User reviews

In the suburbs, the boredom Sarah Pierce (Kate Winslet) lives a dull marriage without love with her selfish husband Richard Pierce (Gregg Edelman), who is successful in his career but with awful sexual habits. She spends the mornings with her daughter Lucy (Sadie Goldstein) in the playground observing the behavior of the suburban mothers with their children. When Sarah sees the frisson caused by the handsome "househusband" Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) in the other women, she decides to talk to him. Brad tells her that he has failed twice in the Bar exams for lawyer and he is financially supported by his wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly), who is a documentary filmmaker. He omits that Kathy is a woman that gives all her attention to their son Aaron (Ty Simpkins), refusing to have sex with him. Sarah feels trapped in her unhappy life and has an affair with Brad, who is the opposite of Richard, in the afternoons. Meanwhile, the pervert Ronnie J. McGorvey (Jackie Earle Haley), who was in prison for indecent exposure, returns to his mother's house and feels the prejudice of his community against his presence, especially from the retired policeman Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich) that is trying to force Ronnie to move away from their neighborhood.

"Little Children" is an extremely well-acted movie that uses a modern adaptation of Madame Bovary to the present days in the American suburbs. The boredom condition of Emma Bovary and Sarah Pierce are very similar, both fell trapped in an unhappy marriage, and have love affairs to escape from their boredom. This movie really deserved the nomination to the Oscar in the categories of Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role, with Jackie Earle Haley having a top-notch performance in the role of a deranged sick man; Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role to the stunning Kate Winslet, one my favorite and best actress ever – my only remark is that, at least for my eyes and taste, she is a charming and beautiful woman, and apparently Sarah Pierce is a plain woman; and Best Writing, Adapted Screenplay, to Todd Field and Tom Perrotta that were able to perfectly develop a complex story with entwined lives of many characters in an adequate pace and eroticism. In the end, "Little Children" is one of those unforgettable and highly recommended movies. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Pecados Íntimos" ("Intimate Sins")

Relationship drama is on the menu and Todd Field is the waiter, with expert skill and neat presentation. 'Little Children' zooms in on suburbia, navigating the world of desperate housewives and husbands. The dish proves a pleasant diversion, with crisp performances and a tasty centre.

So tasty, in fact, that Little Children is one of the most interesting films of recent years. It is far from the greatest, and is not devoid of faults, but a genuine evocation of interest should be attributed to Field's story. Every character unflinchingly demands our attention. We want to know more about precisely everyone in the community. In the front row for fascination sits Ronnie, the resident child molestor, who pends between likable and freak. He is the overriding nominator for 'Little Children' – and his presence greatly upsets the parents.

Yet most salience is given to Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson as Sarah and Pierce – two lonely, bored and desperate housespouses who, in the midst of having nothing to do, innocently begin an extramarital affair with each other. Through calm narration, the film introduces Sarah as an anthropologist and remarks how she is different from the contingent of housemoms. However it becomes apparent that the director is the anthropologist and not Sarah. Indeed Field studies human relationships accordingly, interweaving loneliness, desperation, jealousy, lust and betrayal. Sarah, in fact, loses her 'objective' stance and melts in with the rest as she indulges in her passion with Brad.

It needs to be said that 'Little Children' often tips over into comedy and it is this refreshing edge that bumps it up to 8/10 on my scale. It treats serious subjects, such as pedophilia, infidelity and loneliness – but it does so with the spark in the eye. A consistent cloud of laughter seemed to hover in the air of my theatre at the Stockholm Film Festival and Kate Winslet was undoubtedly the catalyst. She gives a fine performance with excellent emotional transparency, layered skill and above all with an inherent funny bone that translates to a goofy woman. The humour is surprisingly in-tune even with the other characters with all their quirks and afflictions, such as child-molestation and online pornography.

Toward the end, 'Little Children' patiently crafts a sense of impending doom that deserves much credit. Nevertheless, the ending isn't the best imaginable. The film could benefit from being slightly shorter. Lastly the use of cute kids as tearjerkers is a disappointing cheap-shot used a little too often, and seems mostly a tiresome American phenomenon. Yet as a whole entity Little Children is a very interesting film that makes the best possible use of characters, relationships and suburban drama. Throw in a few exceptionally neat steadicam shots – Scorsese-style – and the experience is complete.

8 out of 10

I was walking home the other evening having just watched this at the theatre. Two guys were ahead of me on the street and had just seen it as well. Not intending to listen in on their conversation ... I did anyway, *LOL*. One asked his friend what he thought about the movie and the second took a moment to think about it. His answer? "Twisted man, too twisted!" Thoreau wrote in Walden that "the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation." In 'Little Children,' we see that quiet desperation played out to full effect by desperate housewives, ex-cons and damaged loners. A deep study of loneliness, 'Little Children' is morally ambiguous and doesn't judge. It uses humour, it uses dread, and it is a film that is at times quirky, intelligent and ultimately fascinating.

I liked a lot of things about this movie and in the week since I saw it, I've grown to like it more. Thematically it should have been a terrible downer: a collection of people who've all settled into what seems like the beginning of the end. They've married, started having kids and every single one of them wakes up in the morning with dread. "Is this all that is left?" They have become, or more importantly, believe that they have become completely purposeless in the next of a continuing doldrum of empty days. Eternity awaits and eternity is purposeless existential hell.

What is remarkable about a film whose subject should be so bleak, is the warmth and humour within it. Characters in 'Little Children' reject the lack of purpose, the unhappiness and try to re-inject a passion for life that they once had. At its most extreme, the quest for passion and purpose is lead by Noah Emmerich -- certainly most of the humour comes from his character. Winslet, Wilson and Emmerich are all flawed (who isn't?) but sympathetic. And then there is Jackie Earle Haley.

How difficult must it have been to play a convicted sex offender who is both repellent and *gasp* sympathetic? If you're Jackie Earle Haley and you are stealing a film away from bigger stars and you've got a great part, then apparently it isn't very hard at all. Creepy, potentially dangerous but also fairly benign and pitiable, Haley gives a much over-looked performance in what is quickly becoming a much over-looked film. He has given what I think is one of the best performances this year, and what is certainly the best performance of his entire career.

'Little Children' is "twisted man, too twisted" but it is also very good and very compelling. Well worth the risk and extremely well paced. It was only after the film had ended that I noticed how long the film was. Completely engrossing, I recommend it highly.

"You couldn't change the past," the narrator of Little Children tells us at the movie's close, "but the future could be a different story." The lives of the men and women who live in the very paragon of bland suburbia appear to be crunchy (and even somewhat unforgiving) on the outside, but inside they break, well, just like a little girl. A veritable sea of emotions, from love, despair, neglect, and hate churns below their pristine, everything-in-its-place veneers.

The placidity of this particular neighborhood is jolted by two things: the arrival of a sex offender (Jackie Earle Haley) and the emergence of a relationship between married-but-not-to-each-other Sarah and Brad; both events, directly and obliquely, are remarked upon by the nattering nabobs of middle-class conservatism in the town, particularly the rather particular hausfraus and soccer moms.

Sarah Pierce (Winslet) is a distant mother and wife; when she and her daughter Lucy visit the neighborhood playground, she sits away from the other mothers. As an indirect result, Lucy doesn't play with the other boys and girls on the see-saws or merry-go-round - she just plays quietly. Meanwhile, as the empty-headed women babble to each other (but not Sarah), a newcomer enters their midst - a stay-at-home father, Brad, whom they mockingly call (behind his back, of course) "The Prom King." Sarah's marriage seems empty and devoid of purpose. Brad, for his part, is married to a breadwinner - his wife Karen (Jennifer Connelly) is a documentary filmmaker who's completely absorbed with her work. Like Sarah, Brad is a little emotionally distant from his wife and their son, Aaron, so it's no wonder he and Sarah become constant companions throughout the long, hot suburban summer, spending their days either at the park or at the public pool.

The other main story thread involves the community's reaction to the presence of Ronnie McGorvey, convicted as a sex offender for flashing a young boy. Soon, there are fliers on telephone poles, and an angry outrage group is formed, led by ex-policeman Larry (Noah Emmerich), who seems to be more upset with Ronnie's existence than anyone else in the town.

At its core, the movie is about repression and "settling" - staying with someone just because they provide you comfort but no love is no reason at all, the film explains. Committing adultery just might be an okay act, even with children involved, as long as it means a better life for the principals. Brad and Sarah transform from nodding acquaintances to good friends who take care of their kids together (Aaron and Lucy even grow to become friends, although up to that point they'd both been loners.) When the opportunity arises for them to become more, though, they take it - an act that's not easy to conceal from the prying eyes of the neighbors, let alone their respective spouses and certainly not their children. How long, if at all, can they possibly hope to maintain the charade that they're just friends? Perhaps the thought that their own, current marriages are charades in their own right gives Sarah and Brad reason to believe they can perpetuate the sham against their spouses.

Meanwhile, Ronnie attempt to cope with living as a sex offender. He lives with his doting mom, who believes there is good in everyone; she realizes that what Ronnie did was wrong, but that it was an accident, and she tries in vain to protect him from the rest of the community, which is by and large out to lynch him. But the brilliant caveat here is that Ronnie is by no means a victim - not only did he do what he was accused of (although he shows remorse and a lot of self-hate), but he shows that he's capable of more of the same.

In fact, that's the genius of Todd Field's film - not only are people flawed, but they're believably flawed. In Little Children, people make decisions for selfish reasons, and there's no wondrous epiphany that somehow saves the soul and good standing of the poor decision maker - people live with what they've done, or they don't make the decision in the first place.

Winslet and Haley were nominated for their work here; the first-ever nomination for Haley, who was probably best known as Kelly Leak in the Bad News Bears films. He's eerie and creepy and utterly human as Ronnie McGorvey. You never really feel sympathy for the deviant, but you might feel a twinge of unease. For Winslet, this was the fifth nomination for the beauteous Briton, and it's astounding that she hasn't yet won. Then again, she's only 31 years old! Little Children is a stark, seamless, unsettling story that grabs a hold of your psyche and twists it almost to the breaking point, relying on strong performances by Winslet, Haley, Wilson, and Emmerich as well as a tortuous plot that provides quite a jaded look at the tranquility of suburban life.

Out of all the "Oscar Bait" films I've seen this year, this film beats them all. Little Children is an unbelievable masterpiece about what it means to grow up. This idea is brilliantly portrayed through characters - while categorized as "adults" - have yet to outgrow certain adolescent stages.

Brad is a man who never got the chance to experience the spotlight in his youth, and now he desperately craves attention, acknowledgment, or admiration in any form.

Sarah is a woman who never learned how to grow past her own selfishness. She is angry at her daughter for needing attention when all Sarah wants is some time to herself.

Larry is a man who still harbors bully-like tendencies, and desperately just wants to fit in and be one of the guys. This is seen through his treatment of Ronnie - the pedophile who was just released from prison and returned to the neighborhood.

Ronnie is the dangerous man. The man who cannot connect with people his own age and seeks sexual gratification with children or with people who - like him - cannot fit into the adult world.

This isn't an action moving - it's an interaction movie. The scenes between characters have you nailed to your seat and deeply invested. The characters interact within their small community, and their actions with each other build into a climatic explosion that forces them all to face truths about themselves, and - finally - accept their responsibilities as mothers, husbands, fathers, and humans. This accepting is what separates little children from adults, immature from mature.

The tale is moving, sad, hilarious, dark, breathtaking, thought-provoking and many other creative adjectives. It forces you to reevaluate your idea of yourself and your thoughts on others. It forces you to see people you would normally loath and dismiss in a differently light. This a movie you will come out of changed. If you only see one film a higher, I cannot recommend this one more.

An oddly toned film. I have been able to avoid the more intense discussions this has aroused, and I was barely at all aware that the film had comedic tones. As far as I can figure, the film posits suburban and married life in the realm of the Twilight Zone, via a deep-voiced, omniscient narrator. The narrator is something that most film audiences don't care for, but I don't think Field and novelist/screenwriter Tom Perrotta would have been able to capture the tone they did without it. So I personally thought that worked. I think the tone is really what makes the film memorable. The movie's steeped in awkwardness, but, at least for most of the film's run, it isn't awkward itself. The story begins well, and the characters are excellently realized and performed. Kate Winslet and Patrick Wilson play the primary caregivers to their toddler children. They grow closer as they meet repeatedly at playgrounds and the public swimming pool, and soon begin an affair. The film's major subplot deals with a recently released sex offender (played by Jackie Earle Haley) who is being hassled by a former police officer (Noah Emmerich). Haley's loving, elderly mother (Phyllis Somerville) tries desperately to protect her son. The main plot and the subplot tangle together in the end, and there is an attempt to relate the subplot to the main plot (as per screen writing 101), but it feels mighty forced. In fact, pretty much everything fizzles by the film's very weak ending. The strong story that had been built up, alas, has no satisfying resolution. I still think it's mostly a very strong film, though, with great direction by Field.

My friends advised me against watching 'Little Children' as they found it very boring. Having liked Todd Field's previous film 'In The Bedroom' and knowing that it had Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connelly (whose works I very much admire alongside their beauty), I decided to watch it anyway. The poster was a put-off as the tagline stated: Twin Peaks meets Desperate Housewives. I hate such taglines where the movie concerned is being compared to other films, TV series or whatever. On top of that, I am no fan of 'Desperate Housewives'. However I found the trailer appealing as it gave the impression that it was a dark film about a married couple (Connelly and Wilson) and the other woman (Winslet), it appealed to me. Only later I will find out that I've been deceived.

Sadly, 'Little Children' is not as great as I had expected. The idea of juggling too stories did not seem fitting and on top of that the film drags a lot. On one side there's a story about a married couple, in which the husband has an affair with a married woman. On the other side there's a story about a 'child molester' who has just moved in with his mother to an unwelcoming neighborhood and to make things worse, he is constantly harassed by an ex-copper. Both stories are interesting but would have faired better in two films rather than being squeezed as one. In addition to that, the ending of the first story does not convince. It seemed a little too abrupt, as if the director was in a hurry to wrap it up. It looks as though the writers tried to tackle too many ideas. The voice-over seems pointless. Some editing would have stopped the film from dragging.

On the brighter side, I found the visuals very impressive. The frames are quite well done and the cinematography is superb. The sound adds to the feeling of loneliness and the soundtrack and background score is beautiful. Overall, the film does look polished. It does achieve the satirical feel but somehow loses it.

And, of course, what would 'Little Children' be without the solid performances? Kate Winslet is electrifying as Sarah Pierce. Patrick Wilson is quite alright. Sadly, Jennifer Connelly has little to do but just in that one scene at the dinner table (with Sarah and Brad) she proves again what an excellent actress she is. Jackie Earle Haley too stands out in a difficult role while Noah Emmerich is loud at times but okay otherwise. Phyllis Somerville shines.

While I noticed that many people felt that 'Little Children' was vulgar because of the sex scenes. I thought the scenes were quite sensual and contributed well to the film. I do not understand why people have a problem with the character Ronnie being someone you can sympathize with rather than hate. I liked that the character was portrayed as a flawed human who knows that he has a problem rather than some kind of a monster. There are a few disturbing sequences which can irritate some people.

To sum it up, 'Little Children' is like two films in one...where it would have been better as two. At times it appears to be pretentious and the lethargic pace does not help. However, it has its moments, great performances, a dazzling soundtrack, fine camera-work and makes its point (even though it could have done that more effectively).

Another fascinating, flawed film by writer-producer-director Todd Field, who co-adapted the screenplay with Tom Perrotta from Perrotta's novel. Handsome stay-at-home dad in a stifling suburb, slowly and quietly being emasculated by his documentary-filmmaker spouse, has an affair with an unfulfilled housewife in the neighborhood; meanwhile, a sex-offender recently paroled has moved into town and is being harassed by an ex-policeman, who has his own tragic history. An occasionally effective tapestry of dramatic storytelling, yet one waits in vain for big, revealing scenes that never arrive. An even headier problem may be that this particular group of troubled (and selfish) people are never made embraceable to the audience...are any of these characters worth caring about? Field intertwines the smaller bits of the plot--the minutiae--together successfully, but he is unable to chart a satisfying course through the culmination of events, thereby reaching an unrewarding conclusion. There are rich, intuitive moments and performances, but the film derails at a crucial point in the story--with about 10 minutes left on the clock--and this leaves the audience feeling somewhat emotionally deprived. **1/2 from ****

Another pseudo-probing look into suburban hell, this sedate cousin of "American Beauty" marks Field's second failure to find adequate ways of grappling fragile relationships American style.

Just as it was the case with the director's highly overrated "In the Bedroom", this all too smug and superficial adult dramedy goes the artsy route without ever finding a deeper reasoning for its "critical" attitudes. The pic can't even decide which standpoint to take towards its flawed protagonists.

The good ensemble actors aren't to blame, and some scenes are effective in a manipulative sort of way, but the contrived ending with all its annoying martyrdom (and silly coincidences) ruins a partly interesting character study.

5 out of 10 weekday relationships

Director Todd Field satirizes western society and exposes our fundamental flaw as a society. We are a country of self-righteous hypocrites who band together to crush evil wherever it may be found but overlook our own weaknesses.

The story on one level is exceedingly banal: it shifts from scene to scene exposing the triviality of day to day life. Yet there is that haunting sound of an approaching train. Are we witnessing a train wreck? The brilliant use of a narrator lulls us into the belief that this is just a children's story and nothing bad will happen. Yet our eyes are glued to the screen as we await the crash.

Jackie Earle Haley as Ronnie exposes everything that is wrong with our modern world and everything that is right about character acting. He gives a stand out performance definitely worthy of Oscar consideration. The character represents an unknown evil in our community, one that must be sought out and destroyed. His character at times is sympathetic, even lovable and other other times hideous and menacing.

But who is more detestable? Is it Ronnie or is it those infinitely boring (but beautiful) adulterers, Sarah (Kate Winslet) or Brad (Patrick Wilson)? Is it up to us to judge? If we do, are we not being like the suburban community that is the metaphor for our society? In that way, Director Todd Fields includes us in the movie whether we know it or not. This is a wonderful (train) ride that will keep us talking for days. It is one of this year's great movies.

Just remarkable, because it goes in split second from laughter to deep tragic shock without affecting the credibility of the story, back and forth.

Every actor has been brilliantly directed and it is a gallery of portrays, not just two actors leading the story. I found myself so affected by it because of the sheer unpredictable storyline going to predictable then going back to the unknown.

You will watch how people whirl themselves into their own actions and then try to find a way out of these consequences. Then they free themselves at times, to trap themselves next. Absolutely brilliant, with an array of emotions succeeding to one another.

Visually sumptuous. People stayed in the theater and talked about it.

Looking back, you feel afterward how much love and dedication from director, crew and actors went into it. Just a stunning, beautiful movie.

Script I think had more potential than how it was finally put together. Narrator was horrid and could certainly have been reconsidered or redone, less deadpan. He sounded like a male version of "Desperate Housewives" but not really pulling it off. This film also pretended to an insight it didn't really own and NONE of the characters were really likable. The film also relied on urban relationship myths quiet heavily, portraying them as gospel truth, and regularly founded flawed and unevolved insight on them, which was the real problem with this film. There are some highhanded hopes for in depth, truth revealing and crushing of delusions indicated in the direction of the early script but it's poor structure leaves the turning points under served, basically orphans. All in all, a depressing look at a depressing subject, unredeemed.

Know it is getting great reviews but did not like this film.

Saw this film last night--while it was a mostly enjoyable couple of hours, I really feel that it's overrated. For starters, the whole way through I felt like I was watching the distilled cinematic version of a novel, and I had no idea about the source material going in. Jennifer Connelly is fantastic and should've been given more screen time in the final cut (not sure why--or did she?--agree to be second banana to Kate Winslet). I think the two leads are miscast . . . Patrick Wilson does not ring true as the self-doubting ex-jock (the whole skateboarding metaphor is a joke, particularly later on). His performance is okay, but I'm just not buying him in the role. Way too pretty, and I agree with what others have said: that it's highly unlikely two beautiful, privileged spouses would be at such different places in their lives so early in their marriage. Same goes for Winslet--too pretty and smart (the film suggests she's an ABD lit. academic) to be married to such a top-drawer weenie, plus I found her US accent this time out was a little too distracting/patrician for the suburban role.

There's no nuance in the secondary characters--I found Noah Emmerich's performance to be annoying/uninteresting . . . he was just kind of like a wet pair of diapers that won't go away, and if he's one of the "little children," that's not nearly enough to hold my interest. Similarly, the suburban moms are presented in a totally ridiculous way: let's see, we've got a Witches of Eastwick-lite blond mom, a red-haired mom, and a black-haired mom all sitting together on the park bench (you see, they have to sit together 'cause they're all essentially the same stock character). But Winslet is different, 'cause, like, she's on the other bench. Just too cartoony for me, and again later in the book club segment blond mom is presented as a one-note drone. Not to say those moms don't exist, but I really don't see the point here other than to hit the "stupid" viewer over the head. This is a pretty easy target for the filmmaker/screenwriter. Other than in Jackie Earle Haley's character, where's the complexity? The best movies have character actors who offer layered performances.

The dragnet cop–sounding narrator also didn't really work for me. A little too droll by half. And I must say that I'm growing very weary of the show-ending-intercut-montage-sequence-with-voice-over device that every drama on TV currently exploits to the hilt, and now apparently filmmakers feel the need to use. Please, directors, avoid the bravura montage sequence . . . I'm begging you! Magnolia really created a monster with that.

See the movie and decide for yourself. I'm not sorry I saw it—I was just expecting more. Love that Connelly, though. I think I'd probably watch her reciting the phone book.

The acclaimed director of "In the Bedroom" brings a brand new type of adulterous love tale. Todd Field co-adapts Tom Perrotta's novel and never leaves the source material unattended. The film is multi-layered with subtle undertones and illustrious questions wrapped into a parable of two people Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson) and Sarah Pierce, (Kate Winslet) individuals that feel so disenchanted with existence that they find "comfort" in one another. Brad is married to Kathy, (Jennifer Connelly) a beautiful Documentary film maker that pushes her husband to pass the Bar Exam that he's successfully failed twice. She sends him on nightly trips to the library to study where Brad often gets sidetracked into watching a couple of young skaters, skate around. Sarah is working on her dissertation and retires to the playground everyday with her daughter Lucy, to reminisce with the women of the neighborhood. Sarah is married to Richard, an awkward man with underlying motives and fantasies. Although his vanishing in the film is as awkward as he is.

Upon talking about raising children and busy schedules, the women of the neighborhood are delighted with the return of Brad a.k.a. "The Prom King," who indulges their erotic fantasies. The attraction between Sarah and Brad isn't as obvious from the beginning but a small bet will change that. The two acquire at first, a friendship in the interest of simple companionship, a get away from their spouses, where they could feel support. After the sexual tension is ignited, it remains there through trips to the park, pool and Sarah's infamous laundry room.

Todd Field's brutal honesty of adulthood in Suburbia is strikingly palpable and he never leaves the mind of the characters. Unfortunately Field and Perrotta often bring many questions about morality and judgment to the table and leave the subjects murky. The adaptation is great but there are so many points and features to make in this narrative, the two writers couldn't tackle each task. The dialogue is always engaging and inviting for the viewer; I always felt the need to listen to every word.

The performances for the most part are remarkable. Patrick Wilson's "Brad" is extremely character-flawed. His immaturity is evident in every scene and Wilson does an impressive job of portraying that. Brad is stuck in a world, a world somewhere in between high school graduation and yesterday's pasta dinner. His identity seeking is never exposed until the meeting of Sarah and his immaturity is never more manifested until the finale. The underdeveloped character of Kathy is sometimes bothersome but with the flow of the story it fits the aura of the picture. Jennifer Connelly does well with her minimal screen time but it isn't the marvel of the film that stands out like other low-screen time performances have been in the past. Also, the great Noah Emmerich and Phyllis Somerville are great in their respective roles.

The two standouts lay in the unknown comeback of Jackie Earle Haley, who plays Ronald McGovern, a recently released pedophile searching for a new beginning in a town unkind to the power of forgiveness and profound origination. In Haley, the viewer finds the most sympathy of all the players and this viewer was delighted to find it. In no way are people accepting of pedophilia, but we can start to sympathize with anyone who yearns for the restart of any kind and becomes bewildered and astray in the process. Haley's "Ronnie" is so tortured in his soul but does find security and contentment in his loving mother. She offers solace and guidance in Ronnie's rebuilding of life that adds to the atmosphere and provides a beautiful emotional center to the "Children." The other standout could be no other than the most talented young actress working today, Kate Winslet. Her "Sarah," like "Ronnie" has a tortured persona along with a yearn for happiness that is missing in her life. The symbolism of trains in the film gave amazing insight to what Sarah and Brad were really about. Winslet falls inside of "Sarah" and never comes to the surface. At 31, Winslet is still thinking of different ways to enchant the audience and give us something new every time. The vivacity of "Sarah" is sometimes hard to swallow because of her priorities with her child and Brad but in the finale you will feel comfort in the choice of her character. But this is not by any means, the best performance of her career but a definite contender nonetheless in the competitive Actress race.

The best part of the film is the complete wrapping of it in general. Despite the many questions left unanswered, I have never felt so satisfied with the resolution of a dramatic picture like "Little Children." There is however, a coy hollowness at the center of the film but the rest makes up for seemingly unavoidable flaws that came about. Oscar consideration should focus on Picture, Director, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Adapted Screenplay and hopefully that can be in its future. This is a very artsy type movie, not for everyone, but if the Academy is feeling like nominating a "House of Sand and Fog" meets "In the Bedroom" with a subtle side of "Closer" then we'll have our dramatic independent film of the year in the Oscar race.

Grade: ***1/2/****

I had the pleasure of seeing the premiere of "Little Children" at Telluride. The incomprable Mr.Feild hid behind the curtain near the concession at the back of the Nugget Theater wringing his hands, looking a wee bit nauseous. It was all very endearing. The film is superb. Amongst the American fare it tops my list of films fromTelluride, next to the incomprable 'Day Night Day Night' directed by Julia Loktev.

For me, it was all about Jackie Earle Haley. Haley sneaks onto the screen 45 minutes into the narrative bursting the happy bubble of familiar ups and downs of married with children life. The result unnerving edgy tension that could be cut with a knife. Haley's performance is vulnerable, awkward and possibly the strongest male role to light up the screen this year. Haley deserves accolades, praise and loads of attention. He's been a favorite darling of mine for ages...something I had the good fortune of recounting to Feild after the screening.

Feild provides many questions and very few answers. Haley's character may have been released from jail for indecent exposure to a minor, yet Feild does a delicate balancing act without faltering on the side of "good guy/ bad guy". This is NOT a film about pedophiles. This is a film about faults, judgments, weaknesses that consume, chew one up and spits you out again. And in the end the entire paradigm of suburban life has been twisted, shaken, pushed and pulled.

There is tragedy, openness, shifts, that do not add up to ultimate conclusions. This complex tale weaves passion, disillusionment, love, lust, desire, ambivalence. But most importantly, the tender web of Mother-Child relations, WITHOUT ever vilifying Mother. Feild breaks from this poisonous, obsessive, castrating, oedipal mother-subject paradigm and addresses the people who float in and out of crisis above and beyond being tied to their social roles and traditional moral codes.

Winslet encapsulates the awkward intellectual mom, who loves her daughter, but has very very human ambivalence towards this 24/7 duty of unconditional love/acceptance and never ending giving. Finally, she decides to give something back to herself, by playing out a torrid love affair with the Prom King (Patrick Wilson) another character ripe with flaws and exudes humanness.

This should win many many many accolades for 2006, it's a rare stand out. A powerful disturbingly familiar tale played out eloquently, and held at benign distance via the brilliant use of odd narration. It's a strange convention, but Feild masters this as he skewers and satirizes and describes it's subjects with authority. The narration was pleasantly reminiscent of "Fishing with John", often obvious, but nicely pushing the plot along with often more than a hint of humor. The serious tone of the narrator serves to punctuate the utter ridiculous paradox of the banalities of being 'married with children' and having a flashy adventurous love affair in and around the locations of everyday stay at home summer existence; the park, the pool, the evening football game.

The Affair never reveals itself as the be-all-and-end-all, answer to disillusionment and sadness of suburban middle class marriage. Nor, the cause-effect that sets the plot in motion. Even more satisfyingly, the affair does not legitimate the happy normative narrative ending.

A well written, well acted film that does not fear to venture into the uncharted waters of examining our taboos and sexual hang-ups. Lots of themeatic areas in this film are not included often enough in cinema, for instance this story does not attach to a clearly heroic protagonist. All the characters exist in a grey area, as purely dark or light personas are just as rare in life. Most of the less likable characters have clear merits and believable redemption.In my opinion, even the narration actually works well here to help expand the story as it comes to light.

My major bone of contention with this film is purely in the final scenes, for a movie that had carefully proceeded so well without trying to sell the audience on a viewpoint, the last sequences feel gratuitous and unnecessary.