Super 8

Director: J.J. Abrams
Starring: Joel Courtney, Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Riley Griffiths, Noah Emmerich, Ron Eldard, Ryan Lee, Zach Mills, Gabriel Basso, Amanda Michalka
Running Time: 112 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

Nostalgia is a powerful thing. If it hits in just the right spot it can even trick you into believing you're watching something great by reminding you of a time when you felt you did. Writer/Director J.J. Abrams clobbers us with nostalgia in Super 8 and the results are so wildly mixed I've actually avoided sitting down to share my thoughts on it for days, mostly unsure of what they'd be. Attempting to invoke the spirit of vintage 80's Spielberg directed and produced movies like E.T. and The Goonies is a risky proposition in that it could either alienate or win over audiences in my age bracket who grew up with those films and know how special they are. It takes guts for Abrams to even try to invite comparisons to them for the sake of exposing younger audiences to a type of film that's becoming increasingly uncommon.

At points feeling like an homage and at others a lesser rip-off, moments in the first hour of this Spielberg-produced project (and his fingerprints are all over it) succeeded in making me feel like a 12-year-old again, until the plot careens off the rails and almost crashes and burns like the doomed train in the film. Luckily, it recovers in the last third to finish strong, thanks mostly to the child actors whose staggeringly authentic performances save Abrams as he loses touch with the movie it seemed he set out to make. Part of me wants to shake him silly for falling short of what could have been accomplished for stupid reasons, yet he also deserves a hearty handshake for even attempting to try something like this because we do badly need it. There are far worse things than trying to make a Spielberg-style coming-of-age summer blockbuster devoid of all cynicism but not quite getting all the way there. While I'm convinced I'm more impressed with the idea behind the movie (and maybe also the movie-within-the-movie) than the actual film itself, it's still a fascinating, if flawed, discussion starter that's entertaining and not easily forgettable. Abrams' execution may be sloppy, but he knows the right buttons to push.

Set in the small steel town of Lillian, Ohio in the summer of 1979 12-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) is still emotionally traumatized by the accidental death of his mother four months earlier and a strained relationship with his father, Jack (Kyle Chandler), the town's sheriff. He wants to send him to sports camp for a few months, insensitive to Joe's desire to stick around to help best friend and bossy aspiring director Charles (Riley Griffiths) film his low-budget 8mm zombie movie with buddies Martin (Gabriel Basso), Preston (Zach Mills) and Cary (Ryan Lee). He's also somehow been able to recruit Joe's dream girl, Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) to play the female lead, even as she endures a family drama of her own with alcoholic father Louis (Ron Eldard). During filming the kids witness a train wreck, the results of which are stranger than your usual train wreck and are captured by their Super 8 camera. What that footage uncovers raises a lot of questions and causes much chaos, even as the military, led by Colonel Nelec (Noah Emmerich) arrive on the scene with an agenda.

The one aspect of this film that's unquestionably a grand slam are these kids and nearly all its memorable moments are supplied by these child actors who are so good together (in both the real movie and the movie within) that for a while it doesn't even feel like a homage or a tribute to better films from the 80's, but the real deal.  The dialogue between them is smart and funny, they're clearly defined and we care about the relationships between them, especially the dynamic between Alice and Joe. You'd never know this was Joel Courtney's very first appearance in a feature film and Elle Fanning leads the charge with her performance, trumping even her recent work in Somewhere as far as the layers of complexity she brings to it. She has this one huge scene everyone will be talking about involving her character's performance within the zombie movie that works on so many different levels you're likely to get a headache trying to figure out how she does it.  All the kids' performances are great and the first hour resembles the best elements of The Goonies, complete with a map and some of the character types even being dead ringers for those in that family classic. But I still couldn't help but wish it was in the service of a more inventive story.

Once the action gets rolling I couldn't help but wish the young actors' efforts were in the service of a better story.  Problems start with the big train crash sequence, which relies too much on fake looking CGI and reminds us we're watching an everyday modern day blockbuster reliant on cheesy effects rather than character. How did it not occur to Abrams that approach is completely at odds with a period coming-of-age adventure set in the late 70s? The decision to do this is so ill-conceived it made me think Spielberg could have been behind it given his inexplicable (and embarrassing) over-use of the technology in the recent Indian Jones sequel. This also doesn't really feel like it's 1979 so much as a movie that's supposed to be set during that era with kind of a close approximation of the the wardrobe and music, but little else. Not once did I think I was watching anything that took place in the 70's or even early 80's, but rather a picture paying tribute to the values of that era and the movies made during it, present especially in the relationships between the kids and their parents. Fans of his work on Friday Night Lights will be excited to finally see Kyle Chandler on big-screen, then be deflated to discover he's just being asked to play Coach Taylor with a badge instead of a whistle, but slightly meaner. As little as he's given, he's still solid, which is more than can be said for a hilariously miscast Ron Eldard who somehow plays the archetype of the drunken dad even more cartoonishly than it's written. But like an early Spielberg classic, adults are only always seen through the eyes of children, so if it worked then, it's kind of hypocritical to condemn the approach now even if Spielberg was never this blatant about it.

Mid-way through the movie turns into a sequel to Abrams' own Cloverfield mish-mashed with The War of the Worlds. And I'm not even exactly sure how the military gets involved, why citizens are being evacuated or anything. It just kind of happens all of the sudden and we go with it because we're along for the journey with these kids and they're the movie's saving grace. The decision to keep the alien creature's appearance a secret for most of the running time is perplexing, especially considering what it ends up looking like and how little a surprise that is. This isn't about unraveling mysteries, even if it would have helped to have more of the J.J. Abrams who created Lost and Fringe than the one who rebooted Star Trek. Stranger still is the decision to concoct an elaborate backstory for the alien shown in grainy black and white flashback footage that resembles the Dharma Initiative films from Lost minus the intrigue. Yet it all somehow still comes together in an ending that's already been criticized as E.T. meets Close Encounters, if you can call that a criticism. For me it rescues the movie since it recreates the sense of wonder that was present in the first hour but lost somewhere in the middle of all the chaos. Michael Giacchino's soaring, emotional score (which intentionally sounds lot like John Williams' compositions for Spielberg in the 80's) goes a long way in helping.

Being such a grab bag of plusses and minuses, when this ended I was sure I didn't like it (and reading this you're probably thinking I still don't), but that it's worth checking out despite its flaws should give you an idea how good it could have been, or maybe how badly I was rooting for its success. Spielberg's being credited as the producer but the extent of his actual involvement could been anything from being heavily involved on a day-to-day basis to just putting some money down and visiting the set once, so it isn't fair to single him out for what worked or didn't. That said, he did slap his name on it with a full endorsement and it's essentially a tribute to his filmography so it's hard to not walk away feeling its failings are somehow his fault, despite Abrams writing and directing it on his own. You also can't help but wonder why it didn't turn out as good as it could have been with all the tools and inspiration he had at his disposal. Super 8 works well enough, but in doing so only proves that past Spielberg casts a shadow too large for even he himself to escape.

My Top 10 Favorite Character Actors

It's been a rough couple of weeks in the film world as we recently lost two very gifted and criminally under-appreciated actors. While the media's sensationalistic coverage of Natasha Richardson's death was largely misinformed and irresponsible, it was their reporting of Tony Award winning and Emmy nominated actor Ron Silver's passing that was downright shameful. Choosing to take cheap shots at his conservative political stance rather than celebrate his contributions as an actor is as disgraceful as it gets.

If you just mention Silver's name I'm betting most people wouldn't have a clue who he is, but show a clip from any of his television or film appearances and you're likely to be greeted with a "Hey...I know him! He's in EVERYTHING." He was often typecast as villains (Blue Steel), lawyers (Reversal of Fortune), politicos (The West Wing) or slick, greedy businessmen (Skin) but only because so few could play them as well. And if you saw him in anything you knew he was capable of making the jump to A-List headliner had he just been given better opportunities.

One of my favorite Silver performances came in 1996's underrated sci-fi thriller The Arrival, a surprisingly smart film made even smarter by his presence. Richardson got slightly more recognition but also flew further under the radar than she should have. In a perfect world both would have been household names because they certainly had the talent. But that's the double-edge sword of the "character actor." They're always finding steady work because of their ability to invisibly slip into any role but it's that very skill that causes us and the studios to overlook their work and take them for granted. Usually the backbone of any film in which they appear, they often have to sit back and applaud politely while the George Clooneys, Brad Pitts and Julia Roberts' reap all the accolades.

That's why Richard Jenkins' nomination this year meant so much. It was a victory for supporting film actors everywhere proving if they were given the ball they could run with it. Kevin Spacey, William H. Macy, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman are just a few of the fortunate ones who were able to break through. I've been meaning to do this list for a long time and recent events reminded me again just how overdue the actors below are for recognition. You've seen their faces and now it's time to get their names. There's no question any one of them could step up right now and take a leading role in a major studio release and the film would be all the better for it. Believe me there are MANY, MANY more I'm leaving out but here are my favorites:

10. James Rebhorn-The tall, lanky actor is often cast as a villain, appearing frequently as government agents, lawyers, politicians and doctors. Most probably remember him for his role in as the prosecuting attorney in the series finale of Seinfeld but I'll always associate him with the final heart pounding half hour of David Fincher's The Game. Only in retrospect do you realize just how important his seemingly smallish role in that was. Who REALLY had the tough job of selling that final twist? Has also appeared in comedies like Meet The Parents.

9. Wallace Shawn-This comic actor and part-time playwright has made a career out of playing weird, wacky goofs, most famously Vizzini in Rob Reiner's The Princess Bride. Was given his wackiest and darkest role to date as industrial tycoon Baron von Westphalen in Southland Tales. Maybe you hated the film, but show me anyone who didn't love his oddball performance in it. Recently showed up on Gossip Girl, of all places. Strangely, that kind of fits. We've learned to expect the unexpected from him.


8. Jane Lynch- Scene-stealing Second City alum has been popping up all over the place for the past decade in mostly comedic roles. Has shown up in the Christopher Guest mockumentaries Best in Show, A Mighty Wind and For Your Consideration. Had a brief but very memorable stint on Arrested Development but is best known as Andy's boss in The 40-Year-Old Virgin and for her hilarious turn as a counselor in Role Models, her biggest part to date. Hopefully it leads to even bigger things for her because she might be the funniest actress working today, supporting or otherwise. Brings a real natural, down-to-Earth charm to all her performances. Very curious to see her anchor a major comedy.

7. William Fichtner- A former soap star who's clocked in the miles on television dramas (Invasion, Prison Break), he's also gone on to carve a nice niche for himself as a supporting actor in big budget studio fare (Armageddon, Black Hawk Down). Argue all you want whether The Dark Knight actually met expectations, but the opening minutes definitely did. A huge reason why was his brief but pivotal turn as the doomed Gotham Bank manager who didn't back down to Ledger's Joker. Has a creepy, distinguishable look and demeanor that's translatable as either hero or villain.

6. David Morse-The St. Elsewhere vet is probably the most intense of the actors on this list, whether he's providing valuable support in a Stephen King adaptation (The Langoliers, Hearts in Atlantis, The Green Mile) or playing the neighbor from hell in Disturbia (during which he reportedly stayed in character on set). In his greatest performance, completely outshone Jack Nicholson (!) in Sean Penn's underrated The Crossing Guard. Completely fearless in the roles he chooses, as last year's Hounddog proves.

5. Bob Gunton-Who can ever forget his Bible thumping Warden Norton in The Shawshank Redemption? Since then the 63- year-old has literally been popping up everywhere in everything, often playing elderly statesmen and authority figures, like recently on 24. Whenever he shows up onscreen you can't help but smile because you just know no matter how small the role, he's gonna nail it.

4. Bruce McGill- After kicking his career off as "D-Day" opposite John Belushi in National Lampoon's Animal House he's gone to play shady characters in postions of power (Timecop, Matchstick Men) and political figures (Vantage Point). But my favorite role of his was his warmest, an unforgettable, Emmy-worthy guest starring turn as a kind but mysterious bartender in the final episode of Quantum Leap, helping that series go out on the highest note possible. Has continued his political trajectory by recently appearing as George Tenet in Oliver Stone's W. and co-starring in the HBO film Recount. Has the gift of making even the smallest part burst with meaning.

3. Ken Marino- A former member of MTV's The State with director David Wain, New York native Marino is probably the most underrated performer on the list. Co-starred in Wain's hilarious Wet Hot American Summer, The Ten (which he co-wrote) and most recently in Role Models. Turned in strong dramatic work in the underseen Diggers from a few years ago (which he also co-wrote with Wain) as well as providing some memorable guest starring arcs on major television shows like Dawson's Creek, where he memorably played Katie Holmes' college professor. That and his role as goofy private eye Vinnie Van Lowe on Veronica Mars should qualify him as a national hero rather than just a great character actor.

2. Noah Emmerich-Typecast as the "best friend" in The Truman Show and Frequency, he took that part to a whole new devastating level in 2006's Little Children, delivering HANDS DOWN the best performance in that film, physically and emotionally transforming himself to deliver one of the most overlooked supporting turns of the decade as "retired" cop Larry Hedges. Stole the show again recently opposite Ed Norton and Colin Farrell in Pride and Glory. Give this man a starring role already.

1. Christopher McDonald- When the job description calls for "sleaze" McDonald is the go-to guy which can be both a blessing and a curse. Casting directors seem reluctant to give him the opportunity to stretch beyond that even though there's very little doubt he could. Sure, you know him best as Shooter McGavin in Happy Gilmore but he never gets credit for how much range he shows in what on paper seem to be the slightest parts. Watch him as the slimy infomercial host in Darren Aronofsky's Requiem For A Dream or listen to his work in 1999's animated The Iron Giant.

Has also appeared in Quiz Show, The Rich Man's Wife, The Faculty, Nurse Betty, Broken Flowers, Rumor Has It, The Sopranos, Awake, Mad Money, Superhero Movie and The House Bunny. The list is never ending and more than a few of those films are terrible, which is exactly the point. No one has been as prolific, contributed so much to material far below him and has gotten as little credit. Like most character actors he's had to appear in a lot of garbage where he was literally the only good thing in it. I'm all for paying your dues (and the bills) but enough is enough already. This guy's proven time and again he's way too talented to be appearing in any junk. Here's hoping even at age 54 that he lands that big starring role because no one can say he hasn't earned it.

Little Children

Director: Todd Field

Starring: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jennifer Connelly, Jackie Earle Haley, Noah Emmerich, Phyllis Sommerville, Gregg Edelman

Running Time: 130 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)
In 2001 Todd Field released In The Bedroom, which earned an Oscar nomination for Best Picture and was hailed by many critics as a masterpiece. It wasn't. Little Children is. What was the first thing I did after I finished watching this film? I sat and thought about it for a long, long time. And then...I watched it again. It's not an easy movie to sit through emotionally but it really requires at least two viewings to fully appreciate all the subtle nuances and tiny details that hide between the cracks of the film, in both the directing and the performances. It's so observant and intelligent about life that you might not even notice all the ground it covers at first. I know I didn't. After the first viewing I was taken aback and not quite sure what to make of it because it's so different from anything that's out there right now. It's very dense, methodically paced, isn't easily accessible and plays like a sprawling novel.

Based on Tom Perrotta's 2004 bestseller of the same name, Field co-wrote the script with author, going on record as saying they had no interest in simply just translating the material onto the screen, but adding a different dimension to it. Having not read the book I can't compare the two, but I have a feeling this is one of those rare adaptations where the integrity of the original work was not only preserved, but enhanced. Kubrickian in its execution, the film features a visionary style, sterile quality, and dark sense of humor the late director would have surely appreciated. It even contains a Barry Lydon-style voiceover narration. There's a throwback feel to it, from the creepy opening title sequence to the score and pacing all the way to it's ambiguous but ambitious ending. It could hold its own with some of the best from the 60's and 70's. The kind of movie they don't make anymore.

I thought Kubrick comparison may have been unfair until I remembered that Todd Field was an actor before he was a director and had a small role in Kubrick's last and most underrated film, Eyes Wide Shut. It looks like someone took notes. Many filmmakers have attempted to employ Kubrick's style over the years but none have come close to succeeding technically or effectively harnessing the spirit of them. Field has.

The film perfectly capturing those lazy summer afternoons in suburbia where the "desperate housewives" sit idly on the park bench gossiping while their children play. Playground politics are on full display in this small Massachusetts suburb and Field keeps digging deeper and deeper into the hypocrisy that surrounds its inhabitants. Someone who wants no part of this hypocrisy and is truthful to herself to a fault is Sarah Pierce (Oscar nominated Kate Winslet). A free spirited woman who was once a dissertation away from her Master's degree in English and is now a mother who couldn't possibly be more unfit for motherhood. Her only enjoyment in life comes from her evening walk around the neighborhood facilitated by her husband Richard's (Gregg Edelman) return from work, where he stays late masturbating to internet porn.

Sarah finds herself amidst three shallow housewives who have set their sights on a man they've dubbed the "Prom King," who has returned to the playground with his son after a long absence. This is Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) a stay-at-home dad whose beautiful wife, Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is a successful PBS documentary filmmaker and family breadwinner. That she's a documentary filmmaker is a neat touch since the uncredited voice that narrates this film belongs to Will Lyman of PBS Frontline fame. Screenwriting coach Robert McKee will probably yell at me for saying this but I'm a sucker for voice over narration. If used well it can add a lot to and this is possibly the best use of it ever in a film. The narrator here is smart, eloquent and often very humorous, popping up at just the right moment (like a tense dinner scene) to add rather than detract from the story. His voice is as much a character as anyone else's in the film.

Brad spends his days entertaining his son and his nights pretending to study for the bar exam, which he's failed more times than JFK Jr. He doesn't want to be a lawyer, or really much of anything for that matter. Time that could be spent studying is used watching kids skateboard in the park in an attempt to recapture the teenage years that eluded him, even though the kids don't even notice he's there. The housewives in the playground are too scared to talk to him, or maybe simply too lazy, but Sarah isn't and on a dare strikes up a conversation. As a joke they share a kiss in front of the shocked and horrified mothers resulting in a very funny scene. That eventually leads to summer afternoons at the pool with the kids and a deep friendship. It soon turns into a torrid affair.

Meanwhile the entire neighborhood has a bigger problem with the release of convicted child molester Ronnie J. McGorvey (Oscar nominated Jackie Earle Haley) from jail after serving a 2-year sentence. He comes home to live with his aging mother (the wonderful Phyllis Somerville) and their scenes together are maybe the most touching, and at the same time strangely pathetic, of the film. She's trying to prepare him for life when she's gone despite the distraction of the town breathing down their necks. When he shows up for a swim at the public pool the parents grab their kids and flee like they've seen Jaws. Leading the charge is Larry Hedges (a completely unrecognizable Noah Emmerich), a "retired" neighborhood cop who leads a group called "The Committee for Concerned Parents" who makes it their mission to rid the town of this pedophile. He organizes a weekly touch football game with the guys and recruits Brad to be their quarterback. He has a secret of his own. From the opening scene of the film, with figurines rattling on a shelf as the sound of an oncoming train approaches, we're prepared for tragedy as these characters' lives threaten to intersect in the worst possible way for over two tension-filled hours.

Rarely does a film get so many little details right and hide such small treasures for the viewer to discover. Like the jester hat Brad's son wears all day but takes off the second his mother comes through the door, as if playtime is over. The real parent is home. No use for silly costumes. Or Sarah forgetting the rice cakes for her daughter and her frazzled reaction to it. Has anyone ever been more ill equipped for parenthood? The narrator at times mirrors the thoughts of the audience as he wonders how Brad can possibly cheat on his seemingly "perfect" wife with Sarah but we actually do know why and so does he. Sarah understands him and for Brad that means an awful lot right now. His wife would rather share the bed with their infant son.

The movie tries to convince us that Sarah is even physically wrong for Brad with her "boyish figure," and does an admirable job dressing her in baggy clothes to make her look as unflattering as possible. Of course we know Kate Winslet is far from ugly and having a "boyish figure," but if the narrator and wardrobe do not completely convince you, her performance will. She digs deep into this sad and negligent mother to deliver the finest work of her career. Some may find her scene with the book club discussing Madame Bovary a little too on the nose and in the hands of a lesser director it would have been. Field knows just the right way to handle it and Winslet is captivating.

On the surface Jennifer Connelly's Kathy seems like just a ball and chain plot device for Brad and Sarah to get together and an underdeveloped character. Look closer though. Watch how Connelly effectively portrays a nagging wife without ever once nagging. She'll give a look or say something just a certain way that gets under Brad's skin. When he announces he's thinking of buying a cell phone her response is so simple and matter of fact that it's actually devastating. How about when Brad comes home and finds a list of magazines he's subscribed to on the table with a note attached: "Do You Really Need These?" Finally a movie portrays marital strife with something a spouse would actually do! People don't always scream and yell at each other. These are the things that hurt more.

Over the past two weeks, between this and the indie drama Hard Candy, I've been able to see two movies starring Patrick Wilson, who I had never really seen or heard of before then. Both of these films are among the best I've seen in years and I think the reason neither performance garnered nominations (perhaps aside from the uncomfortable subject matter) is that he has such a natural screen presence that it appears he isn't doing anything. He's the best kind of actor. He doesn't force anything and can slip into a character without you noticing he's inhabiting it. With his blank expression and regular everyman looks you don't even notice he's giving a performance. Of course it wouldn't be up for any awards. It's too subtly brilliant and never draws any attention to itself. It's what he doesn't do that makes him so effective.

Much has made of Jackie Earle Haley's huge comeback and return to Hollywood's good graces thirty years after his role in The Bad News Bears. The strange thing about his performance as Ronnie is that it doesn't pull you in immediately, but rather sneaks up on you and slowly builds throughout the film until it finally explodes, or more accurately, implodes. His blind date is painful to watch. It seems like it's going well until we realize this man is simply not capable of having any kind of normal social interaction with anyone. The date ends the only way it can: in disaster.

Recently there has been some forward progression in how pedophiles have been portrayed onscreen. Between this film, The Woodsman and Hard Candy we're seeing pedophiles portrayed not as nameless, faceless monsters but as real people who are seriously ill and need help. Their behavior may be monsterous but it doesn't mean they're not human. It may be easier for us to pretend they're not, but if we do we're no closer to understanding what causes it. If we don't understand that, how can we prevent it? It's a reminder movies can educate as well as entertain. A lot of people are going to be uncomfortable with a movie that presents a pedophile in a sympathetic light, but I don't think this does that. It presents him as a sick human. Haley's performance is what earns our sympathy. Your heart breaks for the guy.

As good Haley's performance is, it's not the best in the film. I think that honor belongs to Noah Emmerich as the neighbor who makes it his life goal to harass the hell out of Ronnie and his mother. I can't tell you how many neighborhood parents I knew growing up who were exactly like ex-cop Larry Hedges. I could swear I knew the man. Emmerich gets every detail just right. It's so spot on it's scary. Loud, lonely, obnoxious, opinionated and self-centered he's the guy in the neighborhood you're nice to because you feel you have to be. Not a bad guy mind you, just annoying. You always have that feeling that he's harmless though, as he hides behind his mask of insecurity. For good reason. Everyone has a past. Especially guys like Larry. When you live in a small town you really have no choice but to be nice to him because you're going to have to deal with him every day. I loved it when Kathy had to remind Brad that he doesn't even like Larry Hedges. How true that often we get so caught up in our routines we're not even sure how we really feel about anyone, or even if we care anymore.

Emmerich, a fine character actor best known for his "best friend" supporting roles in films like The Truman Show and Frequency finally has an opportunity to play a character that's three dimensional and complex, and he sinks his teeth into it. How committed was he to this performance? Let's just say when he first appeared on screen I had no idea who he was. He looks like he lost all the weight DeNiro gained for Raging Bull. You can tell he underwent both a physical and emotional transformation to become this neurotic, obsessed man. It's the great overlooked performance of the film because it weaves so seamlessly and realistically into the story that it's almost impossible to notice how powerful his work is upon an initial viewing. His character is at the heart and soul of this film and that's never clearer than at the end. I think it's my favorite performance, supporting or otherwise, of the past year and Emmerich deserved a nomination.

Everyone has their favorite genre of film. Some like horror, others action/adventure, and some prefer suspense films. I always get strange looks when I tell people my favorite type of films are suburban nightmares. There's something about real people put in real situations with the volume turned way up that I respond to. Since I grew up in a small town a lot like this one (minus the public pool) and hated it it's always interesting for me to see these types of films exposing the hypocrisy of the residents, yet still showing them as human beings who make mistakes. The title of the film is cruelly ironic as it's the parents who are really the "little children." They need to be protected…from themselves. There's something about the truthful way it exposes how people think and act that we can learn from. I would rank this film alongside American Beauty, The Ice Storm and The Swimmer as the greatest in this genre.

I went into this film with the highest expectations imaginable and they were exceeded tenfold. In a year that's seen films like Children of Men and Notes on a Scandal come with incredible hype only to fall short for me I went in with great trepidation as well as optimism. As the film's finale approached I worried Field would force all these characters into a contrived collision course of melodrama. Just the opposite occurred. Instead the film ended quietly, introspectively and intelligently. At first I was surprised how abrupt the ending was and the lack of closure. But sometimes in life, that's how it is.

You have to wonder what would have happened had New Line gotten behind this film and pushed it like all the mindless sequels and remakes we've been seeing in theaters lately. That it was only nominated for 3 (albeit very well deserved) Academy Awards is shameful. It should have been a lock for a Best Picture nomination. How Field's first feature In the Bedroom, a great film but inferior on every single level, earned one in 2001 is perplexing. I think mismarketing is to blame and it's carried over into the DVD release as well. The cover art makes the film look like a romantic comedy and doesn't even hint at the emotional heft and complexity of this story.

Interestingly, the DVD doesn't come with a single special feature (not even a trailer) and there are no plans for a special edition in the future. You know what? I'm glad. Any special feature accompanying a film like this would seem gratuitous. Supplemental material, which in most cases is still a good idea, has devolved into a tool for filmmakers to hide the fact their movie sucks. I really don't need to hear George Lucas talk about the catering crew on the Star Wars Episode III DVD. This movie can stand on it's own and it's fitting there isn't a feature on here because this movie doesn't even seem like it belongs in the DVD era at all. That this is only Todd Field's second film can mean one of two things: He's peaked, or more frighteningly, his best work is yet to come. Either way, Little Children is one of those rare motion pictures that stay with you.