Andy (film-critic)
I went into this film with some rather high expectations. I hate doing that with cinema, but when you find a film with as much praise as this film garnered, you do have a moment of anticipation as you begin your newfound movie adventure. I expected to see a riveting story, powerful climactic acting, and social challenges coupled with iconic symbolism. I expected this with L.I.E. because of the swooning nature of the "entertainment" critics. Instead, what was handed to me was a choppy film with superb acting, but filled with a plethora of open ended questions that director Michael Cuesta obviously had no intention of answering. With interchangeable characters, intermittent sub-stories, and humor that seemed more glamorized for pre-teens than the mature audience watching this film, L.I.E. came in as nothing more than a major disappointment. I will sit on my comforting chair and applaud the acting that surrounded this film (ie Brian Cox and Paul Dano's chemistry was better than most Hollywood pre-pairings), but I cannot say the same for the story or overall theme of this film. L.I.E. could have been a power film about family dystopia, about the impressions of youth due to family trauma, and the power of sex in a teenage life, but instead this film transformed into nothing more than simple shock-o-rama with some hidden gems wedged nearly out of the eyes view.I think what disgruntled me the most about this film was the jagged storyline that Cuesta submerged his characters into. Here are a couple of examples that strained both my mind as well as my cinematic taste: the unbinding relationship between Gary and Howie, the puzzling scene between Howie's dad and his lawyer (can anyone say AWKWARD), the sporadic bits of humor spliced within Howie's thieve circle (random friend sleeping with sister), as well as the struggling "man-boy" living with Big John that obviously needed no introduction or story. It was these small loose ends that I felt Cuesta just couldn't focus on, thus ultimately destroying this film. What irked me further was that there was much potential in Cuesta's story that if these loose ends would have been taken out this would have been a very moving and influential film. This movie is the perfect example of what happens when directors attempt to bring too much into the story thinking that it will add either 1) shock value (who wouldn't want the next Kids film on their hands!) or 2) completely destroy the character giving us a hopeless victim that we need to instantly feel sympathy towards. As I watched L.I.E., I found myself enjoying the connections that Cuesta was developing between parenthood and relationships. What could have been viewed as a film concerning pedophilia instead moved to a movie about a lost boy searching for any form of guidance, acceptance, and involvement. I thought Cuesta hit this primary target straight forward, but with his annoying random intermittent sub-stories he could not keep my attention from beginning to end. He was a tease. He would grab me emotionally, and then obtrusively forcing me to go with scenes like Howie's father running through his yard evading the F.B.I. How embarrassing for a film of this nature as well as for Michael Cuesta.Again, what saved this film from utter mediocrity was the power of Brian Cox. Rumors have spread that he was advised not to take this role by business associates and friends, but he pushed forward giving us a new face and personality to pedophilia. What made him so incredible in this film was his attention to detail, his level of humanity, and the sincerity of his actions. Sure, what he did behind closed doors is considered evil in our society, but he took his character away from that society cliché. He transformed this vile character into that of family. For most actors, that would be very difficult to do, but for Cox it seemed to come with complete and utter ease. The scene that stands out the most in my mind was when his "man-boy" made the comment to him about "being ashamed", Cox responded with "I feel shame every day". The humility of his character was ingenious. He wasn't this monster (though he had the characteristics of one), but instead a troubled man that was looking – much like Howie – for companionship. Also, Cox's character wouldn't have worked if it weren't for Paul Dano. He was so young in this role, yet he seemed to give us more connectiveness to his character than most other films. We found ourselves rooting for him, and at the same time feeling pity for him. He portrayed the "tag-along" with ease and stability. Dano and Cox were the staples to this film, and I must credit Cuesta for bringing these two together – even though he couldn't bring the entirety of the film together.Overall, I thought this was nothing more than a mediocre film with above averaging acting coming from Brian Cox and Paul Dano. Cuesta had a sincere film in his hands, but the placement of incoherent sub-stories dismantled the overall tone/story right before our eyes. The youthful jokes between friends, the zigzag nature of Gary's actions, the insincerity of Howie's badly acted father, and the poorly illustrated "man-boy" at Big John's house could have been strong building blocks to this film, but instead because of the candid nature of it completely destroyed L.I.E. I could find myself suggest this film to friends just one due to the interest twist that Cuesta used to compare the family dynamic to pedophilia, but that would be it. One viewing only and I must pull off the Long Island Expressway to find a less bumpy route! Grade: *** out of *****
bubsy-3
Considering the number of awards that this movie was nominated for and received at film festivals around the world, and the comments about how the director was admirable in choosing to present a difficult subject, I looked forward to seeing L.I.E.As much as I wanted to like this movie, I didn't. The movie seems to feel that mature teenagers are able to make choices regarding their sexual experiences and I had no problems with that. The problem with this movie for me, is that the characters weren't well developed and their relationship with each other wasn't developed either. Unlike those who made other comments, I didn't like the character of "Big John". I agree that the director was courageous in tackling so controversial a topic. I only wish the result was a better movie.
Race Dowling (racedowling)
As a sexuality educator I was impressed by the straightforward, nonjudgmental nature of a rather difficult topic. I vacillated between giving this film an 8 or a 9 and decided on 9 because we need more films like this. This topic requires understanding, not acceptance mind you, but real honest understanding. The very fact that it was given an nc-17 rating is part of the problem with our society. There was about as much sex as I've seen in R or even PG-13 movies, the rating was obviously ONLY because of the uncomfortable subject matter. How can society solve a problem that it clearly does not even want to talk about, let alone understand?
