"Pathetic Pedophile Tripe"
What You Need To Know:
This miserable movie goes from one character to another in a haphazard, aimless, abhorrent, deconstructionist fashion. Except for the fact that MOVIEGUIDE® collects financial and other data from these films, it would not be worth reviewing. The only reason to make this movie seems to be to titillate child molesters. If this country had any sense, it would arrest these filmmakers and put them in jail for putting such disgusting words about sex in the mouths of young children. One would be hard pressed to say anything good about this movie, either in terms of quality or acceptability.
(PaPaPa, RoRo, HH, C, LLL, VV, SSS, A, D, M) Eclectic pagan worldview with strong Romantic, strong humanist, and strong pedophile elements, as well as one some pagan religion and a gratuitous hymn; 33 obscenities and three profanities, including some “f” words and words for bodily excretions mouthed by a very young boy who is having a sex dialogue online at first through his brother who does the typing and then he figures out how to type (this dialogue contains some of the most disgusting dialogue in any movie) and compounding this are two young girls who dialogue with a fat middle-aged man who puts signs up in his window telling them what he would like to do to them sexually and they practice these suggestions on another young boy; man depressed by impending divorce soaks his hand in lighter fluid and lights it on fire in front of his two boys and man has trouble putting out this fire when he finally decides to do so; young boys engage in disgusting sex dialogue on Internet and very young boy finally meets very disturbed sexual woman on park bench, two girls dialogue with middle-aged pervert who explains all the dirty things he wants to do with them and even writes them on signs in his window, and two girls practice oral sex on young teenager with his face covered to see if he can tell which is better; no nudity, but girl exposes underwear; alcohol; smoking; and, man falsely defines karma as “he owes me one” and watered down Zen Buddhism.
The last time that a director for a movie that had this much titillating pedophilia was interviewed by MOVIEGUIDE®, it turned out that the director had been convicted of pedophilia in his past. This was a tremendous embarrassment to the movie distributer. What’s even stranger about this movie is that it appears that all the key filmmakers were women, and it is shocking that women would put such words and actions into little children acting in their movie.
The movie opens with a very goofy female artist, Christine, videotaping her digital art. Then, it cuts to Richard packing up his house and separating from his wife, Sam, who is African American. While their parents carry on their fight, their two sons, Robbie and Peter, carry on sex dialogue in Internet chat rooms. Robbie looks to be about seven or eight and Peter looks to be 13 or 14.
In anger at his divorce, Richard soaks his right hand in lighter fluid and lights it in front of his boys, not a very pleasant experience. When he goes back to his shoe store, he meets the artist Christine, who pays for her artistic whims by driving elderly people. She becomes enamored of Richard and almost appears to stalk him. She tries to get her digital art into a local museum, but the female museum curator rebuffs her. The curator is revealed as the disgusting woman internet chatting with the two young boys.
Meanwhile, two young girls, Rebecca and Heather, start a dialogue with a middle-aged pudgy man who works at the show store with Richard. He tells them that if they were of age, he would invite them to his house for an orgy. They ask him what would happen, and this creep posts signs in the windows of his house about what he would like to do to them. They decide to take him up on his offer, so they practice oral sex on blindfolded Peter to see which one of them is the better performer. Also in the movie, Peter’s 10-year-old neighbor, Sylvie, is a less aggressive suitor.
This miserable movie goes from one character to another in a haphazard, aimless, abhorrent, deconstructionist fashion. Except for the fact that MOVIEGUIDE® collects data from these films, it would not be worth reviewing. The camerawork is cheesy and cheap, the sound quality is awful and sometimes sounds like it’s overdubbed, and the acting is weak. As for the storyline, who can find it to criticize it.
Contrary to the production notes by the movie’s publicists, there is nothing redemptive about these characters and their situations. Instead of exchanging something of little value for something of great value, the storyline has the characters hooking up in sexual encounters.
The only reason to make this movie seems to be to titillate child molesters. Some of this involves using bodily excretions for sex in the mouth of a seven or eight year old. If this country had any sense, it would arrest filmmakers like this and put them in jail for putting words like this in the mouths of young children. One would be hard pressed to say anything good about this movie, either in terms of quality or acceptability.
However, the filmmakers put one Christian hymn in the middle of their movie. I assume that this was their nod at moral values.