ada the leading man is my tpye

Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Brenda The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

MovieHoliks Joseph Gordon-Levitt has really been impressing me in many performances and films over the years ("Brick", "Manic", "Looper", "Don Jon", etc..), so I was surprised to find this 2004 film off HULU the other day- that I've never heard of-??"Mysterious Skin" was directed by Gregg Araki, who also wrote the screenplay based on Scott Heim's 1996 novel of the same name. The film tells the story of two pre-adolescent boys in the 1980s who are sexually abused by their baseball coach (Bill Sage, who I'm sure intentionally resembles a 1970s Robert Redford-??), and how it affects their lives in different ways into their young adulthood. One boy (Gordon-Levitt) becomes a reckless, sexually adventurous male prostitute, while the other (Brady Corbet) retreats into a reclusive fantasy of alien abduction.This is one of those little films that starts off slow, and you gradually find yourself becoming emotionally involved very heavily with it's two main characters- you begin to see and experience things from their eyes- almost to a scary level-??- so be warned, this movie is not for everyone... Michelle Trachtenberg, Mary Lynn Rajskub and a very hot Elisabeth Shue round out the cast.

jeneclyde So I know its late, ten years and I hadn't seen the movie. And to be frank, this movie. I will never watch this movie ever again. It was a great movie, the acting was great, this movie felt very genuine. It felt like I was watching a documentary than a movie. But I have no intentions of watching this again. It was disturbing, it has left me with images in my mind I cannot get rid of. I remember while watching the movie, being so entranced. Like it puts a spell on you. And you're in some kind of trance, watching these horrific, horrific events. Then, at the end, that's when it hits you, all the grief, and depression. I honestly don't know how to feel about this film. It has left an impression, and it will stay with me for a very long time. It was a very powerful film that left me feeling bottomless by the end.

hugoazevedo9 I decided to watch this movie because I thought it had a compelling story and was told in a unique way. This is not true. The movie is not about a boy marked by his childhood and another in the pursuit of a dark secrete. It's a movie about disturbing homosexual experiences with too much explicit pedophile scenes. There are movies that have raw homosexual scenes but this involve children and is just sick. It's like the director puts this horrible spectacle not because is needed to tell the story but rather because it's the story. The plot is predictable and you end up just with an uncomfortable experience. 2 stars and not one because it has very good acting. Don't watch this movie.

chaos-rampant Here we have two boys, both narrating their memory of that childhood night that changed the universe.The film is about child molestation but it's not a 'message movie' up front, the hurt wrapped in something more weird about the hole it leaves in the soul.One boy goes on a teenage life of cheap sex that makes him feel desired, the other tries to piece detective-like the puzzle of what he's sure happened to him: alien abduction one night.It is more deeply about a hole in the memory of who you are, about missing time, wonderful stuff. The catch? We implicitly value ambiguity in films but it's not always clear why. My definition of ambiguity is of a simultaneous view, of things being both so and in some other way, this and not this. This means temporarily suspending judgement, to resist saying things are only one thing. Here we have it clearly, two stories that we're called to figure. So to get the full effect, the catch is that you have to be able to quickly juggle a whole cloud of mirrored story, to ambiguously hold how the two stories are about the same boy, that it's neither just this nor unlike it.In short, simultaneously hold how one narration may have splintered off in the other and both mirror the same pathway to mind, and whole sequences will open up as you watch, like the Halloween night that goes through masks and bullying in a 'scary house' and ends with a blurry passing-out.Suspending judgement extends in another way. We see stuff we could easily be judgmental of, a boy who prostitutes himself, a mother who's reckless of his pain, but see past just this without denying it and you'll see a soul in the same need of affection as the rest of us.You have to quickly get in that space because the filmmaker makes it gradually more clear until a protracted (literal) explanation in the end of one boy to the other of what actually happened that night that clears the air of confusion and restores painful clarity.So here's a film that takes after Lynch of his mid-period (that is until Mulholland), the sunny picture of middle-America that hides something, for a while attempts the same ambiguous blur of submerging cause to bring to the front images of its having been lived; the dreamlike opening shot of colorful cheerios raining on the smiling boy and we soon find out what that was a part of.In the end it falls back to the logic of explanations, clearly separating real and not. No mistake, it's the most difficult narrative challenge to pose on oneself, one that Lynch has been perfecting his whole career, so all told I'd rather celebrate here the imaginative attempt.I saw this with a previous film by the same guy, that one a critique as superficial as the TV walls it projected on. Here I'm happy to see him grow.