Simply A Masterpiece

Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

What happened to the days when you were young, kinda makes me sad to say it but this world has changed and it's not for the better. Sure the world seems like a better place now with all the human rights, technology and equality but with every good comes a bad. What happened to the days when all the children from the block used to play or what happened to the cardboard nights. Now days everyone is using a phone that controls their lives, everyone is so naive on what other people thinks, if i could have one dream come through then i would move as faraway from civilization as i could. Just imagine waking up and you wouldn't have to worry about anything. The only thing that is real is you and the nature, No Facebook no news and no needs. That was me whining for 12 lines now to the movie. The set and them makes me shiver, excellent acting and choice of music. The story is so simple and yet so brilliant, Mr Hopkins makes these (Mysterious person) roles so good. It's almost as he was born to play there rolls. overall a very good movie with a lot of feelings.

This is one of those films I must watch every year, because I find so much in it at each viewing. I still remember the first time, back in 2001 at the theater, when I heard it had something to do with a real CIA program, but it had me from the first scene, long before the espionage arrived. As a photojournalist myself, I was captivated by the opening scenes, so well-acted by David Morse. Like most Stephen King novels, the reality factor seems high, and each scene is important in moving the story forward. The young Mika Boorem was so me at that age, she was easily relatable, and Anton Yelchin was an actor beyond his years even then, as a boy. We all knew would continue as a fine actor, even Tony Hopkins. He is so missed.You can see this fine film for just $2.99. A great way to get started, but you will want to own it. One of those great ones to show friends who may have missed it.

A traditional reason for a film to use symbolism and metaphor is because it is dealing with a subject that is too controversial to refer to in a plain manner.This film is carefully set up with the following situation: 1. We see only a negative view of adult sexuality. 2. Youthful interest in the subject is romanticized and idealized. 3. An aging single man spends his time overseeing the life of a boy during a key developmental stage, and the guy is keenly interested in how the boy handles his problems,including romantic ones. 4. In the process, a metaphorical secret is shared between both of them, and the end of the film is set up to imply that this mystical quality will get passed on to the next generation. (A misguided stereotype here, but one that many persons actually believe...)5. Although the film includes scenes in which the mother questions the propriety of this arrangement, her doing so is cast purely in negative terms. Superficially, this viewpoint is supposed to rule out the theme that is otherwise obvious on its surface, and the handling of the film's details is actually quite consistent with her initial suspicions. Her initial reference therefore serves a useful literary function in that it defines one of the main metaphorical themes of the film. Since the film has the mother sexually assaulted, it is suggested to viewers that the mother's traditional sexuality is not at all a good thing, and her judgement is untrustworthy (and that it's okay for some alternative form of love to be sought).The script's handling is very interesting, because if this film is not dealing in metaphor than it is overloaded with contrivances, including things that make no sense whatsoever, such as the "lost pet" flyers. The flyer is portrayed late in the film as if the mother had called the number on it to report Anthony Hopkins' character. This strongly suggests it's true nature, as a kind of wanted poster, or "missing child" poster. The "mind reading" has evidence as a mere ploy by a guy who collects and then uses information to gain trust and set things up just right. For example, it appears that the entire scene in the bar could have been set up by him so that the boy is given a different story about his father (and a photo), thus planting distrust and resentment in the boy toward his mother. The grown-up boy at the end echoes this by meeting a teen girl and providing her with a photo and interpretation of her own parent and background. The boy had said flat out that he had come to love Hopkins, toward the end. But because there is also a girl around, audiences are supposed to accept Hopkins' trustworthiness? Did that thin blouse of hers really need to be unbuttoned in order to adjust her shoulder? Was Hopkins' mind reading really just the research he had done along with the reading of people so that everything was "just so?" For example, he identifies the teen bully's insult patterns as a probable reaction-formation. The strongest hint of actual mind-reading comes in the idea that he could somehow read that the girl needed help. The reason she would be attacked in the first place is never explained; could Hopkins have set up things so that the rescue scenario could play out, just as he had suggested a romantic role for the boy in one of their earliest meetings?Almost everything in the film is therefore consistent with a darker, more ordinary scenario rather than the fantasy. Hopkins' character is a wanted man, because of unnamed crimes that keep him on the go. His power that must be controlled is not a telepathic one, but his urges that probably involve controlled intimacy with young persons. Now it is made clear that this is not portrayed in the stereotypical manner of violence or coercion, but is instead done in a more insidious fashion through the power of gradual suggestion, trust, and friendship. Rather than a swift attack that could be easily interpreted and thus possibly recovered from, the relationship takes on a form in which the boy is seeing things according to the man's vision, and in a way that makes the boy willing to defend him. It's a very classic circumstance well-known to actual police investigators. The fact that there may be some actual friendship, and even love, does not un-do the fact that the relationship most probably went beyond that which is legally permissible, or appropriate for our contemporary culture (which is not ancient Greece, after all).Since this is a carefully written script, and not a traditional genre film, these elements are quite suggestive of a controversial agenda. It's interesting that no one seems to comment on this. Given the large number of persons who like this film, this issue is worth discussing. What indeed is the message of this movie? The answer seems to be evident from the elements listed above!

I remember reading this book by Stephen King and thinking at the time that if they ever make a movie of it, they should leave out other aspects of the story (stories) and concentrate just on the story about the man with psychic powers and the boy he befriends, which is exactly what they did.However, the film suffers from one great miscalculation. The "low-men", who are after Brautigan (Anthony Hopkins)...well, we never quite figure out who they are or why they are after him; it's left very nebulous. Are they actually "bad guys", government agents, or what? Beyond that, it's a rather charming story (and not very Stephen King-ish) about a meaningful relationship between a strange man and a boy who needs a father figure in his life. But that missing information about the "low-men" prevents us from ever understanding exactly who Brautigan is.Anthony Hopkins is perfect here, although there are times he seems to mumble, and you may miss a bit of dialog. The boy -- Anton Yelchin -- has been fairly active in films, although I did not recognize the name. He's superb here. Hope David (the boy's mother) did okay, but I was not particularly impressed, although admittedly her role was not very sympathetic. Mika Boorem, a young actress I have not kept up with, is superb as the boy's "girl friend". David Morse is very good as the boy grown up (the whole movie is a sort of flashback), and he is a busy, but in view underrated actor.Do I recommend this film? Well, yes and no. The story portrays relationships very sensitively, but that missing info about the "low-men" leaves a huge gap. I enjoyed watching it even a third time, but I won't be tempted to buy it for my DVD shelf. I'd give it a sold "7" if we learned who the "low-men" really were; instead, I'll give it a "6" -- a low rating for me.Nevertheless, I do recommend you watch this film.