Firstly, as much as this movie is being praised for the less simplistic portrayal of a relationship between an adult and a child than we usually get in the national discourse, there's a definitely creepy underlying message along the lines of the NAMBLA ideology that this "pederasty" as it's known is serving some sentimental need of both participants - the ending to the film leaves Howie essentially a 3-time orphan, and as such we are supposed to feel his relationship with "Big John" (eugh) was more one of support than of abuse.This idea is pushed upon us at other points, such as the man's rejection of the child on the bed, and a line about Howie needing a father figure (in case we couldn't read between the lines ourselves) but I just found the whole notion of Cuesta trying to make the audience question the self-righteousness of paedophile-bashing pretty nauseating - these 'relationships' are child abuse, and from initial blackmail to driving back to the rest stop at the film's (flimsy) ending this man is clearly not changed by the Walt Whitman-quoting benevolent influence of Howie as is suggested. Rather he corrupts the alienated suburban teen and his death leaves the poor kid with one more kick to the bracesThis weird moralising undercurrent basically ruined the second half of the film for me, as well as the occasional tasteless monster-clichés that I guess the director felt were necessary to balance the pro-paedophilia stance of the rest of the movie - one scene has the abuser explaining he's "always ashamed" but that's all that is verbalised and as such the sentimentality feels very phony.ANYWAY I wanted to add that the first half of the film actually really impressed me, the Larry Clark-style diner sequence and general hoodrat bravado, the boredom of a big empty house, slow scenes of his life being given the time to become realistic, it was all going so well but then the plot started to lose its way, and the whole stupid non-romance shifted into fast-forward and Brian Cox kept pulling this bemused face to show he had depth while Howie said something profound-but- essentially-out-of-character (flicking between bright-spark-with-love- of-poetry//confused-and-bewildered-victim).Although not a bad piece of film-making on the whole, this doesn't deserve a second viewing and I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it, and I'm even thinking now that this is a film destined to preach to the ephebophile choir in the disturbing way the internet serves to already. Go watch Mysterious Skin instead

A 15-year-old boy, Howie, still mourning the death of his mother, hangs about with the wrong crowd at high school. Dad is too wrapped up in his crumbling business to take notice of his son's drift. School are over-worked and for them Howie will be one of many who slips through the safety net. As bad goes to worse, someone has to step into the void to be a crutch for Howie. This opens the door for Big John, a local made man and a predator on young boys. Like so many other kids, a lack of supervision exposes Howie to exploitation.That storyline never quite realises its potential in this bitty, at times infuriating story. Too many contradictions and narrative dead-ends present themselves. Howie's friend Gary is a very disturbed boy from the wrong side of the tracks. He envies Howie's middle class lifestyle, and Howie is too wrapped up in himself to see it. Except when push comes to shove, Howie finds it in himself to break into Gary's place and steal some guns. It makes for some nice visual inter-cutting (by virtue of the fact that Gary is simultaneously breaking into Howie's home), but in terms of character consistency makes no sense. Big John is a very sinister, very dangerous man, who preys on the young and vulnerable. And yet something about Howie ignites a noble streak in him, so that any sense of threat by Big John is quickly marked absent, and we are asked to believe that Howie's plight has brought out BJ's good side. Except that BJ is sick, and Howie is hardly credible as the cure.Howie is supposed to be confused and vulnerable, but quotes Walt Whitman in a confident and articulate style that belies his 15 years. At this point we see Paul Dano, trained actor, rather than the character he is playing.What was this film trying to say? That we are all shades of grey? Sh*t happens? Somewhere along the line, the thread of cause and effect got lost in this film. There are some nice moments - the Dad seeing his dead wife in every room - but none of it connects and the whole thing just does not hold together. Although the action being played out is believable, the psychology behind it is not, and any connection to other events and relationships in the film is tenuous. Something, many things, just seem missing here.

Howie Blitzer is having some serious trouble dealing with the death of his mother. His father is never around and is constantly with other women and his only friend is Gary, another troubled kid who Howie is sexually attracted to and who leads him and a couple other misfits to houses to steal from. Eventually, Howie and Gary rob the house of a pederast named Big John(Brian Cox). Big John finds Howie and at first sees him as another teenager that he can fool around with. However, upon meeting Howie, he realizes that Howie doesn't needs a father figure more than he needs a sexual partner.There is one single flaw with the film. That is the ending. The film ends in heartless violence. It would have been better to end ambiguously. However, even that single flaw doesn't make me love the film any less. This is one of those films that is so honest, so pitch-perfect in the people it is depicting, so fearless in what it's willing to show, that, to me, it is almost required viewing.This film really spoke to me. I can really relate to it in a lot of ways because I had a terrible time back when I was fifteen since I had been bullied around and didn't really have anyone to talk to. I had experienced the loss of people I loved as well, and I dealt with those bad feelings for a while. I can really relate to the Howie character. I think we all, at one time or another, felt a little like Howie Blitzer. He's a great character. Despite his problems, he still is a good writer and he still appreciates art and the things that matter to him. The performances are remarkably natural and extraordinary, the cinematography is top-notch, the script is both hilarious and heartbreaking, and the whole film has such a strong sense of intensity and ferocity that it's really difficult to stop watching it once you start. It does everything a film is supposed to do. It's extremely entertaining, challenging, and bizarre. It's one of the best films of the 21st century.

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?