This is a cute and sweet movie without all the heavy handed film tricks that turn most films about children looking like sappy greeting card. There is a nice gritty quality to the filming style, even down to the bad wigs and unflattering camera angles. Bruno's fascination with wearing a dress is not about any gender identity issues but is a spiritual quest for his sense of individuality. After all in Bruno's own words "the Pope wears a dress". So, while yes there is a clear message about having a unique identity, it is layered in a spiritual message as well. Bruno's lot in life had been cast for him and it was what he did with being pegged as an outsider that is the inspiration behind this film. The cast is all top notch even as their rolls are more subdued and less glamorous then other films. I would highly recommend this film for anyone looking for a 'family' movie that is a little off the beaten track.

This film seemingly attempts to take on a number of serious subjects, mostly relating to the rejection of people based upon characteristics which have nothing to do with their essential personality (e.g., weight, skin color, cross-dressing), and to send the message that being different is okay, and that friends accept friends the way they are (and that parents *should* accept their kids the way they are). But it treats these serious topics in such a superficial manner, it is hard to discern what lesson a kid might draw from this fim.Make no mistake - this is a kid's film. It's rambling, somewhat incoherent presentation is not likely to hold an adult's interest. Yet it's subject matter is likely to dissuade many adults from letting their children watch. The film initially attracted my attention because the capsule summary surprised me (Something about a cross-dressing spelling champion at a Catholic school), and Kathy Bates usually gives strong performances. Her part is relatively small, and as it turns out it was the acting competence of Alex Linz which (to the extent possible) held the movie together.My impression is that this film was, at least in some degree, inspired by the French film, "Ma Vie en Rose", which addresses the issue of a child's cross-dressing and gender identity in a very direct manner. Here, the American film-makers avoided any of the psychological implications behind cross-dressing behavior, and instead provided a very contrived explanation for the child's desire to cross-dress. While the French precursors to American films aren't always that appealing to American audiences, it is amazing to me that American filmmakers can squeeze all of the innovation - and all of the daring - out of those films as they remake them for American audiences.If this film was intended to send the message of accepting people the way they are, some of the comments about this film, to me, highlight its failings. This wasn't a serious attempt to take on the subject of cross-dressing. Having worked as a divorce lawyer, I can tell you that this behavior is not as rare as some think - within the heterosexual community. This impression has been reinforced by discussions with professionals from hospital emergency rooms, who are in a unique position to observe some unusual choices of undergarment. Had this film been more daring, it would have presented cross-dressing in a realistic manner, rather than hiding behind a pseudo-religious, neutral excuse for the behavior.While I can understand why an American studio executive would get nervous at the thought of addressing this subject head-on, I think the disingenuous treatment of the central focus of the film serves to undermine its message, and essentially turned this into a film without an audience. Shirley MacLaine was willing to hint at her subtext in the opening credits - "A film by (A film bi) Shirley MacLaine" - but didn't stand behind her convictions. Granted, had she done so, she still might have ended up with a film without an audience, but it may well have been a better film.

Is this movie supposed to bring out some sort of message? That little boys should feel free to wear dresses? If I had a son, I'd be ticked off at him for wearing a dress. The movie tries to make a point by saying that all great figures throughout history wear or wore dresses: the pope, the Dahli Lama, Jesus. A robe is much different from a dress. Because the Pope wears a robe doesn't give a little boy the right to wear a pink sequined dress. Now, I didn't hate this movie. It's hard to hate a movie like this. The cast is great. Gary Sinise is one of my favorite actors, and I was excited to see his name pop up in the credits. Kathy Bates (another one of my favorites) has some hilarious moments as the foul-mouthed, New York-accented nun who sneaks a cigarette when her students aren't looking. Alex D. Linz is a fine young actor and Shirley MacLaine has some amusing moments when she actually shows up on screen (after the first half). I haven't read the other user comments yet, but I can predict what 50 percent of them have written: It's a cute family comedy. Well, it is somewhat cute and possesses the standard schmaltz of a family movie, with people landing in the hospital left and right. But there's a surprising amount of foul language for an alleged "family film." I never went to a strict Catholic school, but I'm pretty damn sure the kids aren't allowed to run amok like they do in this film. I mean, come on! You get your butt paddled for chewing gum in schools like that! How can they get away with trampling on a little kid, screaming out obscenities and racial slurs and throwing eggs at passing cars? I can imagine the students from Joe Clark's school watching this film and saying, "That's too much." If anybody who works at a strict Catholic prep school can prove me wrong, please send me a private message, but I'm quite sure the portrayal is hugely innacurate. "Bruno" is a harmless film with good performances and a good deal of originality, but it had very little impact on me. I wasn't crying, I wasn't enlightened. It didn't change my mind about boys wearing dresses. If a boy wants to wear a dress, he can turn gay and become a drag queen. But if you like girls--you don't wear dresses!My score: 6 (out of 10)

What started out, at least for the first two-thirds of the movie, as a very fantastical-enigmatic-true-to-life-at-the-same-time movie about a little boy who just likes to wear women's clothing have to turn into a Shirley comeback vehicle? Never mind that she was driving the car - it was fine when the back seat drivers were guiding her way. As soon as she takes over and dominates the entire movie do we all feel like getting out of this vehicle. The first two-thirds of the movie are fine - you feel for everyone involved, even Shirley. But when it appears that the script went south and Shirley came north, all hell breaks loose. Still, watch it for the great performances by all involved (yah, even Shirley in her crusty matriarch role she seems to ease into so conveniently) and let it make you wonder what could have been.