This film was very highly rated by the jury of the Heartland Film Festival, an annual event here in Indianapolis, and I was eager to see it. To say I found it disappointing is an understatement.
The opening scene of a corn snake slowly swallowing a rather large fish is a good foreshadowing of what the filmmaker requires of his audience. We are being offered an Art Film with a big capital "A". Do we really need yet another film exploring the emotional trials of young white American boys? Perhaps if I had not just seen two major release films dealing with similar material in the last 6 months- the excellent "Mud" and the pretty good "Boys of Summer" I might have had a little more patience with mining this material for fresh insights. The scene where the brothers are introduced to us, at the lake, was promising, though enigmatic. What is their relationship to each other? Is the older boy sexually abusing the younger? The shot of their silhouettes from the rear, where Eric puts on his shirt, and Tommy removes his was a beautiful moment. It was downhill from there. The acting in the scenes in the abandoned house was awkward, and the boys' behavior unnatural. For instance, when Tommy watches Ian playing with the cicada shell he brought home from the abandoned house and asks him what is is, Ian does not reply. I cannot imagine a boy not responding to a direct question like that. I was trying to buy in at this point and waited for the film to hit it's stride, but it never did. The consequences of Ian's death were not depicted in a realistic way, which contradicts the whole point of this supposedly lifelike film. More information about Ian's father and Eric & Tommy's parents would have given the viewer a better understanding of their motivation. There was no sympathy for Ian's father, and the idea that he was either abusive or an alcoholic was never substantiated. The most engaging character in the film was Daisy, the dog. All the characters milled about in lifeless, disconnected pantomimes of real people. The introduction of the gun into the narrative was trite, simplistic,over-used. Unnecessary. Mr. Carbone, couldn't you think of a more creative device to heighten the tension? So the film dragged on, the leaves blew, the water rustled, the rain came and the seasons changed. Nothing was resolved, and there was no transformation as the cicada implied. I could have used a Barf-o-rama scene or a character like Neckbone to relieve the unrelenting tension.
In the Q & A session that followed the screening, opinions were mixed, and several people left during the movie. Those who liked the movie lauded its attention to detail, the fabulous cinematography and absolute realism of the characters. I felt like they were describing a film I didn't see!
The opening scene of a corn snake slowly swallowing a rather large fish is a good foreshadowing of what the filmmaker requires of his audience. We are being offered an Art Film with a big capital "A". Do we really need yet another film exploring the emotional trials of young white American boys? Perhaps if I had not just seen two major release films dealing with similar material in the last 6 months- the excellent "Mud" and the pretty good "Boys of Summer" I might have had a little more patience with mining this material for fresh insights. The scene where the brothers are introduced to us, at the lake, was promising, though enigmatic. What is their relationship to each other? Is the older boy sexually abusing the younger? The shot of their silhouettes from the rear, where Eric puts on his shirt, and Tommy removes his was a beautiful moment. It was downhill from there. The acting in the scenes in the abandoned house was awkward, and the boys' behavior unnatural. For instance, when Tommy watches Ian playing with the cicada shell he brought home from the abandoned house and asks him what is is, Ian does not reply. I cannot imagine a boy not responding to a direct question like that. I was trying to buy in at this point and waited for the film to hit it's stride, but it never did. The consequences of Ian's death were not depicted in a realistic way, which contradicts the whole point of this supposedly lifelike film. More information about Ian's father and Eric & Tommy's parents would have given the viewer a better understanding of their motivation. There was no sympathy for Ian's father, and the idea that he was either abusive or an alcoholic was never substantiated. The most engaging character in the film was Daisy, the dog. All the characters milled about in lifeless, disconnected pantomimes of real people. The introduction of the gun into the narrative was trite, simplistic,over-used. Unnecessary. Mr. Carbone, couldn't you think of a more creative device to heighten the tension? So the film dragged on, the leaves blew, the water rustled, the rain came and the seasons changed. Nothing was resolved, and there was no transformation as the cicada implied. I could have used a Barf-o-rama scene or a character like Neckbone to relieve the unrelenting tension.
In the Q & A session that followed the screening, opinions were mixed, and several people left during the movie. Those who liked the movie lauded its attention to detail, the fabulous cinematography and absolute realism of the characters. I felt like they were describing a film I didn't see!