Macaulay Culkin was merely a mischievous, eight year old troublemaker in 1990's "Home Alone", but here he pulls out all the stops and goes for the gusto as a nearly possessed evil little monster who believes taking out members of his own family is the ticket to a happier life. Quite honestly, Henry Evans (Culkin) seemed way too introspective beyond his years regarding human psychology. Having come to the conclusion that "...once you realize you can do anything, you're free" is not something a normal eleven year old would come up with. Then again, one could say he wasn't your average, normal eleven year old. Once the story gets really moving along, Henry does a serious gaslight job on his cousin Mark (Elijah Wood), so that everyone involved becomes sincerely worried about his mental status. That's curious by the way, that everyone in the story, including the boys themselves, refer to each other as friends instead of cousins. It's curious too, that when the camera shows you a long view of the Evans home in Maine that there aren't any nearby cliffs within walking distance to set up that questionable finale.
194 Reviews
Dark insight into sociopathic children
cosmic_quest27 March 2006
I think part of the reason why 'The Good Son' is barely remembered is because it deals with a side to humanity that no-one really wants to accept in that not all children are sweet little innocents, pure as the driven snow. It's not very comfortable watching a film that shows sociopaths-- people born without the ability to feel guilt and empathise with others-- are born, not made and their dangerous traits are apparent even in childhood. 'The Good Son' revolves around Mark, a motherless boy of twelve who is sent to stay with his Uncle Wallace, Aunt Susan and two cousins, twelve-year-old Henry and six-year-old Connie. At first, Mark revels in the visit that takes his mind off his recent bereavement but he soon starts to realise that Henry is a sociopath whose parents are blind to his dark, violent side. It is a film that pulls no punches in just how malevolent Henry is and how easily he will pick off anyone who dares to interfere with his twisted sense of fun.
Macaulay Culkin was excellent as the angelic-looking Henry whose boyish cuteness hide his true nature and his performance here proves he could have been one of the few child actors who graduated into a successful young adult actor had his personal life not been such a mess. It really was chilling seeing the child I was so used to seeing in comedies being so emotionally cold. But it is Elijah Wood's Mark who gives the film heart. Young Wood, only eleven years old when he filmed this, delivered a great performance as a young boy faced with the awful truth and desperate to stop Henry while juggling his grief over losing his mother. The scene where Mark is convinced Henry has poisoned the food is a perfect example of how Wood portrayed Mark's desperation, hysteria and helplessness in the face of his cousin's evil.
However, one of the flaws of the film is that is a bit choppy, jumping from scene-to-scene without giving you a feel for the other characters, which is a shame because this is one film where you do need to have an understanding of just how Henry's nature affects all those around him and how he gets away with it all. I read the novelisation of the film by Todd Strasser before seeing the film so it's all the more noticeable for me. The book not only gives greater insight into Mark's budding fraternal friendship with Connie and his need to seek a mother in Susan but it also shows Susan's growing awareness to the monster Henry is and how she feels when she is made to choose between Mark and her murderous child.
Overall, this film is enjoyable enough for a psychological thriller (although a few TV detective shows have done this idea in a slicker way) and it is nice to see a film that doesn't take a softly-softly attitude when dealing with the matter of children who kill. However, the ending was a bit of a cop-out as there could have been so many other avenues to explore had things ended differently for Henry (what should be done with sociopathic children? How do decent, loving families deal with such a child?). Those who do expect a bit more from their films will probably be disappointed.
Macaulay Culkin was excellent as the angelic-looking Henry whose boyish cuteness hide his true nature and his performance here proves he could have been one of the few child actors who graduated into a successful young adult actor had his personal life not been such a mess. It really was chilling seeing the child I was so used to seeing in comedies being so emotionally cold. But it is Elijah Wood's Mark who gives the film heart. Young Wood, only eleven years old when he filmed this, delivered a great performance as a young boy faced with the awful truth and desperate to stop Henry while juggling his grief over losing his mother. The scene where Mark is convinced Henry has poisoned the food is a perfect example of how Wood portrayed Mark's desperation, hysteria and helplessness in the face of his cousin's evil.
However, one of the flaws of the film is that is a bit choppy, jumping from scene-to-scene without giving you a feel for the other characters, which is a shame because this is one film where you do need to have an understanding of just how Henry's nature affects all those around him and how he gets away with it all. I read the novelisation of the film by Todd Strasser before seeing the film so it's all the more noticeable for me. The book not only gives greater insight into Mark's budding fraternal friendship with Connie and his need to seek a mother in Susan but it also shows Susan's growing awareness to the monster Henry is and how she feels when she is made to choose between Mark and her murderous child.
Overall, this film is enjoyable enough for a psychological thriller (although a few TV detective shows have done this idea in a slicker way) and it is nice to see a film that doesn't take a softly-softly attitude when dealing with the matter of children who kill. However, the ending was a bit of a cop-out as there could have been so many other avenues to explore had things ended differently for Henry (what should be done with sociopathic children? How do decent, loving families deal with such a child?). Those who do expect a bit more from their films will probably be disappointed.
Very well made psycho-thriller
Leofwine_draca3 July 2014
THE GOOD SON is one of many psycho-thrillers that were made in the early 1990s in the wake of the success of the likes of FATAL ATTACTION, BASIC INSTINCT and THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE. Most of these could be easily categorised by the type of person who was the villain, i.e. 'bad cop' (UNLAWFUL ENTRY), 'bad neighbour' (PACIFIC HEIGHTS), 'bad husband' (SLEEPING WITH THE ENEMY). THE GOOD SON is, as you'd guess from the title, about a bad kid.
Said kid is Macauley Culkin, a wonderful piece of casting against type by the producers. So long we've had to put up with Culkin in his sickly-sweet roles but here he portrays somebody very different indeed and, inevitably, this turns out to be the best performance of his career. Culkin is excellent, truly portraying a character beyond his years, and he helps to make the movie.
It helps that everything else is right, too. The script focuses on realism throughout, and there's plenty of characterisation to make the viewer feel truly grounded in the experience. Aside from the ending, things don't get over the top with the style or direction. There are a handful of set-pieces which really work (like the bit with the bridge), and some incredible stunt work that left me breathless, like the whole bit with the tree house. As somebody with a fear of heights, such moments turned my legs to jelly.
Elijah Wood made a point of appearing in plenty of twee kid's films during the 1990s (FREE WILLY anyone?) but this is one of his most interesting movies from that decade. David Morse is typically good as Wood's father. The script stays grounded throughout, the psychological insight is as interesting as the thriller aspects of the story, and it all finishes in a satisfying way that goes against Hollywood convention. Good stuff.
Said kid is Macauley Culkin, a wonderful piece of casting against type by the producers. So long we've had to put up with Culkin in his sickly-sweet roles but here he portrays somebody very different indeed and, inevitably, this turns out to be the best performance of his career. Culkin is excellent, truly portraying a character beyond his years, and he helps to make the movie.
It helps that everything else is right, too. The script focuses on realism throughout, and there's plenty of characterisation to make the viewer feel truly grounded in the experience. Aside from the ending, things don't get over the top with the style or direction. There are a handful of set-pieces which really work (like the bit with the bridge), and some incredible stunt work that left me breathless, like the whole bit with the tree house. As somebody with a fear of heights, such moments turned my legs to jelly.
Elijah Wood made a point of appearing in plenty of twee kid's films during the 1990s (FREE WILLY anyone?) but this is one of his most interesting movies from that decade. David Morse is typically good as Wood's father. The script stays grounded throughout, the psychological insight is as interesting as the thriller aspects of the story, and it all finishes in a satisfying way that goes against Hollywood convention. Good stuff.
Good thriller
gridoon20246 March 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It must have taken some balls to make "The Good Son" - a change-of-pace if there ever was one - right at the peak of Macaulay Culkin's popularity as a wholesome, family-friendly child star, but the gamble paid off: this movie has held up very well over the years. Fluidly directed by the unheralded Joseph Ruben, with sweeping camera work and a vivid sense of place that makes the location another character, with a script that builds the suspense gradually towards a memorable cliffhanger (literally) of a climax, and further aided by a rich music score by the legendary Elmer Bernstein, this is one of the most successful thrillers of its era. Culkin is surprisingly good at being bad (and amoral, and manipulative), Elijah Wood is just as solid, and Wendy Crewson is the mother any (normal!) son would like to have. *** out of 4.
Not A Bad Little Thriller
Scars_Remain28 July 2008
I've heard about this movie for years but I have never decided to check it out until this past weekend. I thought it was going to be average 90's crap with not much going for it at all. I was wrong and I'm glad I was. It was actually very creepy and atmospheric with a lot of very intense scenes and fantastic build ups.
Macaulay Culkin is very good as the disturbed son. I thought that Wood was great as well and the rest of the cast was pretty good but some of the parents' roles were a little iffy. I thought the story was well done and interesting and most of all, kept me entertained.
This is a movie that would go good on a rainy afternoon. It's not brilliant but it is interesting and pretty creepy.
Macaulay Culkin is very good as the disturbed son. I thought that Wood was great as well and the rest of the cast was pretty good but some of the parents' roles were a little iffy. I thought the story was well done and interesting and most of all, kept me entertained.
This is a movie that would go good on a rainy afternoon. It's not brilliant but it is interesting and pretty creepy.
'Good' movie!
jellyneckr16 July 2001
I saw THE GOOD SON on television a while ago and since then I have rented several times. It seems each time it gets more and more thrilling. It's the first movie I've seen where I was actually scared of the bad character, Henry [Macaulay Culkin] and the first movie I've seen where I find myself routing for the good character, Mark [Elijah Wood]. See, normally I don't get too involved in the movies I'm watching, but with THE GOOD SON, it's impossible not to! This is one of Macaulay Culkin's best movies [and one of his last movies].
A good sign
Spleen23 July 1999
In many ways this is just a standard thriller. How I loathe the word "thriller". It suggests roller-coasters; and the genre it denotes, at its best, deals in quiet tension. Where was I? Yes: standard thriller. A is really an evil person, intent on performing great harm in the future; B knows this but can't convince anyone else. I heard that sigh. But make A and B children, on the verge of adolescence, and not only is this tired formula invigorated, but it makes a great deal more sense. (Especially if B is in the slightly awkward position of a cousin on an extended visit.) The creaky old scenes where B goes to the police and either he is strangely incoherent or the police are strangely obtuse, are gone. There is now a perfectly good reason why B can't go to the police, or indeed anyone. Nor is there anything strange about the obtuseness of A's parents. The rotten adult seems so commonplace that we scarcely bat an eyelid; the rotten child, who is in fact far more commonplace, we like to pretend doesn't exist.
So I'm glad Hollywood took this step. I also, for the most part, like the way the step has been taken. B has no accomplices - he must battle A alone - and his plight is keenly felt. There's an air of plausibility about it all. Elijah Wood is an unusually good boy, Macaulay Culkin is an unusually bad boy; both look perfectly real. (Wood, who has the harder task, does especially well.)
The climax - or what is meant to be the climax - is HIGHLY contrived. It will probably come as a shock that the writers chose something at once so obvious and so ludicrous. The mood of the audience I saw this with - it may just have been my mood - was one of grudging acceptance, granted only because we had been treated so well in the events leading up to it.
So I'm glad Hollywood took this step. I also, for the most part, like the way the step has been taken. B has no accomplices - he must battle A alone - and his plight is keenly felt. There's an air of plausibility about it all. Elijah Wood is an unusually good boy, Macaulay Culkin is an unusually bad boy; both look perfectly real. (Wood, who has the harder task, does especially well.)
The climax - or what is meant to be the climax - is HIGHLY contrived. It will probably come as a shock that the writers chose something at once so obvious and so ludicrous. The mood of the audience I saw this with - it may just have been my mood - was one of grudging acceptance, granted only because we had been treated so well in the events leading up to it.
Bad boy
jotix10022 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Henry, the angelic looking boy, lives with his parents in a beautiful suburban East coast home. His cousin Mark, from Arizona, who has just lost his mother, is invited to come and spend some time with his uncle's Wallace family. What Mark doesn't know is he is leaving one difficult situation back home, but he is not coming to a happy environment. Henry's little brother has died drowned in his bathtub, and Susan, his mother is still grieving his death.
When a series of little accidents begin to happen, Mark is blamed for them. After all, Henry, who looks as though he can't do any harm, will never be thought as the culprit. It's Susan, the mother, who discovers the truth after going to Henry's shed where he keeps most of his secrets.
Although the film is predictable, director Joseph Ruben has given it a look that keeps the viewer interested in what's happening. The screen play is by Ian McEwan, an excellent writer.
Macauley Culkin was at the height of his early film career and he makes a great Henry Evans. Elijah Wood is seen as Mark, the visiting cousin who is horrified by what he finds in his new home. Wendy Crewson plays Susan, the grieving mother. David Morse, a wonderful actor, doesn't have much to do as Mark's father.
Watch the film without any expectations and it will reward you.
When a series of little accidents begin to happen, Mark is blamed for them. After all, Henry, who looks as though he can't do any harm, will never be thought as the culprit. It's Susan, the mother, who discovers the truth after going to Henry's shed where he keeps most of his secrets.
Although the film is predictable, director Joseph Ruben has given it a look that keeps the viewer interested in what's happening. The screen play is by Ian McEwan, an excellent writer.
Macauley Culkin was at the height of his early film career and he makes a great Henry Evans. Elijah Wood is seen as Mark, the visiting cousin who is horrified by what he finds in his new home. Wendy Crewson plays Susan, the grieving mother. David Morse, a wonderful actor, doesn't have much to do as Mark's father.
Watch the film without any expectations and it will reward you.
Bad Reviews Indicate Really Frighting Concepts and not Bad Movie
cubsckc29 July 2014
I was actually really surprised at the ratings of the film, so I looked at many of the reviews before putting mine down. Maybe I was missing some pretty horrible aspects to the movie. So I watched the movie again and I read the reviews. I think one of the interesting things was that people rated this movie really low because they didn't like the concept of an evil child or they added, there was no WHY concept to the reasons why the character did the things he did.
I think I was mostly surprised at the "Why" concept. Did people really not understand that this kid felt really powerful controlling the fate of others? It was quite clear that the mean kid did not like being undermined. It was in my opinion very well introduced. At first, his enjoyment in his actions were very minor due to his first time. It seemed to me that the first time he performed his bad deeds to his brother, he might have actually been scarred or stunned. Because for a while when little Frodo enters the scene, nothing has actually happened to indicate he is a terrible child. Its not until his mother treats Frodo like her own child that Macually starts to use his will to force things the way he wants. I see similarities with how kids these days press their parents into getting what they want.
I think its important to recognize the scene where little Frodo goes to the therapist and asks her about why someone could be bad for no reason, just because he likes to be bad. I think this is where people kind of go, "yeah, this movie is flawed, there's no such thing." But remember, little Frodo wasn't looking down the staircase at his mother hugging another son. Its all about perspective. It can be concluded that the bad son is probably the spoiled child, and acts up in extreme ways to get what he wants because it worked before. We have two polar characters. One character is completely helpless and his fate is controlled by the other characters in this movie, where there is Culkin, whom has deep control of his life and his wants.
On another note, kids doing horrible things to animals or killing other kids is not a unheard of concept. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there are certain mentalities that cannot be explained but diagnosed with mental disorders. People in our age have been brainwashed into thinking that kids are completely innocent in the world. Which is funny when you reflect how many times in your younger life you have laughed at someone and probably made them feel really bad, even though you didn't want to. As kids we actually hurt others more than we'd like to admit, we just choose not to admit it.
I think I was mostly surprised at the "Why" concept. Did people really not understand that this kid felt really powerful controlling the fate of others? It was quite clear that the mean kid did not like being undermined. It was in my opinion very well introduced. At first, his enjoyment in his actions were very minor due to his first time. It seemed to me that the first time he performed his bad deeds to his brother, he might have actually been scarred or stunned. Because for a while when little Frodo enters the scene, nothing has actually happened to indicate he is a terrible child. Its not until his mother treats Frodo like her own child that Macually starts to use his will to force things the way he wants. I see similarities with how kids these days press their parents into getting what they want.
I think its important to recognize the scene where little Frodo goes to the therapist and asks her about why someone could be bad for no reason, just because he likes to be bad. I think this is where people kind of go, "yeah, this movie is flawed, there's no such thing." But remember, little Frodo wasn't looking down the staircase at his mother hugging another son. Its all about perspective. It can be concluded that the bad son is probably the spoiled child, and acts up in extreme ways to get what he wants because it worked before. We have two polar characters. One character is completely helpless and his fate is controlled by the other characters in this movie, where there is Culkin, whom has deep control of his life and his wants.
On another note, kids doing horrible things to animals or killing other kids is not a unheard of concept. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that there are certain mentalities that cannot be explained but diagnosed with mental disorders. People in our age have been brainwashed into thinking that kids are completely innocent in the world. Which is funny when you reflect how many times in your younger life you have laughed at someone and probably made them feel really bad, even though you didn't want to. As kids we actually hurt others more than we'd like to admit, we just choose not to admit it.
Good suspense thriller.
paulclaassen3 May 2020
I have such fond memories of seeing this when I was much younger. I'm so glad to see my opinion of the movie remains unchanged having seen it again after such a long time.
Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin are very good in their respective roles. Culkin was an interesting choice as the psychopathic, evil child, as he was famous for portraying the 'cute kid' at the time. The film casually sets up the scene, and then slowly but surely reveals itself for what it really is. Evil presents itself in the form of a kid, making it even more sinister.
Every action is justified by a counter action. It's also believable that no-one believes Mark (Wood), considering what he's been through. This is a carefully thought out, well written script that builds to a nerve-wrecking finale.
Elijah Wood and Macaulay Culkin are very good in their respective roles. Culkin was an interesting choice as the psychopathic, evil child, as he was famous for portraying the 'cute kid' at the time. The film casually sets up the scene, and then slowly but surely reveals itself for what it really is. Evil presents itself in the form of a kid, making it even more sinister.
Every action is justified by a counter action. It's also believable that no-one believes Mark (Wood), considering what he's been through. This is a carefully thought out, well written script that builds to a nerve-wrecking finale.
Scratching the surface, lacks depth and surprises
BloedEnMelk12 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this movie with perhaps too high expectations. It's not a bad movie, but it's like a movie I would watch on a Sunday afternoon and it never get's any further than scratching the surface of it's theme: a sociopathic child.
Though one of the story lines focuses on what Henry has done to Richard, throughout the whole movie it seems like Henry's behavior was only coming out when Mark came in to the picture. No-one seemed to have noticed anything weird about him before, not even his little sister. Now, a sociopath can be very manipulative, and they are often charming people, but one would say that his sadistic strikes would not have been totally unnoticed, especially towards his sister. It's not completely unbelievable though when you see Mark as the trigger, suddenly being competition for Henry, as Richard was, so OK, the movie can get away with that.
What I think was less forgiving was that the movie was all just far too predictable. Watching the mother standing where she liked to come to rest; you do not need to be psychic to understand that this is the place for the final part. To me; all the clues in the movie were far too obvious. It just never surprised me. An other thing is that it lacked in depth. All the elements are there, but it never goes deep. It's like a bow with the potential for a good shot, but the archer just doesn't pull the string back enough to give it real power.
The acting was mediocre, though I was pretty impressed by a young Elijah Wood. His big eyes are gorgeous, and his acting, compared to that of Macaulay Culkin, really stood out. Elijah was the one carrying this movie and I'm glad they put him in the role of Mark, and not Macaulay. Macaulay did a reasonable job, especially at the beginning of the movie, but like many things in The Good Son, he lost his strength throughout. At the end, he really did not convince me anymore.
All in all, I think more could have been done with the potentially interesting theme of this movie. You don't necessarily have to make a thriller out of it; you could also focus on it being a drama, but The Good Son tried to do both and unfortunately it failed on both sides. It wasn't scary enough, it wasn't dramatic enough.
I just can not give it more than a 5 out of 10.
Though one of the story lines focuses on what Henry has done to Richard, throughout the whole movie it seems like Henry's behavior was only coming out when Mark came in to the picture. No-one seemed to have noticed anything weird about him before, not even his little sister. Now, a sociopath can be very manipulative, and they are often charming people, but one would say that his sadistic strikes would not have been totally unnoticed, especially towards his sister. It's not completely unbelievable though when you see Mark as the trigger, suddenly being competition for Henry, as Richard was, so OK, the movie can get away with that.
What I think was less forgiving was that the movie was all just far too predictable. Watching the mother standing where she liked to come to rest; you do not need to be psychic to understand that this is the place for the final part. To me; all the clues in the movie were far too obvious. It just never surprised me. An other thing is that it lacked in depth. All the elements are there, but it never goes deep. It's like a bow with the potential for a good shot, but the archer just doesn't pull the string back enough to give it real power.
The acting was mediocre, though I was pretty impressed by a young Elijah Wood. His big eyes are gorgeous, and his acting, compared to that of Macaulay Culkin, really stood out. Elijah was the one carrying this movie and I'm glad they put him in the role of Mark, and not Macaulay. Macaulay did a reasonable job, especially at the beginning of the movie, but like many things in The Good Son, he lost his strength throughout. At the end, he really did not convince me anymore.
All in all, I think more could have been done with the potentially interesting theme of this movie. You don't necessarily have to make a thriller out of it; you could also focus on it being a drama, but The Good Son tried to do both and unfortunately it failed on both sides. It wasn't scary enough, it wasn't dramatic enough.
I just can not give it more than a 5 out of 10.
A REAL CLIFF HANGER OF A FLICK !!
whpratt122 April 2004
This film kept my eyes glued to the screen from beginning to end. Macaulay Culkin,(Henry Evans),"Party Monsters",'03, gave one of his best performances and really showed his great talents which made you hate him through out the entire picture. Henry had to share his home with a young boy who had recently lost his mother and was in deep depression, he was the son of David Morse,(Jack),"Hack",TV Series, 02, who had to leave him with his brothers family. All hell breaks loose after the two young boys get to know each other. If you viewed the film the "Bad Seed", you will have some idea what the story is about. It is a real nail biting film and makes you crazy trying to figure out just how the story will END! If you love Macaulay Culkin, this is his best FILM !
What if 'Kevin McCallister' became evil?
Atreyu_II5 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
We all know that the character Kevin McCallister gets angry with his family twice and that he makes lives miserable for the bandits Harry and Marv. Kevin is, however, a good kid. This is what Kevin could be like if he was evil. Why do I say this? Because the diabolic kid of this film is portrayed by the same boy, Macaulay Culkin. If Kevin was like this, he would have killed his family and Harry and Marv...
Ironically, the movie's title refers precisely to Culkin's character instead of Elijah Wood's character (who really is the good son). And why is that? Put it this way: because that's the image his family and people in general have of him and because they don't know his disturbing nature.
Mac shows his other side as an actor - that is, his "dark side". And he is excellent as Henry, a child who can be described as a sociopath, a psychopath, a cold-blooded murderer and mentally ill. Henry is also a perfect actor - he manages to keep his true nature in secret because of his angelical looks and apparent love and respect for the family and others. This is a completely different role for Mac, setting it apart from the others and leaving behind his 'Home Alone' image.
Mac, who we are more used to see as a comedy actor with a beautiful smile, here he does some extremely cold facial expressions of dark jealousy. His character Henry also displays aggressive and violent behavior, as we see in some scenes.
Elijah Wood is great as Mark. Here we see a younger Elijah Wood (when he was a kid), years before 'becoming' Frodo Baggins. Elijah was a cute kid too. Quinn Culkin is equally good as Connie and she was cute too.
This film is quite short, which is a good thing. But it shares the same problem of 'Mikey': we never really get to know how did Henry become so bad. We have an idea when he says «It was mine before it was his» (refering to the rubber duck) and that he became very jealous of his brother Richard and killed him, but is that all? I doubt that's all.
It's always shocking to see a child doing the horrible things that Henry does, but this movie is considerably less violent comparing to 'Mikey'. Henry is also less dangerous than Mikey, but don't get me wrong - that doesn't mean that Henry isn't dangerous - he is. It's like they say for this movie - «Evil has many faces» - and the headline for 'Mikey' could be applied here as well - «With evil, size doesn't matter».
The ending is an unexpected surprise for those who watch this for the first time. Henry pays for all his crimes by being dropped off a high cliff and then we see his dead body being swept away by the sea waves.
The soundtrack is entirely instrumental and consists of beautiful and soft pieces of music. Plus, the sceneries of this movie are a must. We see many beautiful settings and landscapes full of snow (this takes place somewhere in Winter time). Not to mention that Henry's house is lovely.
Overall, an okay movie, but not one with enough attributes to become a "classic".
Ironically, the movie's title refers precisely to Culkin's character instead of Elijah Wood's character (who really is the good son). And why is that? Put it this way: because that's the image his family and people in general have of him and because they don't know his disturbing nature.
Mac shows his other side as an actor - that is, his "dark side". And he is excellent as Henry, a child who can be described as a sociopath, a psychopath, a cold-blooded murderer and mentally ill. Henry is also a perfect actor - he manages to keep his true nature in secret because of his angelical looks and apparent love and respect for the family and others. This is a completely different role for Mac, setting it apart from the others and leaving behind his 'Home Alone' image.
Mac, who we are more used to see as a comedy actor with a beautiful smile, here he does some extremely cold facial expressions of dark jealousy. His character Henry also displays aggressive and violent behavior, as we see in some scenes.
Elijah Wood is great as Mark. Here we see a younger Elijah Wood (when he was a kid), years before 'becoming' Frodo Baggins. Elijah was a cute kid too. Quinn Culkin is equally good as Connie and she was cute too.
This film is quite short, which is a good thing. But it shares the same problem of 'Mikey': we never really get to know how did Henry become so bad. We have an idea when he says «It was mine before it was his» (refering to the rubber duck) and that he became very jealous of his brother Richard and killed him, but is that all? I doubt that's all.
It's always shocking to see a child doing the horrible things that Henry does, but this movie is considerably less violent comparing to 'Mikey'. Henry is also less dangerous than Mikey, but don't get me wrong - that doesn't mean that Henry isn't dangerous - he is. It's like they say for this movie - «Evil has many faces» - and the headline for 'Mikey' could be applied here as well - «With evil, size doesn't matter».
The ending is an unexpected surprise for those who watch this for the first time. Henry pays for all his crimes by being dropped off a high cliff and then we see his dead body being swept away by the sea waves.
The soundtrack is entirely instrumental and consists of beautiful and soft pieces of music. Plus, the sceneries of this movie are a must. We see many beautiful settings and landscapes full of snow (this takes place somewhere in Winter time). Not to mention that Henry's house is lovely.
Overall, an okay movie, but not one with enough attributes to become a "classic".
Taking aside the novelty of seeing Macaulay Culkin in an R-Rated thriller, The Good Son is a mostly unremarkable and often preposterous genre exercise
IonicBreezeMachine14 September 2023
Still mourning the loss of his mother, Mark Evans (Elijah Wood) is sent to live with his aunt Susan (Wendy Crewson) and uncle Wallace (Daniel Hugh Kelly) as his father Jack (David Morse) must travel to Tokyo to secure a business deal. Mark quickly befriends his cousins Connie (Quinn Culkin) and Henry (Macaulay Culkin), with both Mark and Henry often engaging in excursions that skirt the line of acceptable. However, as Mark takes notice of Henry's sadistic tendencies that grow more and more extreme, Mark tries to find a way to stop Henry's impulses before they kill any one.
The Good Son was the brainchild of English writer Ian McEwan who was invited by 20th Century Fox following the publication of McEwan's novel The Child in Time with McEwan assigned to write something on the nature of evil with a possible focus on children. McEwan wrote the screenplay which was well received by Fox but deemed insufficiently commercial and the screenplay was floated to various parties until producer Mary Ann Page picked it up independently and tried to get it setup in the late 80s at Universal Studios only for the project to collapse due to lack of funding. Following the success of both Home Alone and the Silence of the Lambs, Fox chose to revisit the project which they now believed to be more viable given audience reception to movie's focused on children as well as more extreme forms of thrills. Macaulay Culkin's father and business manager Kit Culkin got wind of the project and used his clout to get Macaulay the role as Henry Evans believing a darker role would strengthen his viability and made his casting contingent in the film contingent for his return to Home Alone 2 which Fox agreed. Upon release the film performed modestly making $60 million worldwide against an estimated $17-28 million budget while critical reception skewed predominantly negative with many critical of Macaulay Culkin's casting as a killer given his prominence in Home Alone. There's an underlying idea behind The Good Son, it's just buried by some rather hokey excess that doesn't mine it all that well.
Given that the film was released at the zenith of domestic thrillers and home invasion thrillers popularized by the likes of Fatal Attraction and a wake of similar films like Sleeping with the Enemy, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, and Misery just to name a few, The Good Son follows many of those conventions of the genre to a "T" with the main difference being the focus on child characters rather than adults. I will say that Elijah Wood is really good in the role of Mark and even though it's not especially well written and requires him to say some clunky lines, it's a testament to Wood's charisma as an actors that the movie's as watchable as it is. I also rather liked Quinn Culkin as his cousin Connie and the two have some good scenes together. Most of the adult actors aren't given much presence in the story and really only exist to serve as mechanisms in the plot, but Wendy Crewson does have some decent scenes with Elijah Wood with him looking to her (rather blatantly and without nuance) as a surrogate mother figure. This brings us to Macaulay Culkin himself as the villain and a major reason why this movie doesn't work. Between Joseph Ruben's overwrought direction, Ian McEwan's clunky overly "poetic" screenplay, and Culkin's slightly overly precocious delivery that worked in Home Alone but is distracting here, the character of Henry feels really off in a manner that breaks the immersion of this premise. Culkin and the material treats Henry as a borderline cackling supervillain and because the rest of the movie tries to be more grounded (relatively) it feels really out of place especially when you have Culkin saying things like "don't be afraid to fly Mark" that feels incredibly forced coming from this character.
While I disagree with the controversy surrounding this movie when it first came out stemming from the thought "Macaulay Culkin shouldn't do movies like this because he was in Home Alone", I can agree it's not a very good movie. While there are occasional moments that do work, the actual thriller aspects of this film are so cartoonishly over the top that it finds itself unfavorably compared against the glut of similar films of the time. There's plenty of "evil kid" movies that have done this movie better (see The Bad Seed for instance) so the only reason to see this would be the novelty of early 90s Macaulay Culkin playing a violent slightly foul mouthed sociopath.
The Good Son was the brainchild of English writer Ian McEwan who was invited by 20th Century Fox following the publication of McEwan's novel The Child in Time with McEwan assigned to write something on the nature of evil with a possible focus on children. McEwan wrote the screenplay which was well received by Fox but deemed insufficiently commercial and the screenplay was floated to various parties until producer Mary Ann Page picked it up independently and tried to get it setup in the late 80s at Universal Studios only for the project to collapse due to lack of funding. Following the success of both Home Alone and the Silence of the Lambs, Fox chose to revisit the project which they now believed to be more viable given audience reception to movie's focused on children as well as more extreme forms of thrills. Macaulay Culkin's father and business manager Kit Culkin got wind of the project and used his clout to get Macaulay the role as Henry Evans believing a darker role would strengthen his viability and made his casting contingent in the film contingent for his return to Home Alone 2 which Fox agreed. Upon release the film performed modestly making $60 million worldwide against an estimated $17-28 million budget while critical reception skewed predominantly negative with many critical of Macaulay Culkin's casting as a killer given his prominence in Home Alone. There's an underlying idea behind The Good Son, it's just buried by some rather hokey excess that doesn't mine it all that well.
Given that the film was released at the zenith of domestic thrillers and home invasion thrillers popularized by the likes of Fatal Attraction and a wake of similar films like Sleeping with the Enemy, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, and Misery just to name a few, The Good Son follows many of those conventions of the genre to a "T" with the main difference being the focus on child characters rather than adults. I will say that Elijah Wood is really good in the role of Mark and even though it's not especially well written and requires him to say some clunky lines, it's a testament to Wood's charisma as an actors that the movie's as watchable as it is. I also rather liked Quinn Culkin as his cousin Connie and the two have some good scenes together. Most of the adult actors aren't given much presence in the story and really only exist to serve as mechanisms in the plot, but Wendy Crewson does have some decent scenes with Elijah Wood with him looking to her (rather blatantly and without nuance) as a surrogate mother figure. This brings us to Macaulay Culkin himself as the villain and a major reason why this movie doesn't work. Between Joseph Ruben's overwrought direction, Ian McEwan's clunky overly "poetic" screenplay, and Culkin's slightly overly precocious delivery that worked in Home Alone but is distracting here, the character of Henry feels really off in a manner that breaks the immersion of this premise. Culkin and the material treats Henry as a borderline cackling supervillain and because the rest of the movie tries to be more grounded (relatively) it feels really out of place especially when you have Culkin saying things like "don't be afraid to fly Mark" that feels incredibly forced coming from this character.
While I disagree with the controversy surrounding this movie when it first came out stemming from the thought "Macaulay Culkin shouldn't do movies like this because he was in Home Alone", I can agree it's not a very good movie. While there are occasional moments that do work, the actual thriller aspects of this film are so cartoonishly over the top that it finds itself unfavorably compared against the glut of similar films of the time. There's plenty of "evil kid" movies that have done this movie better (see The Bad Seed for instance) so the only reason to see this would be the novelty of early 90s Macaulay Culkin playing a violent slightly foul mouthed sociopath.
Macaulay Culkin's best performance and film.
Dale-3127 October 1998
This is Macaulay Culkin's best film. He was very creepy as the young boy with a black heart. The dialogue was great. I truly admired the performance of Elijah Wood, emerging as one of the best young actors around. This film has so much suspense, by the end, I was very exhausted.
The Good Son was a good movie in my opinion. Still, it's no kid movie. .
ironhorse_iv2 August 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is one of my guilty pleasure. I just love the inner battle between two of the best child actors of the 1990's. Both, Macaulay Culkin and Elijah Woods are wonderful in the roles, they play in this film. Some critics might hate this movie because of the controversy of having the 1990's Home Alone play such an evil role. I didn't mind, because it's shows how great Macaulay Culkin can act. Who knew that the Home Alone kid could be so creepy? And the horrid part is that he looked so natural playing a scheming, serial-killing kid. Directed by Joseph Ruben, the movie starts with 12-year-old Mark Evan (Elijah Wood) having to move to Maine to stay with his Uncle Wallace (Daniel Hugh Kelly) and Aunt Susan (Wendy Crewson) after one of his parents has die, and the other is on an oversea trip. While, there he meets with their son, Henry (Macaulay Culkin). They slowly become good friends, but after a series of sinister acts by Henry, Mark starts to question their friendship as he thinks that Henry might be more dangerous than what he seems. Too bad, that none of the adults believe him. Elijah Wood is just amazing actor when he was younger. He is a winner early on in his career and the proof is in this role. His eyes convey such fear and concern that you really feel his performance is for real. The two stars have great chemistry together. They work with each other so well, I thought this story could have been a real life story. Trust me, why the movie might not seem real. I heard news stories of very evil children doing awful things to each other, without the adults knowing. So it's not so far fetch like some critics panned it to be. The settling in Maine, makes it seem like the movie was written by Stephen King. Surprising it wasn't. A tie-in novel was published alongside the movie's release in 1993, written by Todd Strasser. That explain more about Henry's backstory. The book also concludes differently from the movie that interesting to read. The screen writing by Ian McEwan might be a bit over the top and pretty exaggerated in the film. Even if a child is a sociopath, it still has a child's vocabulary, intelligence, etc. Just being a sociopath doesn't mean you sound like Hannibal Lecter right from the womb. Also, they tend to master the art of acting and sounding normal, which is how they make their way through life without people cluing in. Granted Henry is pretty young and may not have learned those skills yet, but this movie really stretches reality with how obviously unsettled he is and the fact that even people trained to recognize a disturbed child can't see him. The actions he did doesn't seem too far from what an evil child might have done. It's hammed up, but it's no different from any other evil bad seed film like 2009's Orphan and 1956's Bad Seed. Yes, the film was inappropriate for children, but it never was for kids. It's a thriller, and a scary movie. So for Robert Ebert to call the film a creepy, unpleasant experience. I think the movie did its purpose. It's not supposed to make you feel lovely, it's a horror movie. I don't understand why people think this movie is any different than other horror films. At less, this horror movie was smart. I love the final action scene at the end of the cliffs. In my opinion, it's one of my favorite fight scenes in the 1990s. It's get more intense, when a hard choice was given to one of the main characters. I wouldn't spoil it for you. The music by Elmer Bernstein was chilling and works for the intense moments. In my opinion, this R film isn't that bad. Yes, it has children fighting, harsh language, and smoking, but it's not as gory as 1984's Children of the Corn, and 1976's the Omen. This movie could had been rated PG-13 with a few edits. The DVD transfer is good. So it's worth finding this movie, it's has a lot of DVD extras worth checking out. Overall: This film isn't for the faint of heart conservative watchers. You have to open to anything, even if it's seems odd for a child to act this way. Once you get pass that, you will realize that this movie isn't as bad as what some critics say it is. You find yourself, cheering Elijah Wood on with this thriller as the story takes you in. You find out that the film is badly overlook and panned by critics just angry because at the time Culkin was American darling at the time and they believe that he shouldn't play a bad seed at the time. It's like watching 1930's horror movie with Shirley Temple as an evil daughter. People are just typecasting the child actor to only family friendly roles. The Good Son is a rare gem of a horror movie that needs to be check out again. It's a good movie, and it's good enough for me.
Good Son - Good Movie
gggggeorge3 September 2004
It's interesting to see how many people HATED this movie. I have to assume they were repulsed by the ending.
Mr. Caulkin has always been kind of a dry actor. It worked in Home Alone, and it's okay here, but if I were casting, I would have kept looking.
The plot builds well, it's kind of fun, and it sets up for the ending perfectly.
Fair action, movement, and mischief. If you fell asleep you have a medical problem.
The cinematography and settings are GORGEOUS!
Highly recommended, but if you don't like the ending, it doesn't mean that the whole film sucked.
Mr. Caulkin has always been kind of a dry actor. It worked in Home Alone, and it's okay here, but if I were casting, I would have kept looking.
The plot builds well, it's kind of fun, and it sets up for the ending perfectly.
Fair action, movement, and mischief. If you fell asleep you have a medical problem.
The cinematography and settings are GORGEOUS!
Highly recommended, but if you don't like the ending, it doesn't mean that the whole film sucked.
"If I let you go, do you think you could fly?"
Hey_Sweden17 February 2020
Young Mark (Elijah Wood) is reeling from the recent death of his beloved mother (Ashley Crow), and although he doesn't want to do it, his dad Jack (David Morse) leaves him in the care of relatives. Marks' uncle Wallace (Daniel Hugh Kelly) and aunt Susan (Wendy Crewson) are good people, but unfortunately they've sired a monster, Marks' sociopathic cousin Henry (Macaulay Culkin). Henry spends most of the movie convincing every adult in sight that he's this perfect little angel, while in reality he's a cold-blooded creep who does nasty things for fun. As a viewer can see, Henry IS a master manipulator.
This has been referred to by wits over the years as "Kit Culkins' The Good Son", due to the fact that Macs' father was a truly vile "stage parent" who demanded that his son headline this feature, otherwise no Mac in "Home Alone 2". While one would feel sympathy for Mac, having to live with a father like that, the fact remains that Mac is too bland as this 1990s male update of "The Bad Seed", failing to project any real menace. Wood is far and away the better actor, and is more appealing, to boot. The adults are fine - if playing characters who expectedly remain clueless until near the end. Macs' sister Quinn plays his sibling (in her only film role); his younger brother Rory (who's had his own decent acting career) can be seen in a key photograph. Crewson has the most interesting moment to work with in the film, as she must make a choice at the finale.
The film is capably guided by Joseph Ruben, who replaced the original director after that person left the project. Ruben of course had experience with a familial-themed thriller, the memorable 1980s sleeper "The Stepfather". He just doesn't have a star as commanding as Terry O'Quinn here.
All in all, this isn't a total waste of time. It moves QUICK, cutting right to the meat & potatoes of Ian McEwans' script, and runs a mere 87 minutes. It also has a lovely Elmer Bernstein score and excellent photography (John Lindley was the D.P., Peter Norman the camera operator). If you think you might enjoy this, don't be put off by the R rating, which seems to have been earned for one simple F-bomb uttered by Mac; violence and gore are minimal. It's filmed at breathtaking locations that are mostly in Massachusetts.
A classic case of "could have been better, could have been worse".
Six out of 10.
This has been referred to by wits over the years as "Kit Culkins' The Good Son", due to the fact that Macs' father was a truly vile "stage parent" who demanded that his son headline this feature, otherwise no Mac in "Home Alone 2". While one would feel sympathy for Mac, having to live with a father like that, the fact remains that Mac is too bland as this 1990s male update of "The Bad Seed", failing to project any real menace. Wood is far and away the better actor, and is more appealing, to boot. The adults are fine - if playing characters who expectedly remain clueless until near the end. Macs' sister Quinn plays his sibling (in her only film role); his younger brother Rory (who's had his own decent acting career) can be seen in a key photograph. Crewson has the most interesting moment to work with in the film, as she must make a choice at the finale.
The film is capably guided by Joseph Ruben, who replaced the original director after that person left the project. Ruben of course had experience with a familial-themed thriller, the memorable 1980s sleeper "The Stepfather". He just doesn't have a star as commanding as Terry O'Quinn here.
All in all, this isn't a total waste of time. It moves QUICK, cutting right to the meat & potatoes of Ian McEwans' script, and runs a mere 87 minutes. It also has a lovely Elmer Bernstein score and excellent photography (John Lindley was the D.P., Peter Norman the camera operator). If you think you might enjoy this, don't be put off by the R rating, which seems to have been earned for one simple F-bomb uttered by Mac; violence and gore are minimal. It's filmed at breathtaking locations that are mostly in Massachusetts.
A classic case of "could have been better, could have been worse".
Six out of 10.
Always liked this one
Horror_Junkie_6079 January 2022
Dark
nqmtxp31 December 2022
Not sure why this film has such a low rating on this site!
I remember watching this as a kid myself and was freaked out! I saw it on Prime and decided to re watch now as a grown adult.
This film is still as messed up as it was! It's not cheesy by any means.
The acting was great by both of them. To think they were so young and did so great!
A lot of people are in denial that kids can be evil, but they have to start somewhere right!?
This was the first film I I have seen where the psychopath is a child and not an adult! That concept was so scary but it gives you an inside look into an evil mind that young.
Movie deserves better rating than this. For being a film in the 90s it definitely holds up!
I remember watching this as a kid myself and was freaked out! I saw it on Prime and decided to re watch now as a grown adult.
This film is still as messed up as it was! It's not cheesy by any means.
The acting was great by both of them. To think they were so young and did so great!
A lot of people are in denial that kids can be evil, but they have to start somewhere right!?
This was the first film I I have seen where the psychopath is a child and not an adult! That concept was so scary but it gives you an inside look into an evil mind that young.
Movie deserves better rating than this. For being a film in the 90s it definitely holds up!
New home, new addition and certainly not alone
kosmasp25 February 2021
Culkin allegedly was forced upon this movie, as I read after watching the movie. This had quite the repercussions (director and other-wise). That aside, this is the movie of Elijah Wood. He really is good (no pun intended), which once again cannot be said about Culkins character. Not sure what you think of his Home Alone movies (he was in the first two), but this really is very obvious ... just not to the adults.
And when I say obvious, you can see where this is heading, so quite predictable. Still the performances overall (even that of Culkin, whatever you may think of his pale delivery) really elevate the whole movie to another level. And that ending ... I have to admit, that took quite the ... well I didn't expect it to go down like that, let me put it that way - pun intended. Evil can lurk anywhere, this certainly isn't made for the easily offended amongst us ...
And when I say obvious, you can see where this is heading, so quite predictable. Still the performances overall (even that of Culkin, whatever you may think of his pale delivery) really elevate the whole movie to another level. And that ending ... I have to admit, that took quite the ... well I didn't expect it to go down like that, let me put it that way - pun intended. Evil can lurk anywhere, this certainly isn't made for the easily offended amongst us ...
A good case for birth control
spfi21 February 2002
One of the movies featured in Roger Eberts book 'I Hate This Movie'! was 'The Good Son'. Well, I hated it too. An in-effective thriller with demented little Culkin on the rampage to kill off his family. One of the major flaws is no real explanation is given as to why he wants to be so bad. It was easy to see why Culkin would never move on to anything big after the brief 'Home Alone' fame. Oh well.......thats show biz!
There's nothing I'd change about this film. This is an underrated gem
kevin_robbins29 October 2021
The Good Son (1993) is a movie I recently rewatched on Tubi. The storyline follows a young man who recently lost his mother. His father needs to go on a business trip and thinks it would be good for the boy to stay with his aunt and uncle and their two kids near his age. The young boy of the aunt and uncle has some curiosities that ar first seem fun to both cousins but get morbid quick. This movie is directed by Joseph Ruben (Dreamscape) and stars Macaulay Culkin (Home Alone), Elijah Wood (Lord of the Rings), David Morse (The Green Mile) and Wendy Crewson (Air Force One). The storyline for this is absolutely brilliant and perfectly delivered. The character development for both families is well established. The cast delivers awesome performances, especially Wood and Culkin. The script is very good and helps establish how menacing and ruthless Culkin is in the film. The action scenes are excellent and as ruthless as Culkin's dialogue. The is a film you get mesmerized by the characters and understand how the truth would be impossible to believe by the parents only making matters worse. The conclusion of this film is classic and sheer perfection. There's nothing I'd change about this film. This is an underrated gem I'd score a 9/10.
Could have been better
preppy-326 April 2003
Mark (Elijah Wood), still grieving over his mothers death, goes to live with cousins in Maine while his father takes care of business. One of his cousins is a boy his age, Henry (Macaulay Culkin). Henry turns out to be a psychopath and is determined to do anything to stop Mark from telling anyone else.
This movie originally had a different director attached to it who (understandably) did not want Culkin in it. Culkins' father made it clear that if Macaulay didn't get this movie he wouldn't do "Home Alone 2". So, the studio bowed to pressure--the original director quit--and Culkin destroys what could have been a great movie. As we now know, Macaulay was treated like dirt by his father and forced into projects, so he can't be blamed for this entirely. Still he's just lousy. He says all his lines in a monotone and has a blank look on his face all through the movie. He really weighs this movie down. Still, this isn't totally worthless.
It's well-directed; contains three very good performances by Wood, Wendy Crewson and David Morse; has just beautiful locations (most filmed in Cape Ann, MA) and has a lush, sweeping music score. Also it seems to have been cut down to its bare bones--it's only 84 minutes long--and moves very quickly.
Still, I can only give it a 6 because of Culkin. That's too bad.
Also, it doesn't really deserve the R rating. There's no nudity, sex, very little swearing and all the violence is off screen.
This movie originally had a different director attached to it who (understandably) did not want Culkin in it. Culkins' father made it clear that if Macaulay didn't get this movie he wouldn't do "Home Alone 2". So, the studio bowed to pressure--the original director quit--and Culkin destroys what could have been a great movie. As we now know, Macaulay was treated like dirt by his father and forced into projects, so he can't be blamed for this entirely. Still he's just lousy. He says all his lines in a monotone and has a blank look on his face all through the movie. He really weighs this movie down. Still, this isn't totally worthless.
It's well-directed; contains three very good performances by Wood, Wendy Crewson and David Morse; has just beautiful locations (most filmed in Cape Ann, MA) and has a lush, sweeping music score. Also it seems to have been cut down to its bare bones--it's only 84 minutes long--and moves very quickly.
Still, I can only give it a 6 because of Culkin. That's too bad.
Also, it doesn't really deserve the R rating. There's no nudity, sex, very little swearing and all the violence is off screen.
Predictable uninspired writing
The_nibs10 April 2020
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was a bomb. I thought it would be way more entertaining but my husband and I were surprised at just how bad it is. It's beyond predictable, have you ever seen a movie that tells you exactly what's going to happen before it happens? That's The Good Son for you. You can't feel suspense or be shocked at the outcomes when the dialogue gives everything away; for instance, Henry tells Mark he's going to hurt his sister so then he does, he tells Mark the sights off on his homemade gun implying he will succeed the next time he uses it and then does so shortly thereafter, he gives away the obvious possibility that he killed his kid brother within the first half hour of the movie. There's no craft to this writing, it comes off as incredibly lazy. Beyond that, there's a complete lack of believability too, like how no one intervened at the ice rink, they waited for two guys to show up with axes a little while later, or when the psychiatrist discusses Mark with Henry violating his privacy and abandoning their session for no reason? Like what professional would do any of the things she does? Why does Mark not put two and two together when dumping the dummy off the bridge? It would be more believable if he had been forced to do it against his will rather than just going along with it because he didn't know what was happening. The parents are terrible and don't even listen to Mark when he talks, they ignore him, it feels so cheap and forced. Also the bond between Mark and Henry feels unearned, there's no chemistry between them, when Henry does something evil it's not shocking or a betrayal of his character because they took no time to establish his character in the first place! And the ending is painfully lame. We kept talking about what should have happened throughout the film. The reveal that Henry killed Richard which technically never really happens, should've been way more intense than it was, and in the end she shouldn't have had to choose between her son and nephew. I imagine the ending like this: a cruel Henry admits to the murder outright, the shock would paralyze his mother, he tries to push her off the cliff but he fails and falls himself, while his mother tries to save him. She drops him in disgust Mark at best should've been looking on helplessly while being unable to reach them. So many missed opportunities with this film.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
