New Line Cinema | Release Date: October 6, 2006
7.3
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 170 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
124
Mixed:
18
Negative:
28
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
MichaelDNDec 21, 2012
The subplots are unbelievably generic, and not even done in an original way. Jackie Earle Haley's plotline is the most interesting, but as the movie progresses, it becomes sympathetic to the pedophile, and the movie's overall message seems toThe subplots are unbelievably generic, and not even done in an original way. Jackie Earle Haley's plotline is the most interesting, but as the movie progresses, it becomes sympathetic to the pedophile, and the movie's overall message seems to be about acceptance, even for someone like that. Apart from that, the acting is very overrated, even from Kate Winslet, who I usually love. Normally, I would just think this is an ordinary, annoyingly generic movie, worthy of maybe a three or a four. However, the idea of the pedophile being portrayed as a sympathetic character, and that those who deride him are considered villains, cause this movie to be an easy zero for me. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
3
JenniferDJan 6, 2007
An extremely disappointing movie, for all the critical acclaim it has received. The film is muddled, and neither Field nor Perotta seems to have a clear idea of what film they are making or what they wish to say. The first two-thirds of the An extremely disappointing movie, for all the critical acclaim it has received. The film is muddled, and neither Field nor Perotta seems to have a clear idea of what film they are making or what they wish to say. The first two-thirds of the movie were engrossing and enjoyable, if flawed, but the last section of the film is irretrievably unfocused (in toe and message) and ultimately so unsatisfying as to be nearly infuriating. It's not interesting ambivalence; it's a lack of vision and a lack of trust in the audience. Winslet is strong, but deserves so much more than the movie gives her. Wilson is gorgeous to look at, and has moments that shine, but is ultimately led astray by the muddy script and the apparently confused direction. Jackie Lee Haley, Phyllis Sommerville, Noah Emmerich, and especially Jane Adams provide richly grounded, even heart-breaking performances. Unfortunately, that is not nearly enough to save this movie. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
BryanW.Oct 9, 2006
Who's idea was it to have a running narrator? A bad decision that just echoes the caricatured/stereotype world Field creates. Maybe if I hadn't seen the dozen other films that deal with this subject matter with more weight and Who's idea was it to have a running narrator? A bad decision that just echoes the caricatured/stereotype world Field creates. Maybe if I hadn't seen the dozen other films that deal with this subject matter with more weight and subtlety I would have been able to ignore some of the film's other weak points but in the end it's a struggle to find a single element of this film to praise. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
1
HenryV.Apr 2, 2007
Garbage. Little Children treats you like a child, holding your hand and walking you through an atmosphere of contrived and unrealistic metaphors and dilemmas about the American suburbs. Drops your IQ to that of a three year old.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
JackieC.Oct 9, 2006
Extremely well-acted, particularly by Winslet, Haley and Phyllis Somerville. It is also, like "In the Bedroom," airless and ultimately lifeless. This is a rather academic exercise in filmmaking control. Yes, there is such a thing as "too Extremely well-acted, particularly by Winslet, Haley and Phyllis Somerville. It is also, like "In the Bedroom," airless and ultimately lifeless. This is a rather academic exercise in filmmaking control. Yes, there is such a thing as "too perfect." This is it. And the result is, apart from a few electrifying scenes, what I imagine suffocation is like. There is no spontaneity here. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful
3
LiliW.Feb 4, 2007
What happened with this film? Why was it so long and boring? I had a difficulty believing the actors. I didn't find any connection between the charactersw at all. Waste of time!!!!
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
PnArdyPnArdyMay 13, 2007
A movie about the difficulties of raising little children in young families where parents constantly experience stress, discomfort, sexual desires and disorders. Kate Winslet is absolutely boring.
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
MarcK.Dec 29, 2006
This is one of the most over-rated and awful films of 2006, which I can assure you was the furthest thing from my mind when I sat down to watch it. Slow and uninteresting plot, and characters as unlikeable as the ones I saw in "Friends With This is one of the most over-rated and awful films of 2006, which I can assure you was the furthest thing from my mind when I sat down to watch it. Slow and uninteresting plot, and characters as unlikeable as the ones I saw in "Friends With Money." I have no idea why everyone is so excited over Winslet and Haley...I found neither performance to be even remotely exceptional. To me the best peformances were by Connelly and Phyllis Somerville, who you don't hear very much about. Collapse
0 of 0 users found this helpful
2
IanS.Mar 29, 2008
Really good movie till the end. The end is just plain and simply stupid.
0 of 0 users found this helpful