Little Children (Todd Field, 2006)

Message

dadaistnun · #1 Post by **dadaistnun** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 1:33 pm

Trailer is up at the official site.

#2 Post by **Matt** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:37 pm

Okay, I only sorta liked In the Bedroom and after reading the "synopsis" of this film (underbelly of suburbia, etc.), I was pretty sure I wouldn't bother to see it. And then I watched that trailer. Wow. I think the last trailer to be that sinister and to fill me with such panic was the original teaser for Twister (which was, admittedly, a very different kind of film).

I really hope this film lives up to its trailer and isn't just American Beauty II.

Hey, Leon Vitali, Kubrick's right hand man, is an associate producer and actually has a part in the film.

Barmy · #3 Post by **Barmy** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:06 pm

The trailer looks good. Let's just hope there is less dish-smashing in this one.

dadaistnun · #4 Post by **dadaistnun** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:07 pm

I haven't read Perrotta's novel yet, but everyone I know who has (and whose judgement I trust) loved it, so the source material should be good. Of course, Dubus's story "Killings" was an superbly consise dark-thoughts-in-the-middle-of-the-night piece of work that was somewhat diluted by Field's adaptation, opening up the story to give us a not really necessary calm before the storm. I still liked In the Bedroom, though, enough to make me keep an eye on Field as a director.

HarryLime · #5 Post by **HarryLime** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:05 pm

There's a lot of good buzz on this one--Oscar talk, etc., for what that's worth--but I thought In the Bedroom was waaayyy over-rated.

Christmas Cyclops · #6 Post by **Christmas Cyclops** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 11:04 pm

HarryLime wrote:but I thought In the Bedroom was waaayyy over-rated.

Me too. I saw it when I was in eighth grade (and nowhere near movie literate) and the lobster catching and finger symbolism jumped out embarassingly obvious. Field though -- is eternally Nick Nightingale.

The Fanciful Norwegian · #7 Post by **The Fanciful Norwegian** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 12:17 am

No, no, no -- he's eternally the talking wad of black mold from Aqua Teen Hunger Force.

#8 Post by **Matt** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 1:16 am

To me, he'll always be the guy who gave Anne Heche his mole in Walking and Talking.

Antoine Doinel · #9 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:15 am

I thought In The Bedroom was very good, and this trailer is pretty awesome. I just hope it digs a bit deeper than most movies of this kind usually do.

Lino · #10 Post by **Lino** » Thu Aug 24, 2006 9:47 am

That is one beautifully edited trailer. This is the kind of thing that makes me buy a ticket to see it. And those 3 actors are just gorgeous creatures to look at. And glad to see that the guy from Hard Candy is on its way to a beautiful career if he keeps doing these kind of independent looking/thoughtful movies (which I bet is the game tactic behind every agent in Hollywood who wants to give their clients some credibility).

Looking forward to this one.

#11 Post by **Jeff** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:16 pm

poster

#12 Post by **Matt** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 6:21 pm

This is why I want an Oscar category for trailers and marketing campaigns.

Dylan · #13 Post by **Dylan** » Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:11 pm

Finally got the site to work on my computer, and yes, God, it's an incredible trailer. I look very forward to seeing the film.

Antoine Doinel · #14 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 am

An early review by Dave Poland

Christmas Cyclops · #15 Post by **Christmas Cyclops** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:25 pm

That review says absolutely nothing aside from saying a buncha other directors couldn't have made it. And I think it even mistakes "Little Children" for "Little People" at some point. Still, the hyperbole helps.

Dying to see this one, and especially love having that site minimized in the corner for faraway train ambience!

barrym71 · #16 Post by **barrym71** » Fri Sep 01, 2006 12:49 pm

The book wasn't nearly as creepy and portentous as that trailer.

Antoine Doinel · #17 Post by **Antoine Doinel** » Thu Sep 07, 2006 9:36 pm

Variety weighs in

portnoy · #18 Post by **portnoy** » Sat Sep 09, 2006 10:51 pm

This movie is horseshit - the only thing I saw this year at Telluride that made me embarrassed for everyone involved. Almost-interesting Douglas Sirk/Harlequin Romance stylization gives way after about twenty minutes for standard-issue suburbia-is-hell ruminations that insist that we Look Closer at our everyday lives. A few dozen embarrassing sequences later (punctuated by occasionally moving scenes between self-loathing ex-con Jackie Earle Haley and his mother), and we're left with American Beauty For Her.

John Cope · #19 Post by **John Cope** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 1:49 pm

From Slant Magazine--ouch.

Wow. Is Nick Schager really Armond White?

portnoy · #20 Post by **portnoy** » Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:06 pm

John Cope wrote:Wow. Is Nick Schager really Armond White?

it's a pretty dead-on review.

tavernier · #21 Post by **tavernier** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:05 am

portnoy wrote:it's a pretty dead-on review.

This is a pretty accurate review, but Armond will pepper his almost-certain pan with remarks about why Todd Field isn't DePalma, Altman or Spielberg.

Barmy · #22 Post by **Barmy** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:07 pm

I see that review's point, but it seems forced.

This is a very skillfully made movie. So what if the message is a bit trite. Almost all message films have an element of triteness. And some of the obvious flaws just made it more endearing.

At NYFF the comedy elements went over very well--the saving grace of the film.

Anyway, it's not a good as the trailer, but still one of the better Hollywood films this year.

tavernier · #23 Post by **tavernier** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:17 pm

So it's OK if the movie's point is forced, but not the reviewer's...

Barmy · #24 Post by **Barmy** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 3:22 pm

I guess I don't overanalyze "Hollywood" films. I enjoyed the cinematography, the over-the-top foreboding, the black comedy and Winslet's perf. The message that you can't do anything about the past but can do something about the future is something everyone needs to be reminded of from time to time.

The film may have been forced but it was an enjoyable 2.25 hours. The review is forced but it is boring and doesn't have nice boobs.

tavernier · #25 Post by **tavernier** » Sun Oct 01, 2006 5:54 pm

But you don't even see the nice boobs - Jennifer Connolly remains clothed!