User reviews

Oscar Grubman (newcomer Aaron Stanford, who is really about 25 years old) is a precocious high school sophomore. *Really* precocious. He regularly speaks French in his normal life, and seems to always be reading Voltaire (the one liners seen throughout the film as inter-titles are apparently Voltaire quotes).

The film happens over a long Thanksgiving weekend in New York City. We first see Oscar on the train on his way home, briefly talking to a pretty classmate who seems interested in him. After she leaves, Oscar's friend Charlie (Robert Iler from "The Sopranos"), who may be the sanest character in the film, asks Oscar about her, and Oscar dismisses her by saying that her hands are those of a baby. Apparently he appreciates hands that show more character.

We soon learn that the hands he really likes belong to Eve (Sigourney Weaver). She's a medical researcher, whose marriage to Oscar's father, Stanley (John Ritter), makes her Oscar's stepmother. Oscar does not seem deterred by this little obstacle. I can see his point, as I am also a huge fan of Weaver's (even going so far as to see "Heartbreakers"), but the age difference is pretty extreme, not to mention that little almost incest issue.

Diane (Bebe Neuwirth from "Cheers"), is a chiropractor who is Eve's best friend. *You might want to skip the rest of this paragraph if you don't know much about the film already.* Oscar runs into Diane late at night after drinking too much, and when he smells Eve's perfume on a scarf Diane borrowed, Oscar "accidentally" ends up sleeping with her. This scenario is of course reminiscent of "The Graduate," although Oscar's age causes some to question whether this is comedy or statutory rape. I vote for the former, and in fact Oscar's inexplicable ability to easily be served alcohol in a neighborhood bar bothered me more.

Much comedy ensues. In fact, it occurred to me later that low budget independent films are rarely comedies, and even more rarely this well done. The writing was was only adequate to good, but the performances were very good, especially from Bebe Neuwirth. And some of the wordless reaction shots are priceless.

The film was shot on digital video and transferred to film for distribution to most theaters. I have read complaints about the quality, but it seemed tolerable to me, except perhaps in the opening shots from the train. What matters is that it is not distracting.

I enjoyed this film quite a bit. It isn't life altering in the slightest, but it isn't trying to be. It's definitely worth checking out.

Seen on 8/31/2002.

With subject matter that many might consider offensive (fifteen year-old boy in love with his step-mother and seduced by older woman), TADPOLE manages to be a charming, witty light comedy with a sensitive look at a controversial theme--a coming-of-age story with heart.

And its hero, a sophisticated fifteen year-old played by a twenty-five year-old actor (AARON STANFORD), is a natural in the title role, completely convincing as the impressionable youth living with his step-mother (SIGOURNEY WEAVER) and father (JOHN RITTER) in a fancy New York City apartment. Ritter plays the busy working father in one of his rare serious roles and is excellent, as is Weaver as the woman who discovers that her son has been having an affair with her best friend (BEBE NEUWIRTH). Neuwirth makes the most of her sly comic scenes as a temptress who awakens hormones in the teen-ager. A restaurant scene with the boy and his parents is a highlight of the story, where her deceptive conduct is exposed by Ritter's observation of an indiscretion in a mirrored image.

Witty and humorous, never taking itself seriously, it's an amiable tale told with deft touches and it moves briskly under Gary Winick's nimble direction with some nice glimpses of Manhattan's upper east side.

Better and cleaner than Mrs. Robinson, however the themes are disturbing and even illegal or criminal. In Canada, the age of consent is down to 14, and that behavior may be legal here, if none of those adults were in a position of authority.

However, the story is well acted, and appeared to be convincing as a drama. A well thought out story. It is not a porn type movie and only french kissing was really played, and there was no nudity at all in the movie. That being said, it is given a positive rating here, because it is a well-thought out drama involving a socio-sexual taboo. It's rated higher because it's a good movie for debate and discussion on sexuality as a whole, and the other features I stated above.

What really drives this movie is the socio-sexual taboo of a teenage boy and 40 year old women in romantic interactions. It is natural for a teenager to want to explore their sexuality - which makes them vulnerable to sexual predators - and perhaps this movie shows that these predators do not have to be a sick old male psycho going after a school girl, but could be any female. If it were a sex addicted 40 year old man going after a 15 year old school girl, this movie would have been banned.

I'm perplexed by the number of people who seem to miss the crucial element of this film: that Oscar is not as mature as he thinks he is. His "love" for Eve doesn't feel real to the viewer because it's not. His patter--at tea, in the bar, and elsewhere--feels forced and self-conscious because it is. Because he is very intelligent, he makes the classic adolescent mistake of overestimating his own maturity and the force of his own feelings. As Diane, Bebe Neuwirth points out that it's not his maturity that draws so many women to him, but that he is still unjaded. That is, his most attractive quality is in fact the precise opposite of what he thinks it is. Eve's rebuff, though a bit ambivalent, forces him to reevaluate his own feelings. The film's only major flaw is that it leaves this process underexplicated, but when at the end he is more responsive to his classmate's overtures it becomes clear that he is starting to see the light, however vaguely. The film's point is thus obvious: a crucial part of growing up is realizing how much growing up one has left to do. That it makes this point in such a refreshing, funny, and absurd way is the film's charm.

I've heard about the movie when it came out a couple of years ago. I thought the plot was intriguing because i figured there would be a lot of interesting developments and i just wanted to see how the film would come out to be. well, sadly - i didn't see the film in theaters but i did catch it on IFC for the first time. and i was impressed.

i thought the story didn't really have much depth to it but the movie was really funny in some parts. i enjoyed watching John Ritter. for a movie, the story felt really thin - but it made up for it in the end i believe. And, it did interest me to keep watching it rather than just stop. overall i thought it was really funny and there were some interesting parts of the movie that i thought could of been executed better. i heard about the complaints about the quality of the film and how it was filmed in digital and that didn't phase me at all. i think it's stupid to think less of a film just because the shots in it weren't perfect. i loved the ending and it really fulfilled the time i spent watching it. like the summary, it's a very well done enjoyable simple film. i'd watch it again, definitely.

Oscar Grubman (Aaron Stanford) is a fifteen years old French student, who lives in USA, and spends the Thanksgiving with his father Stanley Grubman (John Ritter) and his stepmother Eve (Sigourney Weaver) in their apartment in New York. His mother is French and lives in France. Oscar is very precocious, cultured, polyglot and loves poetry, and he finds the girls of his age very silly, feeling a great attraction for older women. Oscar has a crush on his stepmother. However, her forty and something years best friend Diane Lodder (Bebe Neuwirth) has an affair with Oscar, and he becomes quite confused with this new situation. "Tadpole" is a reasonable comedy only, having some funny situations, but never reaching a target, having a terrible conclusion. When the viewer finishes watching the film, he will certainly ask: -What is the point? Further, in accordance with the information in IMDb, Aaron Stanford was born in 1977. Therefore, he was completely miscast, being twenty-five years old and pretending he is fifteen. Further, he is not charismatic as his character would require. John Ritter is a reasonable actor, but looks very snob in the role of a history professor of Columbia. Sigourney Weaver is lost, in a character who is neither "Mrs. Robinson" nor an example of a faithful wife. The best parts of the story belong to Bebe Neuwirth, who is amazingly funny and makes the film worth, together with its soundtrack. In summary, "Tadpole" is a forgettable entertainment, recommended for killing time. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Um Jovem Sedutor" ("A Young Seducer")

While this isn't an unusually great movie, it's not nearly as bad as

some of the press is saying. It's a reasonably well-done story of a

very smart and in some ways mature 15 years, and his growing

pains. While there are some goofy lines, overall the dialogues are

alright - if not always very natural sounding. The setting of being surrounded by academia helps with some of

the overly - literate dialogue, but at times, there's still a ring of

"senior-project student film". The videography is quite nice, some nice color-schemes. The

digital-video wasn't a distraction. I enjoyed the movie overall, and would still recommend it.

I was lucky enough to see this film at the Cine Vegas Film Festival last week and I must say that I am shocked at its low overall score thus far. The best part of this film is its screenplay. Heather McGowen and Niels Mueller did an wonderful job putting this story together. If you are looking for a film that knows how to develop its characters, build suspense and most importantly can tell a story the way it is meant to be told, then you need to see Tadpole. The acting in this film was also excellent. Bebe Neuwirth, John Ritter and Aaron Stanford gave great performances. This is a funny and touching film that anyone that is a fan of a good screenplay will enjoy.

9 March 2003. There is something cynically delightful in this teenage movie - it's much more sophisticated than most juvenile movies. There is a upper-class air of snobbish humor, Ivy-League anti-intellectualism going on here. The ending is much more subdued and is more of a serious, morality tale than some juicy tidbit for ratings and punk sleaze. The lines are good, the intent of this movie is good. Overall, Tadpole was a fun experience about really growing up, a slice of life piece that while not breaking into the top of the quality charts, offers something worthwhile in the way of teenage movies. The producers should be commended for avoiding the easy, cheap plot directions and the box office traps that this movie could easily have become, making this movie one of many just like it. Instead, Tadpole manages to stay above the fray and make a statement about love and relationships. Strangely, it's much more conservative, but refreshingly so in a sophisticated, back door mental way. Seven stars out of ten.

I've read some other comments about the poor film quality/picture quality of this low-budget, quickly done fairly short (77 minutes) film. Frankly, I'd rather watch Tadpole ten times than sit through the horribly boring technically beautiful special effects of either StarWars I or II. Tadpole captures the essence of interesting film making by focusing on the characters, the story, the situations; and it does so in a way that's doesn't parrot yet another low-brow TV situation comedy. Between the inspired writing, the well nuanced acting on all counts (with nary a weak performance anywhere), and the decent editing, I fail to see how one can complain about this movie from the perspective of it being an enjoyable mini-novella/romp through New York. Comments I've read on the weak acting I find unsupportable by any normative standard.

This would be a charming movie for 14-year olds who have no idea about the world around them. If "Tadpole" cold have stayed in this vein, it probably would have won awards. Instead, it meanders through adult territory which it clearly has no business being in because all "adult" problems are swept under an adolescent rug with square dialogue and an uninspired cast. Like "Cruel Intentions" I disliked this movie for the obvious teen marketing spin on adult themes. It's obvious why most intelligent adults don't go for this stuff. It's stilted, beyond its years and only mildly entertaining.

I don't understand this film. I'm not being facetious, I seriously don't understand this film. The story revolves around a fifteen year old dickhead. This idiot is so arrogant, conceited, cold, condescending and rude it defies description. There is not one redeeming quality about this character whatsoever. In real life, with his attitude towards women, this guy couldn't get laid in a whorehouse. He's the type of arrogant dickhead that women laugh at and turn away from in disbelief.

Yet, in this...whatever...piece, women are flocking towards him in unbelievable numbers. Sure, I could understand if these were women that have no self-esteem or confidence, and actually wanted a man to abuse them so they could feel some sense of importance. After all, even abuse is a form of attention that they otherwise wouldn't be getting. But no, these are attractive, confident, successful professional women, and that's what I don't get, and that's where the whole premise of this film falls apart. There is not one speck of reality or believability in either the characters or the situations. No confident, successful woman would ever, and I mean EVER put up with the endless torrent of condescension this dickhead unapologetically throws their way. If these were destitute, suicidal women, or women who had been left alone and neglected their whole lives, then I could see an element of believability. But not the beautiful classmates and established women that line up to get near this guy. True, all the girls I know would also be lined up to get to this guy, but they would be lined up for blocks to bitch-slap him up and down the street and tell him to get over himself.

When I said "whatever", I meant regarding genre. What is this? It certainly isn't a comedy; there's nothing funny about either the dialogue or the situations. It's not a drama; dramas are more character pieces, and certainly nobody watching this film could possibly care about the lead character. You instantly hate him; your hate grows as you realize exactly how much he hates women and, to a lesser degree, everyone else in the world. Actually, in the one dose of reality you do get out of this dreck, you don't even care about the women he treats like dirt, because they all obviously could do so much better than him, but they keep coming back for more!

I'd love to live in this guy's world - because if this dickhead has this many beautiful women clamouring for him, I'd have a harem from here to Australia!

Just don't see this movie, O.K.? Please?

I don't understand the attacks that have been made on this film - not just on this site, but elsewhere on the web.

There are a few holes in the script, and the whole things is less substantial than a soap bubble, but it's still charming, witty and very funny. There are points where you feel they haven't followed something up enough, or explained something enough, but this film has better developed characters than almost any other romantic comedy you could name. Plus, of course, explanation isn't everything. In fact, sometimes, you're better off without it. A film that requires you to think, speculate or assume what might have happened between scenes - or before the film started - isn't that a good thing?

Much has been made of the DV look of the film, but I hardly noticed - and I like a well shot piece of celluloid as much as the next person. Sometimes, though, you just don't need the gorgeous, sweeping vistas of Lawrence of Arabia - and this is a small, independent gem. The use of DV is probably rather more to do with budget than laziness. In fact laziness would seem to be an unlikely part of the equation, what with the film being shot in a fortnight.

If the thought of a 15-year-old spouting Voltaire fills you with the urge to punch someone, this probably isn't the film for you. But how often does a thoughtful, not formulaic, intelligent, witty film come along. My advice would be to disregard the minor flaws and enjoy. 8/10

'Tadpole' is one of those small-scale, 'intelligent' New York comedies that either works brilliantly (see Six Degrees of Separation, for example) or just comes across as smug. Unfortunately, this film falls in the latter category. It's not half as funny as it thinks it is (and no funnier or more clever for the tedious references to Voltaire and the classics) and almost all the characters are more annoying than endearing (including the old-before-his-time lead). The subject matter, too, is hardly ground-breaking and the soundtrack is repetitive and obvious. Still, it has some nice touches and the acting is mostly convincing (although I wasn't convinced by the gaggle of middle-aged women that seemed quite comfortable with vocally expressing their delight for what amounts to paedophilia - he's FOURTEEN, ladies).

The 70-minute running time is unusual, but frankly if it had been any longer I'd probably have given up.

I was going to start by complaining that Tadpole's teenage Oscar, for all his spouting Voltaire, needed a little more Julien Sorel, a little more pride, even self-deceptive pride, about attaining Bebe Neuwirth's Diane. Sorel would have rationalized some way to manipulate his impure love, at one with his purer desire. But maybe some of this is already in the film and the character. Tadpole's best and funniest moments have Oscar and Neuwirth sparing as equals. As soon as it begins to soar though, it backs off. Weaver's directed to act ethereal, and that's what she does, as if she never loses sight of her image in the fictional Oscar's eye. To the film's loss, she seems to act not so much the innocently unaware object of Oscar's fantasy as the maudlin fantasy itself. She acts against the film's fictional reality. Maybe such things aren't feasible with a big star in a small film, but I would have, as much as possible, denied her access to the parts of the script that define Oscar. If not that, then I would have written her flawed somehow, fatally bored through some self-interest of her own with husband Ritter, or overwhelmed with a nonsexual crush on Neuwirth, inspired by Neuwirth's lack of restraint. She is, after all, as Oscar keeps saying, his STEPmother. Aside from Oscar's not-quite-past-jailbait age, and her legal marriage to Ritter, she's approximately as legal as Woody Allen was. Give her the freedom to truly hesitate over Oscar. I'm sure Neuwirth scares the hell out of some of the film's audience. Weaver, the bigger star, should have been allowed somehow to up the ante, to compete with Neuwirth, if not in details of the plot, then just as actress to actress. Neuwirth acts. Weaver's been allowed only to pose and pander.

I've just seen "Tadpole" for the second time and I'm astonished at some of the dismissive comments about it on this site. Maybe I'm a bit biased — when I was the protagonist's age I was almost as impossibly pretentious a pseudo-intellectual as he is — but though I don't consider this a great film, I was engaged by it all the way and loved everything about it: the story, the acting, the genuinely witty writing, director Gary Winick's knack for presenting some pretty outrageous situations as if they were perfectly normal and the upper-class New York ambiance in which the whole film was framed. The first time I saw it I called it "sort of a combination of Shaw's 'Candida,' the Phaedra legend and 'Lolita' with the genders reversed," and I stand by that. This time around it was nice to be reminded of how exciting and sensual an actress Bebe Neuwirth could be when all I'm seeing of her these days is the hard-as-nails prosecutor in "Law and Order: Trial by Jury," and John Ritter's performance is one of the ones he should be remembered by even though his presence makes one wonder why the movie wasn't called "Eight Simple Rules for Dating My Teenage Son." (Actually Ritter's best big-screen performance ever was as the President of the United States in the woefully underrated satire "Americathon," one movie I'd dearly love to see reissued on DVD.) Just two elements of "Tadpole" that bothered me: how did someone who looked so young get into that bar (I suspect the real Aaron Stanford gets carded all the time!); and why did a pretentious intellectual kid who prided himself on his fluency in French read Voltaire in translation instead of the original?

Oscar Grubman (Aaron Stanford) is oddly sophisticated at 15. He idolizes Voltaire and is particular about women's hands. He is secretly in love with his stepmother Eve (Sigourney Weaver). He is back at home in NYC from Chauncey Academy for the Thanksgiving weekend. His father (John Ritter) is concerned. Eve's best friend Diane (Bebe Neuwirth) starts a sexual fling with him and tells all her girlfriends.

The kid is self-important and not very compelling. Also he doesn't really look 15 at all which takes away some of the tension. The movie is aiming to be a quirky indie except it's not funny. It's a little particular in its tone but not very interesting. The story is a teen in love with his 40 something stepmother. That could be interesting. This is a twenty something guy in love with Sigourney Weaver. Who isn't?

I don't think I can give an intellectual critique of this movie, because I reacted to it in a very emotional way: I loved it. I laughed all the way through. The thing that struck me so funny wasn't the dialogue so much as the facial expressions of the performers (though I did laugh every time Bebe Neuwirth opened her mouth.) The look on Charlie's face when he finds out Oscar is in love with his stepmother, the amused look on Diane's face as she watches Oscar panic during dinner at the French restaurant...I could go on.

Also, John Ritter performs the funniest choke take I have ever seen, during the aforementioned French restaurant scene. In short, I enjoyed this movie immensely and have already recommended it to all of my friends.

Finally, in response to the person who found the Voltaire quotes pretentious: I agree, but I think that was the point. After all, a 15 year old who reads Voltaire and thinks girls his age are beneath him is pretty damn pretentious himself.

"Tadpole" is a poignant tale of a 15-year-old French student, Oscar who falls in love with his stepmother. He doesn't like girls of his own age because they are shallow, and on the course of this complex sexual preference of his, he sleeps with the sensual forty-something friend of his stepmother too. Aaron Stanford is quite good as the lead character. He nicely captures Oscar's apparent innocence mixed with strong desire for older women. Whereas Sigourney Weaver is surprisingly flat and unimpressive as the stepmother. Perhaps she was not a good choice for the role too. I would have preferred Meg Ryan. However, Bebe Neuwirth is brilliant as her friend Diane who has a sexual interest on Oscar. She is fluent, natural and funny. John Ritter also gives a good performance as his father.

The film is a low-budget one, shot in about two weeks. And it doesn't get out of that setback. The screenplay is poor. The idea of quoting Voltaire from time to time is disturbing. The music used in the film is poorly chosen (except Paul Simon's "Only living boy in New York" maybe, though I think it's used in wrong place). Fine acting, the freshness of the story and nice location shots of city landscape makes it a fair film to watch.

Bebe Neuwirth's performance as a 40-ish chiropractor in New York City who has an affair with a high school sophomore holds the only interest in this ridiculous, inexplicably celebrated independent film shot on digital video. Aaron Stanford plays Oscar, who is described for us as a "40-year-old living inside a 15-year-old's body"; he quotes Voltaire, reveals a fetish for great hands, and harbors a crush on his stepmother, a medical scientist who apparently doesn't notice the moony-eyed look on her stepson's adoring face. "Tadpole" was picked up at Sundance by Miramax, who couldn't market this thing to anyone but the most rabid Sigourney Weaver fans. Weaver does decent work as the object of Stanford's affection, however it is Neuwirth as a sort of updated Mrs. Robinson who steals the show. Otherwise, this is a comedic flirtation with sophisticated manners which is in itself not sophisticated. The clumsy writing spells out everything for us, the characters are all predetermined, and Stanford is singularly without dimension or appeal. * from ****

I definitely liked this film. I am not basing this off of any sort of critical analysis of cinematography or directing or whatnot, except for the fact that I liked it, so I do think the acting was good. I am basing this off of the fact that when I left the theater, I felt good. The end was realistic, the movie wasn't fluff, and I felt content. I don't know when a movie has made me feel this good, but it hasn't been since, certainly. Also, being a fan of New York City and that it was filmed and set there adds to my enjoyment. It was smart, witty, and if I may say so, I find Aaron Stanford to be quite attractive. It wasn't particularly deep, but who cares, it was light and great. If you have seen Lovely and Amazing or Good Girl, you know that these two movies are about older women who have affairs with younger men. Same with this one, however, those two, as realistic as they are, are not light hearted. So yes I enjoyed this movie, the other two mentioned are also good, just don't leave one feeling sublime.

15 year old Oscar Grubman (played by 25 year old Aaron Stanford) definitely has the soul of someone much older - but not the wisdom. He has no romantic time for girls his own age - he actually prefers women, for their maturity and experience. In fact, he has a crush on his worldly stepmother Eve (Sigourney Weaver), whom he idealizes. In an amusing farcical turn of events, he sleeps with Eves' friend Diane (Bebe Neuwirth, who's never looked sexier).

This is a reasonably funny, lightly entertaining comedy about a young man with lots of book smarts and an endearing amount of naivety which is precisely what some people find intriguing about him. Stanford is just right in the lead role, even if he's clearly older than what he's playing. Neuwirth is irresistible as the saucy older woman (just imagine the trouble the character would be in in real life, though!). John Ritter is good as always playing Oscars' somewhat pretentious dad. And Weaver is appealing as the object of our young hero's misguided affection.

One thing that's rather refreshing about "Tadpole" is that it only runs 79 minutes. It's nice to see a modern movie that doesn't meander and wraps up its story in such a trim fashion.

Definitely worth seeing for admirers of the cast.

Seven out of 10.

Whatever went wrong with director Gary Winick's Tadpole is beyond imagination.

This has to be among the worst films of the year. I mean, if you laugh once, it's too much.

The whole idea of Aaron Sanford's Oscar in love with his step-mother is not a far-fetched thing. However, the execution of this story is done very badly.

I don't know where to put the blame, but it has to fall on the director's lap since he misuses all the principals big time.

It's hard to believe that Sigourney Weaver, or even Bebe Neuwirth have lend their names to such an idiotic comedy.

The best thing is its length. It couldn't end soon enough for me.