Cebalord Very best movie i ever watch

Chirphymium It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

postalinvt So, here I am, almost ten years after the fact, writing a review. I am a big fan of miss Fannings and I decided to see this film when I read about it on Amazon just recently. I had never heard of it before and I shouldn't be surprised after seeing the opening weekend box office take.Not withstanding all the criticism you will read on this site you MUST see this movie if you admire the acting skill of Dakota Fanning. I watched Man on fire to see Denzel and fell in love with a little girl! The so-called "rape" scene consists of a shot of Dakota from the shoulders up and it made me want to cry; She's just that expressive. The other moment of great acting I notice was her singing the blues in the barn (nice voice). Before the rape OK but not touching my heart; After the rape, a completely different experience! How can any human without decades of life experience know how to do that?I believe she would have, and should have, won awards for this film had it been given any kind of support. Give yourself a treat and watch this.

drpakmanrains It is rare that I rent a movie on Netflix and give it one star. And even one star is generous, as this is a slow slow slow paced film trying to be artsy and show the 50's or early 60's south as it was before air conditioning and Civil Rights breakthroughs. It has almost no story, dull characters, and accomplishes very little. The hour and 39 minutes seemed like an eternity. I was waiting for the pimply youth who raped Dakota Fanning to get some comeuppance, but even that didn't really happen. This film was badly written, acted, and directed despite a good cast. Dakota Fanning was not at her best, but compared to the rest of the cast, except for her same age little boy friend, she was the only one with a shred of believability. Piper Laurie reprises her 1976 role in Carrie. Robin Wright Penn and David Morse are wasted in empty performances. I can't believe that anyone could find this movie important or worth the time.

Shane Paterson Just watched this dreck, forcing myself to persist through its blessed end (more blessed had Lewellen been fatally bitten by a rattler as she waltzed away). The good news is that the film's well shot and somewhat evocative of the South, albeit with typical stereotypes firmly in place. Lots of heavy-handed symbolism, too, the most obvious being the snakes.Also, most of the actors are top-notch, though they've all been better than in this morass, likely thanks to superior scripting and directing in other properties. David Morse is always great and stands out here for maintaining a little integrity within the story's confines; actually, I think he'd make a great "Simple Jack" if the producers of "Tropic Thunder" decide to greenlight that project. Piper Laurie is good, too, though her role's small and one-dimensional. Granoldo Frazier's a very appealing screen presence with great gravitas despite his role being largely a cliché, the so-called 'Magic Negro' visible in a plethora of films running the gamut from "The Shining" to "The Toy" (not a hallmark of BAD films, necessarily -- many such films are very good -- but undeniably a stock cliché so venerable that if you're going to add to the subgenre you'd better make it a good one).Dakota Fanning is hard to take here. I remember being taken aback by her competence as an actor in earlier films, and NOT just in light of her extreme youth. But in "War Of The Worlds" she was just terminally annoying. To be fair, any little kid and most adults facing invasion by aliens that nasty would probably spend a good deal of the time screaming and collapsing into gibbering heaps of protoplasm, but it wasn't the situational reactions of her character that bothered me so much as a very tangible sense that, somehow, throughout she's just a little too CONSCIOUS that she's acting, and it shows. It seemed, to me, that she's basically screaming with every line and every look "LOOK! I'm an ACTOR! And I'm a REALLY GOOD ONE!!" In this "Hounddog" fiasco I get exactly the same feeling, and it both distracts and undermines the film, or WOULD undermine the film if the film wasn't flawed fatally from the outset. Actually, I thought that young Cody Hanford, as Buddy, was far more convincing and natural in his role and how he played it.The film is badly directed. The story's pretty stultifying, anyway. There're a few places where things aren't too clear; the one that had me most adrift was when Robin Wright Penn's character has her car towed and leaves. There're some true Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moments, too, like the caretaker having Big Mama Thornton ensconced in his hayloft and apparently being familiar with the process for making snake antivenin from scratch (okay, that one's slightly more plausible).I'm a big-time Elvis fan and student of the man's career and so, of course, this film's LOADS of fun for me, or would be if I actually ENJOYED running across rampant and unnecessary inaccuracies. This sort of thing is standard in film but in this case you're talking about a man whose OBSCURE songs are familiar only to a few MILLION and the errors in this film were totally avoidable; correcting them wouldn't at all have diminished the integrity of the piece. First, I find it really, really hard to believe that Lewellen, of all people, would blissfully ignore the fact that the volume was turned down on Elvis during his controversial airing of "Hound Dog" on Milton Berle's TV show and even harder to believe that she'd turn her back to the silent screen while performing her imitation (an imitation based on that very broadcast). Okay, cinematic license but, still... Regardless, given that even the richest families in the '50s didn't have VCRs or Tivo, this scene sets the date as June 5, 1956. It's hard to figure what time-traveling magic allows Lewellen to buy a copy of "Peace In The Valley" (that Elvis recorded in January, 1957) and go even further into the future to learn the lyrics to Elvis' 1961 movie song "Can't Help Falling In Love." Just to add to the fun, when the big night of Elvis' show arrives he can be heard singing "Love Me Tender" with the '70s arrangement, another totally unnecessary and conscious goof. Further, and here I realize that artistic license trumps all, Elvis didn't play anywhere in Alabama during 1956 (or 1957); his final concert in the state, until he returned on tour in September of 1970, was in Montgomery on December 3, 1955. The same error's present in "Heart Of Dixie." Still, these anachronisms are not as bad as the execrable "Cadillac Records," a nicely shot and dressed film with great music and great acting that falsely and terribly accuses a real living (well, dead, now) person of outright murder and, admittedly not quite as bad, shows Elvis in 1956 film footage dubbed to a 1969 performance of "My Babe" on TV and shows jail-bound Chuck Berry looking at (if I recall correctly) Army footage of Elvis, proclaiming something about this being the new King, and all of this AFTER the Rolling Stones and Beach Boys entered the narrative, leading me to the obvious conclusion that Elvis Presley, influenced by the Rolling Stones, Beach Boys, and that famed gunslinger Little Walter, didn't begin his professional rise until about 1968 or 1969.People, when you insert one of the most famous and scrutinized people in HISTORY into your films, be ready for some nitpicking. Do it well and we'll forgive you. Do it badly, or in a bad film (like this one), and we'll call you on it.In the end, the only part of this film worth a damn was in the trailer: Elvis (impersonator Ryan Pelton, who manages a good likeness) blowing the kiss to Lewellen. That was pretty cool.

kwugboots I have to give this film a 7 because it really got me thinking, particularly the character "Buddy" that Cody Hanford (a fantastic actor) played. I didn't fully buy the radical character change that Buddy apparently went through half way through the film, the director did not really show any gradual change in Buddy, and we are left wondering how such a caring, sweet boy can behave so callously and maliciously. I think that the film-maker portrayed Buddy far too simplistically, and this was a failing point of the film because to me Buddy's complex character and actions - and guilt - were the most interesting parts of the film. Although Buddy's character change seemed too extreme (or at least too unexplained)to be believable, Cody Hanford did a great job and his character really interested me. I keep thinking about the guilt that a young sensitive 10-ish year old boy would have to deal with and live with, after acting the way that he did. He was trying to fit in with the cruel older guys, and supported them after the rape rather than Dakota even though he clearly felt guilty for making a deal with the milk boy (rapist). Part of Buddy's harsh treatment of Dakota after the rape was probably because he felt so guilty. SPOILER: Buddy is a sweet and very sensitive, caring 10ish year old boy who is best friends with Dakota early in the film. His dad beats him up. He doesn't seem to have other friends. He almost drowns in the lake, Dakota rescues him, and he makes her promise not to tell anyone that he can't swim. Buddy later sees Dakota crying because she has no money for Elvis tickets and he begs Dakota, "don't cry, please don't cry. I will get you those tickets, I promise". She is mean to him & tells him that she doesn't have time to play with him until he gets her those tickets. Buddy makes a deal with an older teenage boy, who promises to give him 2 tickets if he can get Dakota to do her 'Hounddog' song in front of him, naked. Dakota agrees to do this in exchange for a 'Hounddog' ticket, but the teenage boy rapes her (in front of a shocked/traumatized Buddy). In church soon after Buddy looks at Dakota then whispers to his new (girl)friend, and they both laugh at her. After church Buddy's new girlfriend tells Dakota that she and Buddy are going to go see Elvis perform that night. Buddy looks guilty & ashamed. Later that night, Dakota watches them exit the Elvis performance. Buddy waves goodbye to his girlfriend and hops happily into the truck of the older teenage boy who raped Dakota, who drives him home. Buddy plays pool with the older teenage boys later that night, including the rapist, and seems happy (until Dakota's mentally impaired father wanders into the room naked and the boys poke him with pool sticks; Buddy is terrified & hides under the table, indicating he has been traumatized from watching Dakota's earlier rape). Dakota is very ill & Buddy overhears her grandmother worry that Dakota might be dying. In the final film scene that involves Buddy, Buddy brings up his worries with the teenager who raped Dakota, saying "if she dies, it will be our fault" and "you might have broken something inside of her". His fears are dismissed by the older teenagers who just joke about the rape. Buddy clearly feels guilty about betraying Dakota. I think that Buddy changed far too drastically in the film, and with no warning. How could such a sensitive, caring boy turn into such a revenge-seeking callous child? There should have been a scene showing Buddy hanging out with the older boys after Dakota refused to play with him (before the rape) as the boys talked about sex/drank beer (we needed a pre-rape scene showing that Buddy was becoming friends with the older boys, and moving his loyalty from Dakota to them instead). Also, Buddy should have seemed more worried/guilty/afraid when making the deal, or when telling Dakota what she had to do to earn her ticket. I think there should have been a tense scene of Buddy & the milk boy (the rapist) interacting after the rape, exploring how Buddy responded to what the milk boy did. All we see after the rape is Buddy hanging out with & having fun with the milk boy. We know that Buddy feels very guilty and ashamed for his part in the rape, but he never turns his anger/hostility/fear onto the milk boy.