Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Livestonth I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Steve Moyer I watched this movie yesterday and was affected emotionally for several hours after seeing it. If you are expecting a plot and a traditional kind of story line, you're going to be disappointed. I suggest you sit back and allow yourself to enter into an emotional space. Try and FEEL the characters and get into their heads. If you can do that you may have an exceptional experience of something that is difficult to describe with words.Logan is a troubled boy. He is being raised in a single-parent family by his mother. He is bullied because his peers think he is gay. But this isn't really a "gay movie" in my opinion. It's more about the feeling of being "on your own" in a hostile world. The boy is experiencing homosexual attraction to an older boy, something which often happens at the age of 13. He's seeking love in a lonely world. Release your expectations of what a movie "should be" and simply experience it. Try and appreciate the feeling being created by the experience. It's special.

pogostiks About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys?

jtolleson Visually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest. The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal? Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop.

Nonbreeder "Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.