Le locuste

Considering that any subsequent viewing of this film will be on video or cable, why not take a look? The draw being a good performance from Vince Vaughn. The writing is terrible and the dialogue is almost embarrassing. The plot is ridiculous, full of literary (but really juvenile) symbolism.

Somehow, Vaughn still manages to be fun to watch, even when he is castrating bulls.

I found "The Locusts" an excellently written emotional story about hardship, manipulation, abuse, suicide, sex, blackmail, and dealing with mistakes. This is a film which requires attention to fully experience it, so it's not a drinking buddies movie. You can do that, but the film will appear shallow in that context.

The acting is wonderful and subtle. So much is said not through the words but by the actors' presentations of emotion and the scene staging. The plot appears simple on the surface. The plot on the surface is like a film noir; wealthy widow who preys on attractive male employees, her troubled adolescent son grieving his father's death, drifter with a mysterious past, and all. Seemingly black and white characters. Sex-starved widow hires drifter to work on her cattle farm. She sets her eyes on him. The drifter resists and simultaneously tries to befriend the son. This is established early. Later, past occurrences are revealed. Tragedy happens.

However. There is so much emotional subtext in the scenes. So much of the plot is implied by behaviors and not spoken. The character development through the scenes is complex and emotionally powerful. The actors handle it wonderfully. I like it better on rewatching because I can see the things I missed before. I cannot with say more without giving away plot points.

Back to my comment above, it works better if you are going to pay attention, are in the mood to try to figure out what about the characters is not being said. This film may trigger trauma memories in some people. I think the subject matter when released was disturbing to audiences. The subject matter is still disturbing, but some portrayed subjects are better understood today than in 1997.

A cliche-ridden movie with a lusty widow and a mysterious drifter. And oh yeah, they have secrets. And we know it takes place in the quasi-South since everyone drinks iced tea out of Mason jars. Despite the cliches and sloppy film-making, it's completely enjoyable. Cheesy, corny, fun, sexy and often touching thanks to lovely performances by Vince Vaughn and Jeremy Davies. And someone PLEASE remake Streetcar Named Desire quickly. Vince Vaughn is a star in the making, and he and Ashley Judd sizzle. Stanley and Stella, anyone?

I got lung cancer from all the second-hand smoke. In nearly every scene, cigarettes play a prominent role. Either the director was a cigarette junkie, the cast were nicotine addicts, or tobacco companies funded the entire production.

The plot was predictably hokey, the acting mediocre (with the exception of Flyman), and the directing lazy. It seemed to pause often to make some point but never delivered the point. Capshaw was especially disappointing. I managed to struggle through all 2+ hours waiting for something to reach out of this film. It never did.

The high point was seeing Vince Vaughn take off his shirt - and I'm straight.

Don't waste the time and money. It could drive you to lighting up.

That this film has a running time OVER 2 hours, and has had little or no theatrical recognition, immediately activates my senses. This length will complicate scheduling on pay-cable, and meant pressing an additional disk for the laser package. Why?. One possibility (rare) is that it is truly an auteur's masterpiece, not for the masses, maybe, but important enough, as is, to be kept intact. The more likely scenario is that this movie is such a waste of time that everyone involved could really care less what gets released. By now they've all changed their names, left town, and moved onto the next..

Predictably, The Locusts falls into category 2. Vince Vaughan in a muscle shirt and Ashley Judd with her cotton dress flying in the wind are about all this film has on the plus side. Dragging and nagging situations, disconnected dialogue, and uncertain motivation tend to make most every frame tortuous to endure.

First time-writer-directors (John Patrick Kelley here) tend to script a very personal project, one based on material with which they are intimately familiar-they draw on their strength. Subsequent efforts can wane, as the writer ventures into more unfamiliar territory. With this in mind, I leave you with 2 questions: (1) Where in the world did this story come from? And (2) What can we expect from John Patrick Kelly when he starts writing from an unfamiliar point of view ?

The answers may scare you.