El ángel malvado

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.