When I saw this movie for the first time I really enjoyed it (apart from the tacked-on ending that appears to belong to
-
DMERCER8 — 20 years ago(March 08, 2006 07:13 PM)
Dear rromanetti II,
This writer is 38 yrs. old and I own this film.Lawn Dogs deserves all the praise that it receives;the scenes you speak of are misrepresented in your views because the film presents a very wholesome relationship between Devon and Trent.
When she spends the night in his housetrailer,she sleeps at one end of the trailer while he sleeps way at the other endand both are dressed.
As far as Devon referring to her "tits",twenty years ago(when I was in school and even when I was in gradeschool I heard that term comeup with girls referring to breasts as "tits" didn't just come about in this film or a short time before.
As far as pouring oil on a chainsaw,well a person can read whatever they want to in this film.however to call this film trash is to be so prudish that you deny yourself the beauty that this film has throughout it.It's not a child's movie,but it's not filth or trash.There's alot of symbolism in this film that has been misread by people opposing this film.The filthy relationships in this film are the affair that Devon's Mom(Kathleen Quilan) is having with a young man while she's supposed to be happily married!Also let's not forget how certain members of the gated community treat the poor Trent by harassing him and ultimately hunting him down(including the security guard who helps in hunting Trent down) and beating him mercilessly.
This is an Excellent film that film buffs should give a chance because it's message says to give everyone a chance in life and not just the rich.
To Better Days,
BRAD -
ragreen259 — 20 years ago(March 10, 2006 04:49 AM)
what kind of jackass says "discuss," offers nothing in an opening statement, and never contributes to the discussion?
Offhand, I'd say anyone who describes this movie as "utter filth" needs to unclench their ass just a bit, maybe go out on a limb and skip church this Sunday, and broaden the scope of the movies that they seebecause clearly they've never seen "utter filth." -
Whitetd12000 — 20 years ago(March 13, 2006 12:04 PM)
Ahem!
First of all I have a very busy life. Second of all who are you to judge me? I merely started this discussion to see what it would turn into because I'm aware that some people will find this movie enjoyable and some will find it digusting. I'm glad this sirred up a very livevy discussion. Now, not that you deserve them, but here are my thoughts on the film. I thought it was brilliant. It may be extreme but the characters and fairytale-lesquw imagry weave the story together very well. I think there was a bit attraction but it was of the nonsequal type and I thought it very unwise to compare the film to Lolita or even suggest there was anything sexual between the Devon and Trent character. She liked the kind of person he was and the feeling was mutual. That is all there is to it.
I loved the film though it is extremely bizarre and would recommend it to anyone who likes a thought-provoking artsy type of film.
There now -
mpulse — 20 years ago(March 26, 2006 09:35 PM)
Why can't people let a film be what it (or its makers) want it to be?
It is so shallow for people to try to sum up and categorize films: Brilliant!, bizarre, a rip-off, filthy, a '7' out of 10, etc.
Brilliant or utter filth? If 1 hour and 41 minutes boils down to one word, I think the viewer has walled up himself/herself to where nothing gets through. It is why filmmakers have to frequently resort to practically "hammering" there points through to the audience. (A point someone earlier made.)
Hasn't it occurred to so many that maybe the filmmaker was toying with your own uneasiness with the suggestion of pedophilia? Maybe presenting it in this way was simply a way to expose those who can only see the perversion in relationships rather than the beauty without perversion. (And vice versa.)
Someone listed all sorts of metaphorical scenes. You could probably invent a perversion in everything if you try. People - and film critics - have been lauding filmmakers for years for lofty things they never intended.
Did having Sam Rockwell strip down and dive off a bridge do it for you? It did for some of the bystanders. The uneasy sexual tension in every character of this film was clearly provoking questions of the viewer.
But if the term "filth" was directed toward this sexual tension, I don't understand it. A "filthy" film is a broad adjective to use without qualification. It might be a word someone would use when they are disgusted at what they see. And when people are disgusted, they tend to ignore everything else and define it under that alone.
I think some of the best films are those that can be perceived in many ways by many people. Like music, some of the best melodies can be remade in entirely different genres and still be wonderful.
Spare us the foolish attempts at wrapping it all up in a nice little package so you can box it up in your whatever category. None of us are brilliant enough to judge how another perceives a film.
Vive le difference!
(And I really enjoyed the film too.) -
Jellybrother — 19 years ago(April 06, 2006 04:29 PM)
Very sweet movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it.
One thing it definitely reminded me of was how the adult world tends to sexualize about everything. rromanetti's comment about the chainsaw painfully testifies that. -
Paul_Kersey_Jr — 19 years ago(May 05, 2006 06:02 PM)
One thing it definitely reminded me of was how the adult world tends to sexualize about everything. rromanetti's comment about the chainsaw painfully testifies that.
You do have a point,but i do think this movie had quasi-pedo content.
Another thing to consider, is when he was oiling his chainsaw,he was pouring oil all over it, on the sides and everything.
I thought that people usually only oil the actual chain area.
Could it have been intentionally symbolic? -
Jellybrother — 19 years ago(May 06, 2006 06:28 AM)
"You do have a point,but i do think this movie had quasi-pedo content.
Another thing to consider, is when he was oiling his chainsaw,he was pouring oil all over it, on the sides and everything.
I thought that people usually only oil the actual chain area."
I didn't know that. My knowledge about chainsaws is marginal. Probably the people involved in the scene didn't knew either. This might sound unlikely, but there've been greater mistakes than this.
"Could it have been intentionally symbolic?"
IF this was the case, the only reason I could imagine would be to provocate (don't know if that's the right word) those people who like to dissect each and every scene for symbolism. In order to underline this message. -
ob12345 — 19 years ago(July 28, 2006 07:13 PM)
People like you make me sick you know that! You and people like you are the reason why honest people feel ashamed to even look sideways at a child under the age of 16. If I was to see a young girl fall off her bike I'd have to think twice about going over to help her up because of people like you making every male action one of a sexual nature.
This film is way ahead of its time in my opinion in trying to expose the farce that has swept the nation that every male is a potential child molester. It really is sad that we live in a society where a friendship between a young girl and a young man can be seen as nothing more than perverse and is looked upon as improper.
What a sad, sad world this has become. -
Paperback-Writer — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 01:14 PM)
ok hold on, because society DOES have a point in having negative views toward those relationships.
- it is unusual, in general, for an adult to have a relationship with a child that has no relation to them. why? because the maturity of a developing child is less thana 30 year old man. therefore, the child would seem very boring. so there must be an alterior motive for that person to continue to stay around.
- "a women can befriend kids.."? i have never seen that. a teacher may be interested in the child if, let's say, he-she has a problem in her class, but it is rarely seen of a woman and a child that is not hers to be close friends.
- people are less afraid of women being child molesters because, its less common, and women pychologically are less sexually driven than men. women commit less crimes, do drugs, and become alcholics.
so before you get all emotional about things not being "fair", "fair" has been a option for women for thousands of years. so i think you should stop and think before you rant about something you never thought through.
-
edwawee — 19 years ago(August 08, 2006 11:13 PM)
lifesucksdontit, you are clearly a simple minded person. two people can love each other despite their ages. i see nazism is alive and well in the minds of some people. matbe the "alterior motive" for a 30 year old to stay around someone younger is that the 30 year old is attracted to the person who is younger. LOVE IS NEVER WRONG!
-
hunnybunny51 — 19 years ago(October 29, 2006 12:32 AM)
When this film started and the little girl walked up to the guys trailer, I told my husband"Well, he's dead meat." These days no way can a 20 or 30-something guy have an unattended relationship with a 10 year old. But I never felt anything at all in the least creepy about their friendship. He treated her as one might treat a niece, or a family friend. Now the little girl, I'm sure, may have had more on her mind, but only in a 'my hero' sort of way, mind you. I was a little girl once. But little girls are only seeing what the world is about. It is not up to them to see that no lines are crossed. It is up to the grownup to show them how the world is, and to show them that grownups take care of those less able to take care of themselves. They don't do grownup things to or with children, even if the child would allow it. Trent didn't do that. That's why this film isn't 'utter filth'.
Actually, what didn't ring true to me, and I thought really took away from the film, was the carpet munching scene. Not because it happened, but because it had sort of a 'let's just throw this in' quality. "Look, I'm even holding a salad." Also, when the creep guy put his hand under the mother's dresswhy? I couldn't discern whether it was meant to be sexy (not), gross, (was), or to imply that the mother was a ho. Sexy is fine, even gross, if it's a building block of the story. Otherwise, maybe it's just to shock. I see this sort of thing a lot and I don't understand why film makers feel the need to do this. It cheapens your otherwise lovely movie. Ditto for the peeing on the windshield scene. Yawn. IMO.
What was wrong with Devon's 'nude scene' on the roof? She wasn't nude, she had her panties on, besides, she's just a flat chested little girl, for gosh sakes. Are these the same people that turn you in for taking pictures of your kids in the bathtub? Jeez.
Sam Rockwell was really wonderful and Mischa Barton played her part perfectly. I don't think the film was brilliant or filth. Somewhere in between, I suppose, but I'm glad I saw it. -
ludo-rubben — 19 years ago(December 04, 2006 05:01 PM)
"Actually, what didn't ring true to me, and I thought really took away from the film, was the carpet munching scene."
- Perhaps it was just to demonstrate that an older woman who has an affair with a young boy can get away with it, while the other way round is never accepted.
"Ditto for the peeing on the windshield scene." - It was on the windshield of her fathers car, it was perhaps her way to express her feelings towards her father
There was a lot of talking about Devon showing her scar, but nobody ever mentioned the fact that Devon's father refused to even look at it, even wanted to let her have plastic surgery to remove the scar. So for Devon it is very important that Trent is not afraid to touch her scar. For the girl, the fact that they both have an ugly scar (and nearly died from it) is another thing they have in common and makes them "special".
I enjoyed the movie very much, even if I had preferred a different ending.
- Perhaps it was just to demonstrate that an older woman who has an affair with a young boy can get away with it, while the other way round is never accepted.