous wife, the self-absorbed wife (Jennifer Connelly), who is possessive without passion. When he takes a shower, hoping that he'll be able to have sex with her tonight, she whispers that she doesn't want to disturb the child sleeping comfortably in the middle of the bed. Then it's, "Goodnight," and -- click, off goes the lamp.Then there's the really sick guy, Ronnie McGorvey, recently released from jail for child molestation, living at his mother's home, who is hated by everyone in West Wyndam, Massachussetts, and wakes to find his front door plastered with his mug shots and EVIL spray painted on his cement walkway. When he goes snorkeling in the community pool the other users begin to shriek and pull their children hysterically to safety until the cops come. It's as if the shark from "Jaws" had been dumped into the water. And Ronnie doesn't even seem ashamed as the police guide him out. He seems irritated. "You'll do better if you find a girl nearer your own age," his mother advises him. "But I don't like girls nearer my own age," he explains, reasonably enough.There isn't the space to go into these characters in any detail, or the stories either. They add up to a kind of mosaic of incidents, with Brad the someday-lawyer making it with Sarah the neglected wife, and things get rather tumultuous for a place like West Wyndam towards the end. There's a matter-of-fact narrative to help us along (by Will Lyman, whose voice you'll recognize) but it's not really of much help. That mellow exposition might as well be telling us about the reproductive habits of clams. In fact, I think maybe it has.The film cleanly blends intelligence, detailed observation, tragedy, and ironic humor. At the dinner table, with Kate Winslet as a guest, Jennifer Connelly intuits that her husband is doing to Kate exactly what he has been doing to Kate. The narration tells us so, and it tells us that Connelly pretends to drop a fork so that she can peek under the table and see if her husband is playing footsies with Winslet. Connelly seems to get lost under the table and we're in comic territory. I will mention one scene that especially impressed me because it was so unexpected. Mom arranges for the queer-looking pervert, Ronnie, to have a date. They're at a restaurant and she's not bad looking either, just sort of withdrawn, shy, and she's not eating. She explains that she's had two nervous breakdowns and is currently on medication. Ronnie, expressionless, listens to her and remarks, "Well, that's not so bad." She drives him home that night, shuts off the engine, and tells him how lonely she is and that she finds him to be a nice person. It takes a minute or two for her to get this out. Then she turns her head to see his response -- and Ronnie is sitting next to her in the darkness, his face twisted, masturbating as if the end of the world were around the corner, and he snarls back at her, "You'd better not tell on me. You'd better not tell on me or I'll ******* get you!" She dissolves in tears. Ronnie gets out and walks away without another word. It's a powerful scene. One of the reasons it's so powerful is that the entire encounter, previous to this point, has been a set up for a heart-warming ending, of the sort found in Ron Howard's movies. Two slightly bent people finding each other at last. Assortative mating, you know? "Marty" in suburbia. Instead, it turns out the way real life so often does -- lousy.
Desperate Housewives, Husbands... Lost in Suburbia
posted on 30 Jul 2009This is a brilliant and engaging movie exploring lives of quiet desperation in affluent American suburbia. The cast is stellar. The voice-over narration provides a documentary feel with an ironic and at times humorous tone, evoking an anthropological study or a wildebeast special on The Discovery Channel. Toward the movie's end, the narration is poignant.
At times, the film reminded me of AMERICAN BEAUTY in its exploration of the darker subtext of American suburbs. The end evoked for me CRASH, as people transcend their biases to help their fellow human beings.
I was not expecting the film to be this good but it is one of the best movies I have seen in the past year.
The book is better!
posted on 29 Jul 2009After watching the very good "Election", I sought out Perrotta's book and was a little disappointed. But I was intrigued with the author enough to listen to the audio version of "Little Children" not realizing it had been translated to the screen. I absolutely loved the book. Having watched the movie, I would have to say that in this case, the book wins.Since much of the book describes the thoughts and fantasies of a myriad of well drawn characters, it is difficult source material for the cinema. The narrative technique was an effort to overcome this difficulty. The other problem is confining the material to a two hour time frame. It would have been better as an HBO/Showtime mini-series. Maybe it still will be.I think Winslett captures the Sarah character perfectly but I thought the others were all miscast slightly. Brad needed to be taller, square-jawed - Jeff Daniels would be good. Ronnie needed to be more indolent, Kathy needed to be more dynamic, Larry should have been shorter, fatter (e.g. Peter Boyle in the 70's "Joe"), Mary Ann needed to be an even more classically suburban prude, Ronnie's Mom is not nearly as small minded as her character needs to be.
Great story, great acting, emotional intensity, real-life sexy
posted on 27 Jul 2009This movie is an example of what I go to the movies for. I disagree with those who disdain the ending - the ending was great it resolved nicely, with surprises and redemption, but with the one exception of the ex-cop character's change which the cynic in me isn't so sure about, but it was still an excellent ending, and beginning in middle. I found myself turned on, afraid for the characters, feeling empathy for all of them, except for the twisted pervert, though he was far from cartoonish. If you co to the movies to look at life - your own and others - and to leave the theater feeling like you've had a good and memorable meal (in contrast to, say, X-Men 3, which was like candy - okay in the moment but after that, so what) then go to this. Especially if you are, have been, or will be married, or are an adult who has been in relationships.
Should have been much better. . .
posted on 26 Jul 2009I loved the novel which was why I was very excited to see Little Children was being adapted for the big screen. However, my concerns were the same as always when it comes to big screen adaptations of any novel: will they do it justice?
With that said and done, I can say yes and no. Yes, the pathos and sense of despair these "desperate housewives" feel is finely brought to the screen and No, some liberties were taken with the second half of the film which veered away from the novel. It changed the complex simplicity of the story and hampered the quiet outcome of the ending. It wasn't until I heard a couple of people in front of me grumble "That's not how it ended in the book," that I realized they were right.
My two beefs with Little Children were 1) the Mary Ann character was played as a smug self-righteous right winged Republican without delving into her story and how her rigid schedules of sex at 9pm on Tuesdays and snack time at 10am exactly were disintegrating her perfect-on-the-surface marriage and 2) I didn't quite like how an "example" needed to be made of Ronnie, the pedophile. His crime was much more severe in the novel than the movie but his "punishment" in the movie was much more severe and grossly over-the-top than the novel.
Liberties and beefs aside, Little Children is a fairly entertaining film. Not great but not bad either. If you really enjoyed this film and you're not adverse to reading books, I would highly suggest reading the novel.
very intense film
posted on 24 Jul 2009i watched this film over the past few days and it truly was a strong film. so many story-lines going on with the couples and the other situations that happen. the pacing of the film was good and it keeps your interest. all of the main performances will keep your attention. this isn't a easy film to view and it deals with so much directness and detailed subjects.it deals with so many themes and you are gonna really feel the Characters. very intense film.
TODD FIELD, OPUS 2
posted on 24 Jul 2009***1/2 2006. Adapted from Tom Perrotta's Little Children: A Novel, this film was co-written and directed by Todd Field. Three nominations for the Academy awards. A movie about sexual pulsions, good or bad. When the environment is no less than hostile, castration, physical and psychological, is the inevitable sanction. Kate Winslet, as usual, is outstanding.
Field Grows
posted on 21 Jul 2009Todd Field's Little Children is an impressive film that jumps off from a potentially hazardous premise. A known sex offender, Ronnie McGorvey (Jackie Earle Haley), moves into an upper- middle class community, and the local parents are scared and outraged. Flyers with the man's photo are distributed, and some of the parents resort to harassment and vigilante behavior. Contrasted against this is the unfolding soap opera of the bookish Sarah (Kate Winslet) who starts an affair with the hunky stay-at-home father Brad (Patrick Wilson). As the relationship unfolds, other forms of social dysfunction, less serious but more prevalent, are explored. Field contrasts reactions to the ultimate, unforgivable transgressions (represented by the fear of what Ronnie might do to local children) with the more everyday neglect and manipulation of children by parents preoccupied with their own gratification. The children in the film are all too often props in their parents' lives, used as excuses to socialize, alibis to cover illicit meetings, or as sources of information about their spouse's actions. The invocation of child abuse in any form raises innumerate hazards for a filmmaker. The extreme emotional response to the topic is one of the film's subjects, but it is also a potential handicap both in finding an audience and in keeping them on side. It takes a deft touch, and Field's confidence in tackling it is impressive. His previous feature, In the Bedroom, was a subdued drama about grief and relationships; it was a fine film with strong acting and judicious direction, but it also felt weighed down by the seriousness of its intentions. There is no sense of the same studied tentativeness in this film, with Field more willing to mix comedy and tragedy, and much more adventurous visually. This creates what some movie snobs might consider a contradiction: it is at once a lot more accessible than In the Bedroom but also considerably more ambitious and interesting. The combination of subject matter, tone, and a Thomas Newman score evokes strong memories of Sam Mendes' American Beauty, but the more serious undertones are also a sign of how things have moved on since that film. Little Children sees the comic /dramatic satire on suburbia once again used for serious purpose.Suggesting that Field mixes serious themes with an often-light touch risks giving the impression that the film is flippant about its serious topics. It isn't. The film has no illusions, for example, about the Ronnie character. While the film is critical of the vigilantes who target him, its opening shots – a montage of porcelain dolls and clocks - have also subtly planted the idea that he is a ticking time bomb. Jackie Earle Haley is extraordinary in the role, which builds on a tradition that extends back to Peter Lorre in Fritz Lang's M. Ronnie lives with his mother, his only friend and defender, and as played by Haley he alternates between strangely sympathetic and deeply disturbing. The film's most affecting sequence is that in which Ronnie is pressured to go on a date by his mother, who thinks a girlfriend will solve his psychological problems. As the evening unfolds and Ronnie interacts with the vulnerable woman his mother chose from a personal ad, we see with aching clarity just how near and yet how far Ronnie is from conducting a normal relationship. Field is also an actor, and Haley's excellent performance is just one of those he has elicited from his talented cast. The performances are vitally important here because they contribute to the moral ambiguity of the characters: Winslet and Wilson, for example, make their characters human and appealing enough that it complicates our responses to their often dubious behavior. Similarly, Jennifer Connelly as Brad's wife Kathy is all sharp edges but ultimately sympathetic. Noah Emmerich (as the neighborhood's lead vigilante) and Phyllis Somerville (as Ronnie's mother) are also very good in vital supporting roles. More than anything else, In the Bedroom had established Field as a director of actors, and Little Children will further strengthen that reputation.What has progressed greatly since the earlier film, however, is Field's visual sense. The style of Little Children takes its cues from the pristine neighborhood in which it unfolds, using the ever-so-pretty suburbia of affluent America as a cue for a visual style that hovers on the borderline between naturalistic and stylized. A lot of Hollywood films are shot in this way, but it's a tough trick to get the heightened effect of a bold visual style without sacrificing reality. Field, however, walks this tightrope adroitly. One sequence, for example, sees a stampede at the pool when parents suddenly recognize Ronnie swimming amongst their children. The pool empties and Ronnie is left alone in the middle. Field until this point has shot the pool so that it looks small and intimate, but suddenly the empty blue expanse seems enormous. (The allusions to the Fourth of July sequence from Jaws could have been too cute, but somehow they, too, work). Other smaller directorial touches are also very effective. In a crucial dinner scene, for example, Kathy (in the background) reacts sharply to something Sarah says in the foreground: Kathy is prominent in the frame but out-of-focus, and Field delays the obvious focus pull, letting us register Kathy's surprise even while the focus (literally) stays on Sarah. It's a very smart shot, as Kathy's surprise is even more dramatic, and keeping the focus on Sarah intensifies our awareness of Kathy's sudden attention to her.As the film progresses, Field moves the story in directions that, in broad terms, are to be expected. What is less predictable, and welcome, is the extent to which the film asks us to keep re-examining characters as events unfold. Some of those we initially sympathize with wind up looking foolish, while others we have been primed to despise achieve unexpected redemption. The journey to its ambiguous but satisfying conclusion is very rewarding.
Depth and meaning
posted on 31 Aug 2009This movie ends a bit abruptly, but take the time to think through everything you've seen before making a snap judgment about the characters and the "message" of the movie. Despite its reputation, this is not an "anti-suburbia," "anti-family," "anti-stay-at-home-mom" (or anti-whatever!!!) movie, if you really stop and put the pieces together. The characters had great depth and were not the mere charicatures you might have seen in other films. The acting is terrific, the dialogue well-written, and the outcome unpredictable. Do not rent or buy this movie if you're looking for a feel-good laugh fest! Although there is some dark wry humor here, it tackles some weighty issues and has some moments that some people might find disturbing. In the end, though, I was left with a sense of redemption for these people and really felt that the major characters had undergone significant change and found some kind of peace in their lives.