L.I.E. (2001) User Reviews

Disturbing insight into the underbelly of society

[RichardvonLust · 8/10 · 1 February 2012]

Big John is a 50 something ex US marine who lives with Scott, a youth of about 18 in a smart suburban villa somewhere in Oregon. He holds parties for middle aged folk at home and is nagged by his aged mum to look after his health. He was in love with girl when he was young but never married citing the reason that all women are 'maneaters'. Although Scott has his own room they sometimes sleep together and in his private moments Big John looks at internet pictures of young teen-aged boys.

Big John isn't strictly a pedophile as no prepubescent children are involved in his life but he certainly appears to be a pederast. He cruises the local pick up zone where teen-aged male prostitutes ply their trade offering blow jobs behind a road sign for a few bucks. And there he meets 16 year old Gary, a good looking local tearaway and hustler who also burgles houses with his school mates for extra cash.

Gary isn't necessarily gay but he uses his looks and charm to best advantage. Accordingly he is the object of adoration by 15 year old Howard, a gay school mate, who dreams of running off with Gary to a romantic life together in California.

But their plans and dreams must change when they decide to rob Big John of his prized antique revolvers - and the ex marine quickly discovers their guilt.

The subsequent drama is beautifully intense without being heavy. And most of all it raises essential questions about the true nature of pederasts and the boys they befriend. Who is exploiting who? Who is the real victim of this sadly common circumstance? Are pederasts always evil? What exactly are the real motives of Big John, Gary, Scott and Howard? And who is the villain? The film ends very suddenly with an emotional shock. And it is our personal feelings towards the characters after that shock which seems to be the whole point of the movie. Well recommended for all - and particularly for parents of teen-aged boys with crushes on other boys.

How to Get Off the Lanes Going Straight to Hell

[wes-connors · 8/10 · 2 May 2010]

Fifteen-year-old Paul Franklin Dano (as Howard "Howie" Blitzer) lives in a cool suburban house, in a nice community near New York's "L.I.E." (Long Island Expressway). He's recently lost his mother to an Expressway crash, and doesn't seem to be dealing with the loss well. Neither is distant father Bruce Altman (as Marty), in trouble with the law for white-collar crimes. Young Mr. Dano is attracted to sexy Billy Kay (as Gary Terrio), but Mr. Kay is reluctant to start a relationship with his inexperienced pal.

Instead, Dano joins Kay in house burglaries, with incestuous James Costa (as Kevin Cole) and hetero stud Tony Michael Donnelly (as Brian). One of the homes they hit belongs to boy-trolling ex-Marine Brian Cox (as "Big John" Harrigan). Apparently, Mr. Cox is having trouble maintaining interest in aging boy-toy Walter Masterson (as Scotty). After Kay books for California alone, and Dano's father is arrested, he finds not only the sexual stimulation missing from Kay, but also a father figure, with the older Cox.

Due to the subject matter, this was obviously a controversial film. It contains what they call "strong language," but nothing offensive is explicitly shown. It's a tribute to director Michael Cuesta that such a fuss seems to have been made - at one point, the film was labeled NC-17 - because, Mr. Cuesta tells the story with implicit effectiveness. Editing and cross-cutting are used well. Cuesta and his cast deservedly won awards for their work. Still, nobody's perfect, and only an idiot would visibly trick behind that sign.

"Welcome to Long Island" Dano begins the "L.I.E." story by saying, "You got the lanes going east, you got the lanes going west. You also got the lanes going straight to hell." The ending, with Mr. Masterson, is an old story, but unexpectedly uplifting in this context (only).

******** L.I.E. (1/20/01) Michael Cuesta ~ Paul Dano, Brian Cox, Billy Kay, Walter Masterson

A Film About Consequences

[hobbitonroad · 8/10 · 23 June 2002]

This is a great little film about consequences. Howie is a typically confused but bright middle class kid with a one dimensional father and lug-nuts for friends. This film explores the soft underbelly of middle class Long Island, as well as the consequences that are borne as a result. Howie's explorations for attention lead him dangerously close to a pedophile who is more than willing to play "dad" to the affection starved teen. The low-budget aspects of this movie are not distracting, and though the subject matter is raw, the scenes are handled with taste. The film is kept honest through some thoughtful provocation, and the audience is kept honest as well. This film should be seen by parents of teens, and especially seen by anyone who is a father.

Realistic, pulls no punches.

[NJ_jimcat · 19 July 2002]

This story rings true because it's something that happens in the real world all the time, whether people want to admit it or not. The film captures events and emotions that are complex, challenging, and confusing.

Howie, a young, intelligent, good-looking boy attracts attention from the same sex and isn't sure how he feels about it. He meets "Big John", and finds himself fascinated and impressed by the man's life, flattered and a bit scared at the attention he shows, and also somewhat repulsed by the man's attraction for young boys.

John, for his part, begins the relationship from a position he's quite familiar with: using his power as a worldly and canny adult to manipulate someone else. He feels physically attracted to Howie, but as they spend more time together, he sees the depth of the boy's character and a sensitivity similar to his own. Howie brings out the good side in John (and some people may be shocked that the film shows how a pedophile can have a "good side", but this is reality and it is well depicted).

Howie's feelings are excellently illustrated as they run a wide spectrum: confused, repulsed, lonely, defiant, confident, aroused, at times even suicidal. I empathized with and admired the character, and found myself rooting strongly for him to rise above the tragic and frustrating circumstances in which he found himself. In the end I felt a sense of triumph as we saw that, despite his unfortunate situation and his own flaws and weaknesses, he does possess the strength and character to face the world and become his own person.

Men from the Boys: A Prelude

[nycritic · 7/10 · 21 November 2006]

Michael Cuesta's debut film, L.I.E. is impressive in many ways, none of them having anything to do with a cinematic value as much as the willingness to shock the audience with a story that seems lifted from the pages of a collection of gay erotica. (Not that this is a bad thing.) It tells the story of a teenager, Howie (Paul Dano), and his elliptical path which takes -- or lets say, wrenches -- him away from the pretend security of his own home after his father (Bruce Altman) is discovered to be involved in shady business and plants him squarely in the path of John "Big John" Harrigan (Brian Cox), an ex-marine who has a penchant for young boys and who holds a position of almost revered admiration from everyone in the Long Island town where he lives. The two of them have met before, several times as a matter of fact, the first time being in a less-than-welcome way: Howie's blind attraction to a kid his own age, Gary (Billy Kay), who holds a dangerous reputation as being a little too solicitous with other men (indeed, early in the movie Howie's father lets him know he doesn't like Gary because "he smiles too much") leads to an incident where Gary steals two of Big John's prized guns. Big John, wanting to recover the guns (and probably knowing Gary has them) puts Howie in the delicate position of having to retrieve them from Gary at the same time Gary, no one's friend, breaks into Howie's house and steals his father's stashed money. With Gary gone and his home in a moral shambles, Howie becomes the protégée of sorts to Big John who expresses an uneasy attraction not based in sex (while politely asking his latest boy-toy (Walter Masterson) to stay a couple of nights in the nearest motel -- what a nice guy!). Interesting to note that Howie is the one who tries on several occasions to seduce Big John, one time resolving to quote a passage from Walt Whitman. It's not a bad film -- Brian Cox does manage to give his character a belated sense of sympathy -- but somehow, the story feels too open-ended, much like the motif of the Long Island Expressway that goes from East to West and could land Howie anywhere within the state of New York. However, it is daring and filmed without an exploitative hand and because of this, L.I.E. is better than its material and the times we live in would ultimately let it be.

Sexual Honesty

[racedowling · 9/10 · 22 February 2006]

As a sexuality educator I was impressed by the straightforward, nonjudgmental nature of a rather difficult topic. I vacillated between giving this film an 8 or a 9 and decided on 9 because we need more films like this. This topic requires understanding, not acceptance mind you, but real honest understanding. The very fact that it was given an nc-17 rating is part of the problem with our society. There was about as much sex as I've seen in R or even PG-13 movies, the rating was obviously ONLY because of the uncomfortable subject matter. How can society solve a problem that it clearly does not even want to talk about, let alone understand?

Pedophiles aren't such bad joes!

[plonty_2000 · 7/10 · 28 June 2002]

This movie isn't too bad. It's one of those movies that tries to shock the average viewer with its casual approach towards taboo subjects (one of the characters is a kid who brags and jokes about actually having intercourse with his sister, which is so calculated to offend that it just seems dumb), kind of in the vein of "Kids" but a bit more plot-oriented. What saves it from being just some annoying look-at-me-I'm-scary-and-gross independent film is Brian Cox as Big John, who elicits just about every emotion possible from the viewer. I've said "viewer" twice already in this little write-up, and I'm very annoyed. Viewer viewer viewer-riffic! Viewer! So Brian Cox is great; in an early scene with Howie, the protagonist, he confronts him in the front seat of a car, and it's beyond uncomfortable. You have no idea what the guy is going to do, and that's a pretty rare attribute for most movie characters. Overall the acting is good, quite good really. The kids in it aren't annoying even when they're given potentially annoying things to say and do, and there's a lot of good little moments. The ending is not the best, but not bad enough to ruin the entire movie. I guess this was NC-17 just for the overall theme, because the language is pretty standard for your basic R-rated movie, and the pedophile stuff, apart from some graphic talk, isn't thrown in your face or anything. Not bad.

Brilliant and daring

[zetes · 9/10 · 22 June 2002]

It's shocking that this film was ever made. You don't often get characters this well written in American independent cinema, and you certainly don't get characters who are pedophiles portrayed with this much thought behind them. Todd Solondz's Happiness can only be partially counted, as that pedophilic character was played half as comedy (very daring in its way, as well). Brian Cox gives the performance of a lifetime with this character - you won't entirely understand how perfect he is or how perfectly written he is until you see it. Any expectation you can come up with will be quashed when you see the film.

But, aside from that, this film is about young Howie, also played brilliantly by newcomer Paul Franklin Dano. This is one of the best films about the status of high school students today. No, not all kids are like this, but these characters represent an important segment in the school population. This could have easily been one of those my-dad-is-too-busy-to-pay-attention-to-me-so-I'm-going-to-act-out movies, and, indeed, it is in a way, but the characters and situations are so well written - and the film's technique is amazing, as well - that they're entirely believable.

I praise the hell out of Michael Cuesta for making this film. He's an absolute daredevil. Almost every piece of the film is like a highwire act, and he only stumbles at the very end. It's just too abrupt and simplistic, as if some producer thought that these characters shouldn't be able to live their lives. I hope Cuesta will make more films in the future. He's one of the best to pop up in the last few years.

Good but disturbing look at pedophiles and predatory relationships

[nhr_215 · 7/10 · 12 November 2008]

This movie was very well done but also quite disturbing. I don't know who wrote that this is a look "typical suburban life" but nothing could be further from the truth. This is the story of an alienated young boy who becomes the prey of the local pedophile. It realistically portrays both characters well, including the self-hate inherent in the pedophile's role as well as some of the emotional needs he fills for the alienated mother-less and essentially father-less boy. It is obviously disturbing by its very nature (unless watching a 15 year old boy getting blackmailed into having sex with a 60 year old man isn't disturbing to you) but very well done. The child actors are superb as is the actor playing the pedophile Big John. Its a thought-provoking but jarring look at an under-represented subject.

A true to life tale of a young suburban male teenager.

[aerotrooper · 9/10 · 1 March 2006]

I've practically lived this film so I know what it portray's isn't exploitive or audacious in the negative sense. It's a simple story of a kid growing up in the suburbs. The meaninglessness and frustration of this way of life I felt was painted nicely by the cinematographer and the director. The omnipotent lukewarm attempts by the high school and social structure were represented in a fair manner. It's a story of a teenager dealing with many things straight on. This movie is really an interesting look into modern western life as seen by a young kid. The movie draw's you in like all good film-making should. The acting is great. The story will hold your attention and be engaging to you regardless of your childhood. The only stumbling blocks will be your own pretenses or cynicism. It's not a complex story on the surface but everything that isn't spelled out is where the weight of the film resides.

confusing at times, but well made & acted

[jaybob · 6/10 · 25 June 2002]

I agree with most of the posts on this film.

It sure did not deserve the NC-17 rating,

This story of man/boy-(no sex scenes) is very well made. This is the first film for the director & I will be interested in seeing his next film, The same goes for the acting which ranges from excellent (Brian Cox & Paul Franklin Dano) to over done by most of the rest of cast,

For a non typical Hollywood film the ending is pure Hollywood & did hurt my appreciation for the film.

Some of the dialogue was hard to understand as the actors were mumbling.

Over all I felt I saw a good film but not a great one to be seen again

rating **1/2 78/100 points IMDb rating 6

Powerful movie

[stevejamisonlmi · 10/10 · 5 March 2008]

This movie was a kind of random pick at the video store. I only read the back and figured it might be an OK movie. Having my mom's life cut short I though it might be a movie a can relate to. Wow is all I can say. Very powerful movie that has so much for anyone regardless of age. It touched on very relevant topics that kids and parents should be aware of. Having grown up in the burbs and having a father who to this day is very much like Howies father I relived many feeling I did when I was 15. The way that Howie misses his mom and the poems associated were so personal to me. The feelings of loss displayed in this movie are so close to the ones I still have today. This movie has made my top 10 list for sure.

Great acting but to many plot holes.

[poxpalace · 6/10 · 2 January 2020]

The acting by Dano and Cox is top notch and involves a very taboo, but real segment of the worlds population. I originally rated it higher, but on my second watch of the film I couldn't over look the multiple plot holes that are just to big and in the end ruin my taste for and otherwise original film.

Ragged around the edges, solid at the center.

[=G= · 5/10 · 22 May 2002]

"L.I.E." has that low budget indie feel with some awful music, mostly unfamiliar faces, plot holes, poor makeup, etc. However, at the center is an almost realistic slice-of-15year old boy-life story with sterling performances by Cox and Dano. Disturbing in subject, earnest in purpose, and provocative in viewing, "L.I.E." makes for a moderately intriguing watch for those with the stomach for an unhappy flick about an older man who covets a young boy.

Tender and Thoughtful

[howard.schumann · 17 June 2002]

On the Long Island Expressway, Howie says, "You got your lanes going east, you got your lanes going west, and you got your lanes going straight to hell". Perched on a barrier above the Long Island Expressway ready to jump, 15 year old Howie Blitzer (Paul Franklin Dano) tells us that the L.I.E. has claimed many lives including folk singer Harry Chapin, film director Alan J. Pakula, and Howie's mother in a recent car crash. Now scared and alone, emotionally distant from his sleazy, corrupt father, and having fallen in with a gang of thieves and male prostitutes, Howie is poised to become the next victim of the Expressway.

L.I.E. is the coming of age story of a boy who must quickly develop resiliency to cope with the loss of the things closest to him; his mother to the L.I.E., his father to the criminal justice system, and his best friend Gary to the lure of California. More real than American Beauty, more honest than Ghost World, less sleazy than Kids or Happiness, L.I.E. is a tender and thoughtful, often funny, examination of the lives of suburban teens who are without guidance or adult role models and who must develop inner strength simply in order to survive.

Like taking drugs to numb the pain of their boredom and loneliness, Howie, his friend Gary, and a few others have been robbing the expensive houses of their Long Island neighbors just for the excitement of seeing how much they can get away with. One of their escapades takes them to the house of Big John Harrigan (brilliantly performed by Scottish actor Brian Cox), a macho ex-marine well known in the neighborhood as a chickenhawk (for those uninitiated, an individual with a predilection for sex with young men). This encounter is a turning point for young Howie.

Howie and Big John develop a relationship which, while the possibility of man-boy sex is clearly implied, is not threatening or exploitative, but provides Howie with the substitute father-figure he so desperately needs. In portraying Big John, first time director, Michael Cuesta resists moralizing and courageously defies stereotyping. (NOTE: in reality, the sexual predator is more likely to be an inconspicuous business or professional man who uses sex in a furtive manner to satisfy some unfilled need, not the flamboyant, in-your-face sleaze ball that Big John represents).

Paul Franklin Dano as Howie completely captures the confusion and neediness of a lonely teen trying to discover who he is, and he is very reminiscent of a young River Phoenix. Howie comes alive as an immature, lonely, and sexually confused teen, yet a sensitive and intelligent individual who writes poetry to give voice to his loneliness. Howie startles Big John with his knowledge of Chagall and quotes this Walt Whitman strain from Leaves of Grass to him while riding in his car:

"Never more the cries of unsatisfied love be absent from me, Never again leave me to be the peaceful child I was before what there, in the night, By the sea, under the yellow and sagging moon, The messenger there arous'd-the fire, the sweet hell within, The unknown want, the destiny of me."

It is uncertain until the end whether Howie will succumb to the forces closing in on him or develop the inner strength to cope with his loss.

This movie has caused some consternation in some quarters because it shows a sexual predator as a complex human being with feelings. Cuesta does not advocate man-boy relationships but does show that these relationships can often be based on mutual need, something some may overlook when screaming "sexual abuse". Cuesta forces us to look at the multi-leveled components of the relationship, both the predator and the protector, the manipulator and the manipulated. The filmmaker presents the older man as he is, an exploiter with layers of self-hatred and shame, but also as a human being, capable of warmth and love. At the end, if nothing else, I sensed that Howie through his pit stop relationship with Big John was older, wiser, and much more capable of dealing with his problems.

Despite some poorly drawn characters (his father in particular is a caricature) and an oversimplified ending that would have been better left on the cutting room floor, I truly loved this film and would recommend it highly.

Stupidly rated NC-17, L.I.E. is a film that should be seen by both teenagers and their parents.

Looking for Daddy Dearest...

[ghostlife17 · 7/10 · 27 July 2002]

Sometimes I just wonder. This is another one of those over-hyped films that leaves you slightly impressed, but cursing under your breath later about how much better it could have been. This one's got a great premise, of course, and a great location (suburban NYC), and great acting throughout by Cox and newcomer Dano. I was so hyped to see this project, but ultimately felt cheated. It's not that I just wanted to see a dirty movie, or that I wanted to see a hot little expose on some forbidden taboo. From the reviews that I had read, I had thought that they had taken a rich but often-ignored subject and ran with it. And they didn't. And they could have. Who knows what really goes on in these kinds of relationships? Who is the predator and who is the prey? Is the victim sometimes the seducer? Is it a homosexual relationship 100% of the time? Or is it a twisted father-and-son one? If the film had explored or answered even one of these questions, I would have felt satisfied. As it is, the best thing was Cox. Oh yeah, and "Hurdy Gurdy Man".

A definite must see film

[tom-3160 · 10/10 · 17 June 2010]

I have recently found this title, one of my favourite films now, as we go into the 2010 Edinburgh International Film Festival, this was a winner in 2003, I hope the new film by Dagur Kari, the director of Noi Albinoi, and the actors Paul Dano and Brian Cox will be as good. This film L.I.E, the best film I have seen since Just Another Love Story, and before that Let the Right one in. a definite must see, and if you like this one then try Mysterious Skin very similar but very different film.

L.I.E a killer performance by Paul Dano, with this film you can see a brilliant actor who fits the role and accompanied by Brian Cox, the two of them bouncing off each other giving a real glow to the film, creating many memorable scenes.

stops short

[bedazzle · 7/10 · 5 October 2001]

Interpretation, spoilers:

At first, Big John is portrayed as a creepy old pervert. He goes out of his way to meet Howie, he tries to seduce Howie with a porn video and stories of his own oral sex prowess, and he sleeps with a young man living at his house. Soon, however, we learn that he is not such a predator after all. Both when Gary leaves and Howie's father is arrested, Big John is there to support Howie. Like a father, he even teaches Howie to shave. When John kicks out his previous youth lover, the audience gets the feeling that Howie is the new replacement and that now that the two are alone, the expected sex scene will occur. Instead, we learn that John is a true gentleman when he pushes away Howie's come-ons.

Thus, we have two mutually exclusive pictures of John. The first that stalks little boys and takes semi-nude pictures of them. This is the John that nearly defiled Howie before the propitious telephone call. Later, the second John emerges and when he and Howie are alone again, John inexplicably is no longer a boy-hungry pedophile.

The second John is still on the mind of the audience when he is shot, so we are supposed to feel sorry for him. `Aww, pedophiles are not so bad' we are supposed to think, when in actuality the writer had attempted to play us for a bunch of fools by putting two Johns into one body. From what the audience sees, the second John is not a pedophile, and hence, the theme of the movie is ruined.

This movie was supposed to be one that shocked us out of our beliefs about `the last taboo,' as the preview so confidently proclaimed. In actuality, this movie stops short of the desired goal. The movie should have attempted to make the audience feel for John at the same time that they are aware he is having sex with children. A sex scene with Howie is the only logical conclusion. Instead, we get the current anticlimactic end. As is, the first half of the movie is about pedophilism and the second is not; I doubt this is what the makers were going for. In the first half, John is disliked; in the second half, he is liked because dislike of pedophiles reigns supreme before and after the movie. With an idea like this, the movie creators should go all the way or not at all.

Wonderful film

[fuxing626 · 10/10 · 23 June 2002]

SPOILERS If you liked 'American Beauty', you'll love this. It's affectionate, philosophical, and real. The characters are portrayed with a fresh virtuosity and the plot flows nicely. My only complaint is it should have been longer.

The film begins with Howie Blitzer, an intellectual 15-year-old who demonstrates an extensive knowledge of the arts (eg, he knows all about Chagall and can recite Whitman from memory), fluency in French, recalcitrance towards his father, and a unique deftness for writing poems. His mother was tragically killed on the L.I.E. (Long Island Expressway), an event which has had a huge impact on Howie.

Howie hangs out with what society would label the "wrong people" (one hilarious character has unprotected incestuous sex with his little sister; and as disturbing as this sounds, the movie displays it with such wry humor that you'll find yourself laughing, not vomiting.) But the most intriguing of all of these "wrong people" is Gary, a promiscuous bisexual who steals, cusses, and adorns his body with tattoos and piercings. He invites Howie (who begins to start having homosexual feelings of his own toward Gary) to runaway to California with him. But Gary ends up stealing money from Howie and leaving for California alone.

Howie, repudiated by his best friend and rumored gay lover, becomes ravenous for love. His clandestine hunger attracts a pedophile named Big John, who claims to be a long lost friend of Howie's late mother's. But because no sex takes place between them and because of the ingenious directing job, the prospect that Big John may not be exploiting Howie and may actually love him is almost believable. The directing job is so wonderful that it makes us ignore the fact that Big John says that he "likes girls" and that he has polaroid pictures of all the other young boys he has taken in (one of whom is none other than Gary.)

The film beautifully illustrates the universal truth that the commonality that transcends the demarcations of human diversity is the interior need to be loved. No matter how contemptuous we act towards others, we crave the resplendance of Love. Although I do not approve of pedophilia, rape, incest, or any other sex that does not entail mutual concent and has dire psychological reprecussions, this movie opened my eyes and my heart to feel compassion for those who commit those acts because deep inside, they need love as much as I do.

To Glorify A Predator

[maddo16 · 6/10 · 12 June 2011]

Firstly, as much as this movie is being praised for the less simplistic portrayal of a relationship between an adult and a child than we usually get in the national discourse, there's a definitely creepy underlying message along the lines of the NAMBLA ideology that this "pederasty" as it's known is serving some sentimental need of both participants - the ending to the film leaves Howie essentially a 3-time orphan, and as such we are supposed to feel his relationship with "Big John" (eugh) was more one of support than of abuse.

This idea is pushed upon us at other points, such as the man's rejection of the child on the bed, and a line about Howie needing a father figure (in case we couldn't read between the lines ourselves) but I just found the whole notion of Cuesta trying to make the audience question the self-righteousness of paedophile-bashing pretty nauseating - these 'relationships' are child abuse, and from initial blackmail to driving back to the rest stop at the film's (flimsy) ending this man is clearly not changed by the Walt Whitman-quoting benevolent influence of Howie as is suggested. Rather he corrupts the alienated suburban teen and his death leaves the poor kid with one more kick to the braces

This weird moralising undercurrent basically ruined the second half of the film for me, as well as the occasional tasteless monster-clichés that I guess the director felt were necessary to balance the pro-paedophilia stance of the rest of the movie - one scene has the abuser explaining he's "always ashamed" but that's all that is verbalised and as such the sentimentality feels very phony.

ANYWAY I wanted to add that the first half of the film actually really impressed me, the Larry Clark-style diner sequence and general hoodrat bravado, the boredom of a big empty house, slow scenes of his life being given the time to become realistic, it was all going so well but then the plot started to lose its way, and the whole stupid non-romance shifted into fast-forward and Brian Cox kept pulling this bemused face to show he had depth while Howie said something profound-but- essentially-out-of-character (flicking between bright-spark-with-love- of-poetry//confused-and-bewildered-victim).

Although not a bad piece of film-making on the whole, this doesn't deserve a second viewing and I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it, and I'm even thinking now that this is a film destined to preach to the ephebophile choir in the disturbing way the internet serves to already. Go watch Mysterious Skin instead

Thought-provoking, unsettling and at times downright disturbing ...

[lostintwinpeaks · 9/10 · 9 March 2003]

Thought-provoking, unsettling and at times downright disturbing, this is nevertheless a brilliant movie. An excellent script is given justice by some tight direction and marvellous performances, particularly by Brian Cox (Manhunter, The Ring) in a career-best performance.

It may not be sunny and happy, but it's a powerful piece of film-making. I could go on and on about it - but that's what message boards are for.

9/10

very creepy

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 27 February 2016]

Howie Blitzer (Paul Dano) is haunted by the death of his mother. His father is a jerk with a trophy girlfriend and questionable contractor business under investigation for causing a fire. He hangs out with other juvenile delinquents doing break-and-enters. His friend Gary Terrio has a sexual attraction to him. He doesn't know that Gary prostitutes himself. They break into Big John Harrigan (Brian Cox)'s home and steal his guns. Pedophile Harrigan knows Gary very well. When Harrigan confronts Gary, Gary gives up Howie.

This movie is extremely creepy. There is a predatory feel from Gary and especially Brian Cox. Paul Dano was so young back then. He has the look of a victim waiting for his attacker. This movie is deeply disturbing and uncomfortable to watch.

A Taboo Transposed

[Darren311 · 9/10 · 3 March 2008]

L.I.E. is a daring, splendidly acted, masterpiece. Brian Cox is a genius. Cox boldly takes on the role of Big John, a retired Marine and Vietnam vet, who just happens to have a love for teenage boys. Before seeing this movie I expected Big Johns character to be nothing less than a monster. I was pleasantly surprised. Big John shows us just how human a monster can be. After hunting down unlikely thief Howie Blitzer to the tune of "The Hurdy Gurdy Man," Big John takes the needy and curious teen under his wing. The unusual duo discover truths about themselves and each other that will alter the course of both their lives forever. A well-paced film, I was constantly eager to see what would happen next. Never crude or blatant for the sake of being shocking, L.I.E. creates a plausible story that doesn't need to rely on graphic material to get it's point across. L.I.E. definitely has a seat on my top ten list. This film tackles a subject seldom seen on the screen, and it pulls it off with class. Beautifully scripted, Big John is more than convincing as a retired Marine, caring father figure, and a human "monster," who just happens to have a love for teenage boys. See it today.

Interesting, but....

[srmccarthy · 6/10 · 19 October 2002]

In most cases, when I encounter a movie of this nature, I hit "Stop", "Rewind" and the "Eject"! However, I found this movie to be entertaining. What is special about it is that everything is not what you expect (especially the ending).

What I don't like is that it is mainly about homosexuality, and it seems to express that it is ok. In fact, it in many situations, it seems to me that it encourages this behavior. However, the end makes it all clear!

Critics Fawn...Audiences Spew

[PolitiCom · 2/10 · 8 June 2002]

The perfect complement to the current news stories about pedophile priests -Brian Cox as the sympathetic pederast!! Apparently, writer/director Michael Cuesta checked his moral compass at the bath house door. This story of a sexually confused youth, a cartoonishly awful father and assorted teenage dregs neither entertains or enlightens. Of course the cosmopolitan critics loved it! It's not provocative or challenging, just nauseating.