Before I begin, let me state that in no way do I condone child abuse nor do I excuse adults who sexually victimize children. But neither do I condone vigilante-style justice. This author of the book and the makers of this film seem to be of the opinion that sexual predators deserve to die a violent death, and that their killers should be allowed to get away with it. The picture disturbed me greatly for its lack of a sense of true justice, as well as the cheap exploitation and ignorance that the script espoused. I couldn't have been more shocked if this film had condoned mob lynching, genocide, serial killing or child abuse, for that matter. Morally wrong is morally wrong, and the defense of vigilantism is morally wrong.
Some people continue to insist that this film is based on a "true story" even though the author has never presented credible evidence that it's based on fact. Some have suggested that this was a matter of publicity seeking, but I believe that his insistence that it's based on truth is merely a way of lending its unbelievable plot line more credibility. In this film, Kevin Bacon plays a low-life security guard in a Catholic reform school. He and two other guards routinely victimize and intimidate their young charges, forcing themselves on teenage boys in horrendous acts of sexual abuse. Years later, one of their victims spots the Kevin Bacon character in a restaurant and shoots him dead in cold blood. Unfortunately, there's nothing unbelievable about the plot up to this point. Child abusers do exist, and people do kill for revenge. It's what follows next that is so incredible.
The murder is followed by a cover-up at all levels to protect the murderer. We are asked to believe that, in order to exonerate a killer a GUILTY killer - a Catholic priest would lie under oath and a prosecutor would throw a capitol murder case, all on the basis of the idea that the "fag" child molester got what was coming to him. Of course, most well-read and enlightened people know that sexual predators who victimize children are almost always heterosexual. And although there is no indication in the film that the Kevin Bacon character is homosexual, many people (probably a majority of people in the US) still wrongly believe that most gay men are child abusers and most child abusers are gay. I believe that this homophobic reasoning underlies the author's conviction that the murderer is justified in his actions; this opinion is further underscored by the fact that the mood of the film when the killer is acquitted is nothing less than celebratory. I also believe that it's one reason why so many people think that a movie in which someone literally gets away with murder is a "great" film.
For me, this picture was bad in a dozen different ways that I found offensive the storyline reflects bad logic, bad judgment, bad justice, bad morals, bad lessons and bad drama. All combined, this film annoyed me from the first scene forward. The conclusion that murder can be justified struck me as absolutely barbarian, and I was flabbergasted at the fact that such a distinguished group of fine actors would lend their skills to this bigoted, puerile garbage. The more I watched, the more I got the impression that this film, and the book it was based on, was created only to please homophobic adolescents. If you are the sort of ignorant Neanderthal who would think it's OK to commit murder as long as you're blowing away a "sexual deviate", then this film is for you. If you further believe that murder in the name of revenge is not only defensible but perfectly just, then you will find this film rewarding.
With all the talk in the news these days about sex abuse victims coming forward to accuse their tormentors, I would have liked this film much more if the boys had simply banded together and accused Bacon and the other guards of the abuse, bringing charges in adulthood for what they suffered as adolescents. Surely if real life victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests can find relief though genuine legal means and have their accusations believed (as so many have done) why not the teens depicted here? A far more satisfying ending would have been for Kevin Bacon (and his cohorts, who escaped any retribution at all, including the vigilante killing) to receive exposure and proper legal punishment.
Some people continue to insist that this film is based on a "true story" even though the author has never presented credible evidence that it's based on fact. Some have suggested that this was a matter of publicity seeking, but I believe that his insistence that it's based on truth is merely a way of lending its unbelievable plot line more credibility. In this film, Kevin Bacon plays a low-life security guard in a Catholic reform school. He and two other guards routinely victimize and intimidate their young charges, forcing themselves on teenage boys in horrendous acts of sexual abuse. Years later, one of their victims spots the Kevin Bacon character in a restaurant and shoots him dead in cold blood. Unfortunately, there's nothing unbelievable about the plot up to this point. Child abusers do exist, and people do kill for revenge. It's what follows next that is so incredible.
The murder is followed by a cover-up at all levels to protect the murderer. We are asked to believe that, in order to exonerate a killer a GUILTY killer - a Catholic priest would lie under oath and a prosecutor would throw a capitol murder case, all on the basis of the idea that the "fag" child molester got what was coming to him. Of course, most well-read and enlightened people know that sexual predators who victimize children are almost always heterosexual. And although there is no indication in the film that the Kevin Bacon character is homosexual, many people (probably a majority of people in the US) still wrongly believe that most gay men are child abusers and most child abusers are gay. I believe that this homophobic reasoning underlies the author's conviction that the murderer is justified in his actions; this opinion is further underscored by the fact that the mood of the film when the killer is acquitted is nothing less than celebratory. I also believe that it's one reason why so many people think that a movie in which someone literally gets away with murder is a "great" film.
For me, this picture was bad in a dozen different ways that I found offensive the storyline reflects bad logic, bad judgment, bad justice, bad morals, bad lessons and bad drama. All combined, this film annoyed me from the first scene forward. The conclusion that murder can be justified struck me as absolutely barbarian, and I was flabbergasted at the fact that such a distinguished group of fine actors would lend their skills to this bigoted, puerile garbage. The more I watched, the more I got the impression that this film, and the book it was based on, was created only to please homophobic adolescents. If you are the sort of ignorant Neanderthal who would think it's OK to commit murder as long as you're blowing away a "sexual deviate", then this film is for you. If you further believe that murder in the name of revenge is not only defensible but perfectly just, then you will find this film rewarding.
With all the talk in the news these days about sex abuse victims coming forward to accuse their tormentors, I would have liked this film much more if the boys had simply banded together and accused Bacon and the other guards of the abuse, bringing charges in adulthood for what they suffered as adolescents. Surely if real life victims of sexual abuse by Catholic priests can find relief though genuine legal means and have their accusations believed (as so many have done) why not the teens depicted here? A far more satisfying ending would have been for Kevin Bacon (and his cohorts, who escaped any retribution at all, including the vigilante killing) to receive exposure and proper legal punishment.