O Anjo Malvado

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 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.

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.

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.

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.