Curiosity got the best of me and I finally saw this controversial film recently on DVD. The controversy centered around a rape scene and whether an 11-year-old girl should be acting out scenes like that. Well, when you're Dakota Fanning and your parents have already placed you in R-rated movies beginning at the age of seven or eight, I guess this is no big deal to them.
What I found a little different than most reviewers here: I thought the story was interesting - not boring; the acting decent (Fanning is always good), and the photography good.
What I found objectionable were way too many scenes with the thin 12-year-old (when the movie was made) Fanning being seen maybe a third of the time in just her underwear, with a lot of closeup shots of her. Man, how perverse and stupid can filmmakers be? This must be a favorite film of pedophiles. In this day-and-age (or any age, for that matter), do you really think it's a good idea to do that? Director/writer Deborah Kampmeier, apparently sees nothing wrong with it, along with giving us the rape scene and having the young girl walking around with her totally naked dad, played by David Morse.
Also, if you read discussions on the film from people who saw the movie at the theater, there were several more very shocking scenes that were not even in this DVD. There is much more nudity involving several of the kids. Kampmeier is an example of liberal extremism run amok to the point of being really irresponsible. She sees this all as "sexually liberating" women from an early age. That isn't just my opinion; the woman talks about it at length on the interview part of the DVD.
The real shame is not the movie but that Fanning's parents think it's cool for her daughter to act in films like this, showing so much skin, at a very young age, all in the name of "stretching her acting talents." Wow. And they lambasted "Mommie Dearest?"
In an era of Internet child porn, is it any wonder few theaters would show this movie, and that many people walked out of the theaters during screenings of this film (which were far more explicit than what's on the DVD)? The only thing is, all the editing that took place for the DVD, it made the story way too confusing with no answers on several key issues. It just winds up being a mess.
Kampmeier also hates "the church," as she explains on the DVD bonus feature, calling it "opressive" and "repressive." You see that in the film with the girl's "Grammie," played by a bitter-looking-and-talking Piper Laurie who shows only a nasty side....while being a church-goer and Believer, of course! In today's entertainment business, this kind of consistent bigotry is not only condoned but encouraged. "Hounddog" is just one more example of it. Kampmeier's previous film also has the same bias.
By the way, if you were wondering why all the snakes, Kampmeier they represented "the church." Thankfully, the public isn't in tune with her radical views and the film has been pretty much ignored.....and we only saw the much-edited "tame" version!
What I found a little different than most reviewers here: I thought the story was interesting - not boring; the acting decent (Fanning is always good), and the photography good.
What I found objectionable were way too many scenes with the thin 12-year-old (when the movie was made) Fanning being seen maybe a third of the time in just her underwear, with a lot of closeup shots of her. Man, how perverse and stupid can filmmakers be? This must be a favorite film of pedophiles. In this day-and-age (or any age, for that matter), do you really think it's a good idea to do that? Director/writer Deborah Kampmeier, apparently sees nothing wrong with it, along with giving us the rape scene and having the young girl walking around with her totally naked dad, played by David Morse.
Also, if you read discussions on the film from people who saw the movie at the theater, there were several more very shocking scenes that were not even in this DVD. There is much more nudity involving several of the kids. Kampmeier is an example of liberal extremism run amok to the point of being really irresponsible. She sees this all as "sexually liberating" women from an early age. That isn't just my opinion; the woman talks about it at length on the interview part of the DVD.
The real shame is not the movie but that Fanning's parents think it's cool for her daughter to act in films like this, showing so much skin, at a very young age, all in the name of "stretching her acting talents." Wow. And they lambasted "Mommie Dearest?"
In an era of Internet child porn, is it any wonder few theaters would show this movie, and that many people walked out of the theaters during screenings of this film (which were far more explicit than what's on the DVD)? The only thing is, all the editing that took place for the DVD, it made the story way too confusing with no answers on several key issues. It just winds up being a mess.
Kampmeier also hates "the church," as she explains on the DVD bonus feature, calling it "opressive" and "repressive." You see that in the film with the girl's "Grammie," played by a bitter-looking-and-talking Piper Laurie who shows only a nasty side....while being a church-goer and Believer, of course! In today's entertainment business, this kind of consistent bigotry is not only condoned but encouraged. "Hounddog" is just one more example of it. Kampmeier's previous film also has the same bias.
By the way, if you were wondering why all the snakes, Kampmeier they represented "the church." Thankfully, the public isn't in tune with her radical views and the film has been pretty much ignored.....and we only saw the much-edited "tame" version!