Opiniones de usuarios

I got to give this film a chance. There's a story told, and it is very strong, I know. It could be seen as gay, stupid, mean. Yes, the movie is extremely mean and that makes it difficult to watch. You have this quiet, interesting kid, and then all the jerks; hanging out drinking beer, having sex. These are the type of relationships Duncan (Emile Hirsch) had never thought about until they arrived.

The movie makes a great job in narrating the two sides of the story. Duncan's mom died; the boy is living with his cold, severe father, Edgar (Richard Jenkins). Duncan remains unnoticed all the time; he spends the hours by himself. Sometimes he rides his bicycle, just to get out a little bit, or plays with his chicken. This chicken, together with many of the things (a sweater, a lamp) Duncan has, belonged to his mother: "It was her favorite", he says later when a girl asks about it. Edgar, otherwise, is hiding his pain, but why? He loved his wife but now has a boy to take care of. Maybe Edgar is scared to see Duncan suffering because of his wife's death. Maybe Edgar doesn't even want to take care about Duncan, although he seems to be doing an effort. When they both sat at the table for dinner (prepared by Duncan), the boy asks his father about his day: "It was fine", Edgar answers. Then Duncan asks about the food: "Ok", his father says. After this, Duncan starts talking to himself, asking questions about his day, just because his father hasn't asked him about it. This is the relationship they handle. Eventually, Duncan will start working for his father: "You're strong boy", Edgar says. But is he? The other side shows to us the relationship Duncan creates with the other boys, the ones I couldn't call friends, and the problems he has with them. He wants to get along, we can see. Even more when he meets Perry (Tom Guiry), and starts buying beer and going out at night with elder people. His father is being good about it because he knows that Duncan could use some friendship. But then Duncan is stealing alcohol from his father for them. They all go to a party, and some people start to bother Duncan: "Chicken boy, chicken boy". Perry gets angry and punches them. Duncan can't believe it. He likes Perry, they are probably friends, but does he like Perry in another way? Is Duncan gay? Is this a question we should ask to ourselves? Probably, because Duncan and Perry experience things together. You could know Perry wanted to do it, to try something different, or to teach some sex lessons to Duncan; the boy with no experience (touching his own nipples in his bed). All of these could be.

Emile Hirsch is a very good actor. I have seen him in all of his movies, except for "Imaginary Heroes". He trapped me in "The Emperor's Club" and in "The girl Next Door". Great acting jobs, in not great movies. Here he is just great (again), with all of his weird faces. He is weird; also calm and gentle. Many things. Richard Jenkins is superb, in showing what I named "silent emotion". Very interesting how a man can feel very much, but say very little. Tom Guiry is the one that steals the show in the end. He is brave and risky, as no other young actor. He says his lines so strongly that they get to you, just as in "Mystic River".

And of course, we can't forget the creator of the whole project; because this is an indie gem. Michael Burke wrote a beautiful and real script. He directed his actors so naturally that everything seemed perfect. His editor also did a hell of a job putting all those still shots together. Very good film-making (I love still shots).

When the film ends, we could feel like there is something missing, something unsolved. But anyway: is there anything else to solve?

It's always difficult to watch a film where we know more about the protagonist than he (or she) knows about himself. That's the case here: it's obvious to us viewers from fairly early on that Duncan Mudge has some significant homoerotic attractions. When he would turn out to be "gay" or not when his adolescence is over we don't know, and it's really irrelevant (except that he seems a little on the old side for still being in that sexually indeterminate stage). What we are asked to deal with is a sensitive young man in a particularly insensitive corner of a culture that is becoming more and more callous to the inner lives of young people by the day. We're not told exactly when the action takes place, but we have to assume it's pre-Internet; otherwise we'd fault the character for not reaching out that way. In any case, Emile Hirsch does a fine job with a difficult role, and leaves us wounded on his behalf, but not without hope that the whole experience will in the long run have made him, and perhaps us as well, a better human being.

Upon seeing the short film FISHBELLY WHITE (part of BOYS LIFE 5) I thought that Michael Burke's story of an off-beat rural farm boy and his pet chicken was both charming and shocking. I even thought it would be fascinating to see a feature length film of the story. I was wrong. Whatever the lyrical magic was that made FISHBELLY WHITE so fascinating seems to have disappeared in THE MUDGE BOY. The main problem is the film's determination to change the character of Perry from a mysteriously handsome romantic hero to a brutish homophobe. In FISHBELLY, Perry is Duncan's (and the viewer's) Heathcliff - a hunky farmhand who befriends our hero. The scene under the train bridge is breathtakingly romantic. MUDGE tries to re-create the scene, but the tone is quite different, with a defensive Perry ruining the mood entirely. Emile Hirsch turns in a fine performance as the sensitive Duncan. Richard Jenkins (of "Six Feet Under" fame) is fine as the grieving dad but Tom Guiry seems all wrong as the bitter Perry. While there is much to recommend THE MUDGE BOY, it's predecessor is a country mile ahead of MUDGE, proving less is sometimes 'mudge' more.

This is a remake of the short film Fishbelly White by Michael Burke (1998). The plot line and characters are all the same, but the story is fleshed out in The Mudge Boy.

In Fishbelly White, Duncan's character is more homo-erotic; the under-the-track-scene is more deliberate and graphic and explains much of what is left out of The Mudge Boy. In Fishbelly White, Duncan bites the head off his favorite chicken during the pick-up scene with the drunken youths and the rape scene never occurs.

The two films make for an interesting comparison of the two director's visions.

The Mudge Boy tells the story of Duncan Mudge quietly played by Emile Hirsch. While his father struggles to maintain their small farm and hold their fragile relationship together, the boy deals with the loss of his mother whom he loved dearly. After his mother dies, the boy struggles to develop an uneasy alliance with his father and a close friendship with his friend Perry, who himself endures mounting physical abuse at home and a troubling bisexual personality. Unable to bond with teen friends, Duncan develops a deep kinship with his pet chickens. This in turn spurs jeers and harsh ridicule from his peers. The film depicts the unstable friendship of Duncan and Perry as the younger boy is drawn towards and is fascinated with the older boy's sexual promiscuity which results in an unexpected rape. Despite the tragedy the boy and his father deal with, the end result is one of enduring parental love and understanding. A fine film for those seeking a movie with heart. ***

The sensitive hero, Duncan Mudge, beautifully played by Emile Hirsch, is victimized by a society characterized above all by fear and the cruelty this fear generates. In another lovely film with a similar theme, ("Get Real"), Steven, the main character asks, "What is everyone so afraid of?" Indeed that is the question that lurks at the core of this film. The answer is, of course, that everyone is afraid of being who he/she really is, thus earning the ridicule of everyone else who is suffering from a similar fear. Duncan seeks acceptance and affection, which he cannot get from his uncommunicative father, from a neighbor boy, Perry, whose instincts are in conflict, who is only half eaten by fear. Duncan tries to reach the better other half of Perry and crashed into Perry's ambivalence and is exploited in the process. Another reviewer here has said that Duncan is stupid. Can't Duncan see what is happening, why he is treated so cruelly by his peers? Why doesn't he give up his quest to be himself and conform? Isn't that what all of us do? I am put off by the question so often raised of whether this is a "gay film," or whether Duncan and/or Perry are gay. What bothers me about that is the need to categorize, to fix a label on a person, to commodify him. This provides an escape from seeing and relating to someone else as a complex person in his own right, not someone who fits in this box or that box. This need to classify, to objectify and to control is also a product of fear. I think it was H. L. Mencken who defined Puritanism as "that haunting fear what someone, somewhere, might be different." We are still in essence puritans.

The Mudge Boy represents some of the finest cinema to come out of Sundance in 2003. The story moves at a leisurely pace but excels in character development and dialogue. Burke revels in his setting- a rural, emotional wasteland painted with eerily quiet, majestic landscapes which idly conflict with the title character's introversion and despair. Emile Hirsch affects a delicately nuanced, charismatic performance as the title character, struggling with the death of his beloved mother. Richard Jenkins demands every speck of attention possible while he's on screen; it's a pure delight to watch this fine actor work. I usually don't pick out smaller performances, but Zachary Knighton as the chief bully's "sidekick," Travis, is superbly threatening and commands the screen, as well. His performance is staggeringly three-dimensional and defies every cliche of "teenage bully" portrayals ever committed to celluloid. There's a big future for this guy. Overall, this film deserves to be seen by anyone who appreciates uncliched, moving drama filled with wonderful performances.

A very brilliant movie, very powerful, with EXCELLENT and remarkable performances from the two lead boys as well as the father, as well as a very effective supporting cast, a profound script, divine direction and cinematography. Amongst all of these elements, it really surprised me and kept me guessing. I would think that it was going to go one direction, and then it would go another. It rode the thin line between painful and warm/fuzzy, with perfect balance, never becoming saccharine nor falsely-depressing.

This is one of the better gay films i have seen in some time, even if the end is a bit disturbing.

I found the movie to be very bleak and touching all at the same time, and I would say it is a highly recommended film, I could not take my eyes off of it.

I saw the premiere of this movie at the Sundance film festival. It starts out as a rather intriguing character study in a beautiful agrarian setting. The audience is immediately endeared to the main character, Duncan, played excellently by Emile Hirsch. However, Duncan's vacant naivete becomes ridiculous. The film doesn't go any deeper into him than it did at the beginning. Duncan is also rather stupid. Of course, he's meant to be pure and innocent, but the concept just goes too far. Duncan is silly enough to take his dear pet chicken on a truck ride with some crazy drunk kids, and he continually goes back to them despite his acknowledgement that they're only playing with him. A search for acceptance would be a credible explanation if Duncan weren't so relentlessly stupid for the entire film. There's no enlightenment. There's no character arc. And I wouldn't suggest that an animal rights activist (like myself) should watch the ending. I won't give it away, though I almost already have. In any case, when an audience member asked the director/writer, Michael Burke, why he chose to give the film the ending it has -- which was undoubtedly the lurking question that everyone was mulling over but afraid to ask -- Burke answered, "Well, I got to the end and -- that's what happened!" Here we were all expecting some story of catharsis and liberation, and it was revealed to us that not only did the ending have no thought behind it, but the rest of the movie was thoughtless as well. The actors are great, and there are a few suspenseful scenes, and Duncan is rather lovable if you don't think much about it, but if I weren't an Emile Hirsch or Thomas Guiry fan, I'd skip it. There's nothing to learn or discover here.

This film has given me the inspiration to find a writer and help me to find a way to tell a story that is so similar,that story being my life. I felt every emotion, I felt the pain and the heartache of doing anything to fit in. But my life went further starting at a very young age. I too did things with males relatives, had things done to me by neighbor boys, friends of the family, and strangers; just to be told this didn't happen, and if anyone finds out you will pay. There is so much to tell, and I am today so glad that for the first time I can look on the screen and see that there are others that have felt the loneliness, the rejection, the confusion, and the guilt, that a young boy had to endure just to fit in. Duncan isn't the only so called "freak" or "weirdo". Just to feel Duncan again I will see "MUDGE BOY" again tomorrow.

Thank you to Mr Burke for finally being so bold, all my life I sat in dark cinemas looking for that one film that would let me know I wasn't alone, these things happened to others too. Thank you again for this great piece of cinema.

A young farm boy (Emile Hirsch) is dealing with his mother's death and a father who acts like he doesn't even exist. He also begins to realize he's gay and attracted to another guy. How does he handle all this at once?

This is basically a character study--very quiet and slow but absolutely fascinating. You really get into this young boy's head and understand the pain he's going through. There are some very disturbing scenes (a rape and the ending) but they ARE necessary for the story. Also there's some beautiful photography and great performances by the entire cast.

Highly recommended but not for everyone.

This is the best ever movie about a post-pubescent gay boy alone in his world and surrounded by straights, all of whom are older and non supportive. Not only is he without a mother, but also he has no buddy his age with whom to bond. He reaches out to a slightly older youth, but the age old conflict between straight and gay males arises, and it is dealt with by a writer-director who is able to touch a nerve and show an insight that no other film maker has ever done in this tense situation. There are no cheap shots. In deed, all are from the heart. The scenery, the filming, and the sets are gorgeous, and the acting is sterling to a man.

Having grown up in New York State, my "coming of age" and "out of the closet" was quite an experience. While my experience wasn't necessarily an easy one, after seeing this movie, it angers me to think that there are other gay men (and women) who are (or have) had to endure the pain, bigotry and humiliation that the main character did. This movie gave me a completely new perspective on how society has been a complete and utter failure to so many people. I wish I had the resources to help out everyone in need who is going through what "Duncan" is/has gone through. Life wasn't meant to be so painful, lonely and empty - and after watching this flick, I have no idea how the "Heartland" got its name... These so called "Church going" bigots and "good old boys" are more of an abomination than any of the worst sins that I can think of, and some day these bottom feeders will face their maker, for the hell they put so many innocent people through.

Truly a heartbreaking film that will open your eyes, and one that you will never forget.

`The Mudge Boy' is a tragic film about the failure of masculinity. Masculinity, at its most advanced, mature, and evolved is a protector of women, a mentor to children, a caretaker of animals, and a steward of the environment. We do not get to see this mature masculinity very often and its very rarity has led so many to believe that the only form of masculinity is its degraded form of tyranny, irresponsibility, violence, and mindless cruelty.

This film is close in genre to a prison movie or film noir. Its males, except for young Duncan, the Mudge boy himself, are all so degraded that they are fermenting in their toxic wastes and are unable to produce any positive energy even if only just to get the hell out of there. Their isolation cells are not made of steel bars, but of the wood of dense Vermont forests and the walls are not made of stone bricks, but of rolling green hills covered in pasture. Their prison is made of insularity and ignorance. The film is so relentlessly dark and uncomfortable to watch with its atmosphere of ever-existing potential and erupting violence, and with any hope of redemption wrung at the neck, that I think of this as a new genre, "rural' film noir, instead of urban, and something that should be categorized alongside a movie like `Deliverance'.

Femininity, with its life-giving fecundity, fares only slightly better in this film with at least one female having enough compassion to not only extend tenderness to someone weaker, but also attempt to protect herself from physical exploitation. But even she is ultimately helpless and alone in the face of relentlessly rampant violent and unrestrained male energy to which women are only as useful for copulation as animals are for the extraction of eggs and milk. The Mudge boy's mother, too, who in her absence seemed to leave her husband empty of all reason to live, had only herself been sucked dry of her life blood and left to die with an empty heart. The illusion of escape afforded by alcoholism was not enough to protect her with her basketful of tender eggs from the same fate of her beloved and memorialized chickens. How much better will her son fare?

So much of the Mudge boy's mother lived on in her son, but so did so much of his father, who was unable to communicate the needs of his heart and thus left his son alone with this rejection of their mutual need for tenderness. Although this film is presented as a gay film, and even won the Grand Jury Prize at the 2003 Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, this is much more a father and son film, and a story about how ultimately lost masculinity can be without fully developed and receptive hearts.

In this film's setting, the gentle, caring heart of the Mudge boy could be considered feminine and weak by those who confuse such qualities with the homosexual, but I think the boy's desire was only for tenderness and understanding, as was his father's desire. And in this involuted, backward setting, rather than that being enough for the men to earn what they wanted, what was required was for the Mudge boy to finally sink to a level so low as to chew off the very portion of himself that yearned for and needed such love. In the swallowing of what was precious in him, he was finally able to attract what he had wanted. But I wonder if by then, it was already too late to matter.

This is Michael Burke's second filmed version of a story that was originally released in 1998 in short form as "Fishbelly White." The short film can be viewed on the compilation DVD BOYS LIFE 5. Both versions have merit, however "The Mudge Boy," being feature length, allows for better character development, particularly of characters that are merely hinted at in "Fishbelly White," which Burke wrote, produced and directed as a film student at New York University, financed by grants. Although I found "The Mudge Boy" to be a more in-depth character study with more room for details, its predecessor is to be admired for its brevity in telling the same tale effectively. In short, I cannot effectively say I enjoy one version over the other!

Simply, this film is a little known gem of LGBT cinema. The performances are sublime: Emile Hirsch and Tom Guiry playing their roles as realistically and movingly (with the specific characteristics of their role) who manage to make this film an emotional journey that will get more than one reflect on the plight which still face many gay guys around the world. This reflection is another strong point of the film: the rawness that emulates perfectly fine as reality, gives great value to the script and the direction. The photography is excellent, beautiful. But forget about production resources. The script, Duncan's story is a case that can even be a real case of our neighbor. Very well filmed, with a poignant script and first-rate performances, this film is highly recommended as vindicating the LGBT genre.

Look around us, you will find many persons from this movie, you will find yourself. When we lose something somebody, we really need a hug a talk,whatever anything. When we are lonely, we also need to pursue something, to release ourselves.It's not about living in the village or big city, it's just different way to show a kind of period in our life. In this movie, the director built a small society for us, and we always follow the kid Dunkan, we become him, from his eyes feel his feeling, look for what we need.No happy thing happened during this movie, there are several happy moments, we can feel them from Dunkan's eyes, but they're killed by the following affairs. It's like in our life there is a period, bad period, we know finally we will walk out, but we have to face it, no other choice, the director showed this period for us, nothing bored, nothing retarded,except swallowing the chicken head, oh, man, it really cannot make me calm down, I know there is something will happen with this chicken, 'cause Dunkan has to give up his relying, but at the last moment, when he do it, I'm still shocked,the actors played so good, so natural.

There are so many shitty, commercial movies today, but the Mudge boy, it's impressive, didn't waste my time.

"The Mudge Boy" certainly carves out a unique space in the landscape of films exploring grief. While it sidesteps conventional tear-jerking narratives, offering a more muted and introspective approach, its impact ultimately felt fleeting for me. Young Emile Hirsch delivers a compelling and nuanced performance, particularly considering his age at the time. He embodies the quiet turmoil of his character with a maturity that belies his years, and his presence is undoubtedly a highlight. The film has its moments, subtle touches that hint at the weight of loss and the complexities of familial relationships. However, the overall pacing and narrative choices left me feeling somewhat detached, and despite Hirsch's strong work, the film didn't resonate deeply enough to warrant a second viewing. It's an okay film, a different shade of grief than you might expect, but not one that will likely linger long after the credits roll.