I too recently watched “Little Children” for the first time because it was on the list, but I don’t count it as a mistake. I would not count it among the best of the best of the decade either, but I did appreciate a lot about the film, altogether though I think it is strung to thinly for what it hoped I think to do. The cinematography reminded me of “Zodiac” at times, a lot of that green uncorrected look (I don’t know what you call it?) on one hand I like it and understand why so many filmmakers use it, on the other I want to roll my eyes because I have seen it so many times now.

It is essentially an unhappy little movie, at the end the different threads have some sort of resolution: the bully sees the error of his ways, The Molester castrates himself and makes a new friend, maybe now he can join the football team…with that noggin he could be the ball…The prom king goes back to his cold and frighteningly Skinny…(come on Jenny for god sakes Eat!) wife…I don’t know what happens with the pantie-sniffer?…So I guess what? All is right now in suburbia?
I am wonder if it was Jay C that lobbied for this film to be on the list? If Todd Solondz “Happiness” hadn’t been done in 1998 I think it would have been #1 I could see him brow-beating the other Junkateers into acquiescence with peels of maniacal character assaults…You’re shit!” …”You’re an Idiot!” Like Patty McCormack in “The Bad Seed”…ok I am “Shit” now…”

Kate Winslet plays the frustrated, educated mother, the spectacle of the film, with Gregg Edelman as her erotica-obsessed husband, and Sadie Goldstein as their neglected daughter. As Sarah, Winslet’s life brings her to Brad, played by Patrick Wilson, another disenchanted suburbanite and Ronnie, a desperate child predator. In Hollywood fashion their lives are intertwined more and more until the climax, but the way in which the director depicts these characters makes their stories authentic and profound.

Sarah and Brad become secret and passionate lovers after a scandalous kiss at the playground, a kiss which made disappear the suburban wives and mothers from Sarah’s life. The incident that they committed filled them with vivacity and sexual energy. That the spectators sees their faults, their relationship, and their unhappiness only adds to the underlining of all the scenes by the small-town friendly narration of Will Lyman.

The other characters must be mentioned because of their strong and sensitive performances. Ronnie, the pedophile, is encouraged by his mother, who only wants good for her son and that he will change. He is harassed because of his problem but Field does not subjectively comment on his actions. This relationship makes us realize the love of a mother for her son and that others, the ones about whom we read in newspapers, are not as different as we think. The empress of suburban life, Mary B. McCann plays her role to the extreme, a mother who embodies the incessant ringing of the clocks from the beginning of the film and who confirms the dominant aura of the suburbs.

Based on the novel by Tom Perrotta, the film transmits well the subtlety of emotions and themes. Field explores the interior of the characters, their relationships, and their surroundings; one sees this in the recurring images, always facing upwards, of silent trees, deserted playgrounds, and grand New England houses. Also, Field makes evident the idea of movement in a new direction, the future, and that this movement obliges us to forget, to hurt ourselves, or to relapse. This is well illustrated in the stories and dialogues, the brief and intense interaction of the characters.

Field has given us an extraordinary film with the talent and professionalism of Hollywood and the introversion and symbolism of the novel. This film should be watched to know the direction where Hollywood could go.

I didn’t find anything in this movie darkly funny. The narration was ok, but seemed inconsistent in that long stretches of the movie would go by and I’d wonder where the narrator went b/c he hadn’t said anything in a while.

At the very end of the movie, all of the characters made out of character decisions that were not at all supported by the plot up to that point.

No need to rent this film to see what everyone is talking about.

http://flashaddict.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/voice-over-narration-as-an -active-agent-in-film/

After my comma, the ‘it’ refers back to the original grundled (I don’t know the english word and I am already putting enough effort into this) – that being my membership. So what I was saying, was that I would revoke my membership, if it (my membership) meant having to consistently wrap my head around logic like yours.

These last two comments can be deleted by a moderator if rus agrees.

–hah ha, you left out the word “not” Freudian slip, your subconscious mind is bowing to my greatness. thank you Henrik, thank you for the compliment!

I would gladly turn in my film fan membership and enjoy films on my own terms, if it meant having to consistently wrap my head around logic like yours.