Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

Borgarkeri A bit overrated, but still an amazing film

Jenna Walter The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

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

Matt Greene Rambling Rose certainly has its individual moments. Rose unintentionally corrupting the two Hillyer men. Dern and Duvall's stellar performances. The point it makes about men controlling women. Unfortunately, Rose is an incredibly vexing character, and not is the way the movie intends. Are we supposed to be sad for her? Love her? The movie seems to want that, but I don't. Ultimately, it's a boring, sappy and pointless period drama.

moonspinner55 Screenwriter Calder Willingham adapted his own book about a wayward young woman in 1930s Georgia who comes to stay with a rural family, quickly setting her lustful sights on the family patriarch. Director Martha Coolidge isn't especially graceful here, moving the film along in fits and starts, and when it becomes apparent that there isn't much to the story beyond the central situation, it just becomes a chore. The writing is decidedly bland, opening with a woeful prologue, and one never gets a sense of character development or transition. Real-life mother and daughter Diane Ladd and Laura Dern each earned Oscar nominations for their work (an Academy first), but young Lukas Haas (standing in, perhaps, for Willingham) gives the most interesting performance as the teenager with a crush on his family's flirtatious houseguest. ** from ****

jaymaloney First of all, I gave it an 8 out of ten. The acting was really quite wonderful all around, and Laura Dern can absolutely steam up a room. Her Rose was always sweet and always on a sexual hair-trigger. She was a bit dim-witted, but always quite endearing.And even this warm, feel-good, sweetheart of a film made me think...So here's the question: If a young adult woman gets into bed with a thirteen year-old boy, and then allows him to fondle her to orgasm, does that make her a criminal? In this day and age, the answer's yes. But every person commenting on the film (rightfully) loves Rose, and loves her motives.and consider this: Would there ever be a film where a young adult male gets into bed with a thirteen year-old girl, and where one or the other fondles the other to orgasm, and the film goes on to develop that adult male into a sympathetic character? The answer is No. Such a film produced in the 1930s or today, would have had the perp rightfully jailed or rightfully shot.Now,it seems to me, that while Rose today would go to jail, in more sensible times Rose would not be a sexual offender. In fact, I figure that the boy would be universally recognized as one really lucky fellow. But our current social norms would see poor steamy Rose placed under arrest.In today's wacky, feminized legal system (in which ideology must regard males and females as always the same, all the time), Rose would have to be regarded as a criminal, simply because any male who had a sexual relationship with a minor female is a criminal --and rightfully so.In this wacky, feminized time, we read all about fabulously gorgeous 20-something high school teachers who get arrested for having sex with under-age boys. A generation ago, what would have been a boy's fantasy come true, is now portrayed as a boy's nightmare. Talk about screwing around with a kid's head!Is there anything at all about 1932's Buddy that is so different from young teenage boys of today? If not, how can the encounter between Buddy and Rose be so okay in the eyes of every commentator (and in my eyes, too, by the way), while similar encounters today between 14-15 year-old boys and 30 year-old women is now called a "crime"? What am I missing here?

smatysia This film was delightful. Laura Dern puts in the best performance I've seen here. Her portrayal of Rose was perfect. Her mixing of sexiness with innocence came off as totally real. Rose was a girl with a deeply troubled past, and as a result, cannot separate sex from her understanding of, and quest for, love. Robert Duvall is always worth watching and his role here is no exception. The child actors were all adequate. Direction and photography gave the scenes a very restrained sunlit memory sort of quality. I'm not sure if the framing device in the film was even necessary, but it wasn't bad. I enjoyed the fact that this film was set in the Deep South, but did not focus on race. Good movie. Grade: A