The Good Son

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.

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.

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.

An interesting idea: parents having to deal with a psychopathic child. Believe it or not, such a situation is not uncommon. And Culkin does an excellent job. His coolness, his sudden changes of approach without any apparent shifting of gears, his complete lack of emotional reaction - which have been interpreted by some reviewers as poor acting - are actually very realistic. Personally, I find his calm and apparently effortless demeanour more frightening than the ravings of the lunatics in many other horror films.

Unfortunately, the plot lacks all credibility. Certainly psychopaths are excellent con-men (in fact, they are the most typical con-men) but it is absurd to believe that a child like this could have covered his tracks so well that his parents do not even suspect that there is something wrong with him. Even more ridiculous is that his behaviour towards his little sister - whom he hates enough to try to kill her - has been so good in the past that she trusts him completely. The cliches of the over-dramatic ending are also a bit much. A pity, because there is much of value in the film.

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.