Gutsycurene Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Fleur Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

sharky_55 In one instance, the middle aged Olivier invades the home of one of his young apprentices, and berates him for not showing up to work. The reason for this is one he has seen before; the boy has taken a leave to take care of his sick mother. Olivier views this as a weakness. How dare he show compassion, how dare she drag him down, how dare he put his young career in jeopardy. He gets physical and demands that he return to work at once. And you can see that although it seems improper to be this invested in an apprentice's life, he cares for them in a way and wants them to be successful. Everywhere he looks, he sees his late son and what he could have been, and his harsh instructions drive them for the better.The camera-work from the Dardenne's is even more arresting than it was in Rosetta, where it hovered over the character's shoulder. Here, it seems surgically attached to Olivier, and it's movements are as erratic and restless as his steps. In the opening, he brusquely refuses to take on another worker, but as soon as the women leaves, he doggedly stalks her over to the welding department. He lurks behind corners, breathing heavily, and when he first encounters the boy in the workspace, we linger on his expression for an eternity, and we can hear the gears in his brain churning, wondering, and maybe thinking he might regret this. And then the camera swivels around and we see a boy laying there, unremarkable, and initially we are confused as to what is the root to this obsession. We have other scenes that subtly reveal the past demise. One of the first things hie ex-wife asks him is whether he still has back pain, a private detail that would not be openly revealed. We see this problem plague him throughout; he vigorously does sit-ups at regular intervals as a sort of treatment, but his form is ugly and betrays him as the lonely middle aged man, in average health and trying to better himself in vain. He stays at the centre because he feels useful watching over and mentoring his young apprentices, he admits. As she leaves, he again desperately chases her down like we saw in the opening, and as he huffs and puffs, he painfully wheezes a cry for help. Why now? Why this Wednesday? Why is she moving on, while he has nothing to look forward to?There is no music to speak of, like almost all Dardenne films (an exception is seen in The Kid with a Bike). The harsh whining of the wooden planks scraping the floor and the little grunts of exertion are all that we hear; as Oliver demonstrates the proper way to balance a plank on his shoulder, and the boy follows his lead, like a toddler mimicking a father. They use long takes, unblinking in their focus, to capture every single moment of Olivier's restless surveillance, as the camera is perched on his shoulder; he must know for sure whether this boy is worthy of his guidance and care, and observes endlessly and laboriously. He measures his worth as carefully as he does to the lengths of wood. He questions him pointedly, and gauges his moral character, and it becomes so urgent and vital that he misses his turn on the road. He asks if he is hungry, and pretends that is is treating the boy an apple turnover, before rescinding this offer and wondering how he will react. His name is Francis, and upon finding out his name, Olivier must've been flung into a excruciating world of conflict. On first viewing, it is not apparent at which point he discovers the truth. On second viewing, every barked order, every brusque word and every lingering judging stare becomes so much more meaningful, as a defensive means, as a pretense of 'tough love'. Marinne's performance pales in comparison, but it is not wholly uninspiring. He shields and conceals his past, and would rather not talk of the fatal incident. He does not understand the significance of the bravery and risk that Olivier is taking, and how much power he holds over him, how easily he could upset the cautious undertaking. He repeatedly asks in the car "Are we there yet?", something that a child would ask to a parent on a road trip, but he does not realise how painful this must sound to Olivier. This is Gourmet's film. As he painstakingly reveals the truth, we come to understand the entirety of his actions, and how justified they are. And so, even as he was physically violent to one of his boy's fathers earlier, we know that when he says he means Francis no harm, he means it.

lasttimeisaw With a stalking hand-held camera relentlessly recording the kitchen-sink execution of a hyperbolical subject matter - retribution and redemption, Dardenne brothers downplay the excessive theatricality and map out a distinctively mundane presentation of the most authentic and accurate learning curve about tackling unbearable ire and haunting guilt, from which derives a sensitively tangible proxy-father-and-son bond. Olivier (Gourmet), an instructor in a teenager rehab center voluntarily takes on Francis (Marinne), the murderer of his infant son 5 years ago, as his apprentice, who is 16 now and unbeknownst of his instructor's real identity, so is the audience until halfway through when Olivier converses with his newly-pregnant ex-wife (Soupart), and from then on, what is left for viewers is to wait quietly and see how the bubble bursts, an inevitable confrontation will show the true color of both. But cleverly, Dardenne brothers never bother to stoke the climax with usual filmic antics, all the tension has been heaped up simultaneously with the everyday proceeding, and very much inked with ingenious details (such as Olivier refuses to pay for Francis' lunch money when they grab a bite in a cafeteria), also, without the intruding music scores, THE SON is a cinematic fruit of its own kind, austere, voyeuristic and persistent, yet can easily generate the power of catharsis and has no worries about overkill. The ending has a great aftertaste if a first-timer may feel abrupt to a certain extent, there is a tacit understanding for both characters after the grapple, it is subtle and sensible, we don't know if they can reconcile since the scenario would not seemingly exist in a real world, but thanks to the creators' mind's eyes, it is no doubt a heartfelt film lays bare the universal sense of empathy in such a dire situation. Gourmet and Marinne form an interesting pair with an invisible barrier between them, there is no showy parts but still a demanding job for both actors, an epitome in Dardenne brothers' oeuvres, Gourmet immerse himself fully into the character-building, mostly by body languages, but 2002 is a strong year for my film-viewing, so he nearly cracks into my Top 10 list, but Dardenne brothers again strut into the top tier and my personal appreciation for them is continuing ascending (after THE CHILD 2005, 7/10; LORNA'S SILENCE 2008, 8/10 and THE KID WITH A BIKE 2011, 8/10)!

malickisawesome On the surface, The Son, the 2002 effort from the Dardenne brothers, concerns itself with a carpenter and his relationship with one of his students. The new student is a juvenile delinquent who got into trouble five years prior for stealing a car radio, and in the process killed the carpenter's son; the carpenter recognizes the young boy but the student does not know whose son he killed. This sounds like the set up for melodrama, in which the carpenter takes his bloody revenge, but in the hands of the Dardennes the film becomes a religious parable about what it means to be human.What moved me the most about the film, beyond the empathetic qualities of the acting and the writing, was the humanity of the storytelling and its implications. The stance of the minimalist camera is hard to pin down. Though seeming to be a contradiction, there is an absence of perspective, or even perception, in the movie. The compositions seem to stem from a non- existent entity. In that way it is as if god is holding the camera. The shots remain in a medium- close-up, usually positioned behind the actors. Common practice, especially in Hollywood, is to frame a character, face towards the camera to allow the audience to directly read the actor's emotions. Such a method implies that people identify with others based on their emotional readout. Yet in The Son, the inverse is true. Odd as it sounds, we recognize the characters as even more human even though we don't see them emoting; perhaps because, the film suggests, that to be human is not necessarily to emote or even to communicate but to be a contained entity capable of benevolence. The carpenter is a prime example. He mirrors Jesus not only in profession but also in forgiving mankind for its sins - in this case forgiving the young boy for killing his son. Yet the carpenter did not come to such a conclusion easily, which is why we are so moved when he does. The death of his son ruined his marriage and is probably the root cause for his bad back, a metaphor for his bottled up pain. At one point in the film, he even bullies the boy into confessing his crime. Before his salvation, he succumbs to temptation; in other words he is human. Unlike most films that derive from a dramatic fantasy, The Son is about life and life lived. If we are to remain with each other, we must treat each other with humanity. If bad things happen to us, we should accept them. If we are presented with a tough situation, we should transcend the possibility to do evil. The Son is not a film with a message; it is a film to live by.

MacAindrais Le Fils (2002)I recently stumbled across a debate over the best sibling directorial team. It was expectantly punctuated by names such as the Cohens, Wachowski's and Scotts(even though they don't direct together). Only one respondent out of the first 50 or so included the Dardenne brothers on that list. And even though that is understandable, given their films have lived and died almost entirely on the festival circuit, its nevertheless evokes a sense of sadness. The brothers are of a small group of filmmakers who continue to explore the human soul. They are not interested in entertaining, but enlightening and provoking. Of the three films they have made thus far in this decade, two are among the best I've seen (the third, Le Silence de Lorna, I have not seen yet). One in particular is an especially astonishing achievement - Le Fils (The Son).The problem with reviewing Le Fils is that the less said about it's content, the better. I advise you to please heed the following advice: DO NOT research the plot of the film; DO NOT read the extended synopsis on this site or any other one; DO NOT do anything but rent it, buy it, go see a showing, and simply watch. The more ignorant you are of Le Fils the better. Once you've seen it, go back and watch it again to appreciate the nuanced direction and performance by Olivier Gourmet.He plays a carpentry teacher at a rehabilitation centre for adolescents. He knows his craft, is strong and assured in his skills and can give measurements by eye. One day, a new boy, Francis, has an application placed for Olivier's class. He goes over the paper work, and informs the rehab representative that he already has too many students, and suggests they send the boy to a metal work class. But then something peculiar happens: Olivier starts following the boy, watching where he goes, watching what he does. Why? That is the question we ask ourselves. Is he a pedophile? Does he know this boy from somewhere? Soon he goes to Francis and asks if he is still interested in joining his class. He takes the boy under his wing and begins to develop a relationship with him. Only slowly do we find out the answers to our question: Why?That answer I would never dare reveal to anyone who does not already know the answer. It seems to be constructed as a minimalist thriller, although we only see it that way because of what we already conceive to be the case based on our predefined sensibilities. But what we think we know and what is the case are not one in the same. Le Fils tells us nothing we do not need to know and nothing less. It's a film so straightforward that it flies completely over the audiences head. When we find out the truth, the impact is devastating. For a film so steeped in day to day realism, the level of intensity it reaches is astonishing.The Dardenne's have made their career out of creating structurally simple but thematically brilliant films. They are not storytellers, but parable tellers. Each film is an investigation into the soul, seeking to explore what it is to be truly human in the realm of the divine, the sublime, and the real. Their names should be placed on a list with the likes of Kieszlowski or Ozu.When I first saw Le Fils, the experience left me shaken to the core. It is a film like none other. It somehow defies all expectations by laying the cards on the table plain to see. It is us, the viewers, who misconstrue and complicate things for once, and not the other way around.