Jailbait

Like I have stated in other comments that I have made for other films, I am no expert-- just a chick who loves a good story. However, when I see something that haunts me long after I get on the 101 freeway, I feel obliged to chime in with my comments.

After months of hunting down when and where this film would release in the LA area, I finally sat down in my chair, stub in hand at the Grande Laemmle downtown. I thought I would remain the only member in the audience given the lack of advertisement, but shortly after I arrived two older guys showed up. One of them had a handy-cam, so I figured they were just a couple of old pirates. Nope. The 'pirate' ended up being the father of Brett C. Leonard, the writer/director of the film and his camera was not for pirating-- just had it with him. After hearing Bruce Leonard's story of his son's long journey to getting the film off the ground and on to the screen, I was more than ready to see it. It was definitely worth the wait.

From the limited number of cast members, the one principle setting, the almost exclusive use of the color blue and the lack of 'mood' music, you really got a sense of confinement. The acting was great. I was scared of Randy's (Michael Pitt) cell mate and wanted to be his friend all at the same time. Very amusing and yet horribly disturbing character. Michael Pitt was dead on once again. You really felt for the guy's situation and, no doubt, his regret. Clearly, the film wanted to touch on the ridiculousness (is that even a word?!) of California's three strikes rule. Without giving anything away, I can say that this film while not preachy is definitely a discussion starter (aren't all of the good ones that way?).

By not putting the two principle characters in a few other settings within the prison, i do feel that the director missed an opportunity to take advantage of the medium. A lot of the dialog could have been done in the prison yard or the mess hall..even the library mentioned at the beginning of the film. This would have also allowed us to see how the other inmates were living and interacting. Maybe even opening up the idea that Randy's situation was not just his hard luck, but the simple, sad truth of many other inmates.

Regardless of these thoughts, this was a disturbing, touching and thought-provoking drama. The writer and director should be proud of his accomplishment. I know his father sure is.

I have admired Michael Pitt for his excellence as an actor and an artist for almost seven years. His captivating performance as an American student in Paris in Bernardo Bertolucci's erotic, political drama "The Dreamers" (2003) reeled me in, and ever since, I have been rather bewitched by him. Though he is described as commonly portraying troubled, emotionally fractured characters, Pitt's body of work is rich, his performances varied and complex. His performance in Brett C. Leonard's aptly named "Jailbait" (2004) is no different.

In the film, Pitt excels through his understated portrayal of a sensitive young man named Randy, whose third felony results in a twenty-five-year prison sentence. His dialogue is spare, but Pitt compensates for that through a striking ability to convey a broad range of emotions -- sorrow, remorse, relief, fear. His expressiveness brought an added dimension to a character that might have been flat if played by a less competent actor.

Yet, as difficult as I often found it to tear my eyes away from Pitt, it is Stephen Adley Guirgis who truly shines through his portrayal of Randy's erratic cell mate. Without giving away too many details, as Jake, Guirgis is, in a word, unnerving. He brought an element of suspense that I felt transcended the usual portrayals of sociopathic prisoners in film. Though one reviewer suggested that the film is predictable, the tension between Jake and Randy was so palpable and disarming that I could never fully anticipate what would transpire from scene to scene. This tension was strengthened by Leonard's use of muted colors, primarily blue, for the cinematography and a soundtrack so subdued that it integrated seamlessly with dialogue and scene.

With that said, "Jailbait" is not a perfect film. While many films are a bit overdone, with scenes that do little to service or further the story, this one could benefit from some extra 'padding'. But "Jailbait" isn't like most feature-length films. It is less of a story or a memoir than a snapshot. Those who seek a linear plot with a definitive ending won't find it here. And those seeking a stylized prison drama featuring gangs and heavy doses of machismo will be disappointed. But if you're looking for an understated, well-acted independent drama -- or a snapshot of the life of a young man in prison -- look no further than "Jailbait".

This movie is extremely good, with pitch-perfect performances by Stephen Adly Guirgis and Michael Pitt. I mean, this ain't Christmas WITH THE KRANKS, and it can be difficult to watch at times, but only because the writing and directing are so intelligent and emotionally jarring that you sort of feel behind the same bars as the characters are stuck behind. It's a visceral experience, and as I was watching it, I noted how rare that is in cinema these days. Brett C. Leonard never delves into melodrama, as a writer AND director. He lets his actors do the work but with excellent cinematography in a small space, and the mental/physical domination unfolds in unexpected ways. I hope this film gets the recognition it deserves!

I did not care for this movie at all, very uneventful and very little script, not a good one so i'd suggest you save your time and pass on watching this one as you may be disappointed by this movie. The ending was very abrupt and the story (script) had very little to offer the viewer.Pass on this movie and watch something good. This movie "Jailbait" was one of the worst movies i have seen, did not live up to it's billing. Basically a one character script due to the fact that Randy (Michael Pitt) had very little dialog and most of the movies dialog was by Stephen Adly Guirgis (Jake) who gave a good performance but still was not enough to save this movie from being awful, all and all i didn't enjoy this movie to recommend to you, so the best i can say is in this one sided movie was lackluster and didn't have much to offer it's audience in the way it was written it had no surprises or Suspense and little if any drama, the only thing that made this movie anything was Stephen Adly Guirgis (Jake) who's acting ability kind of saved this movie from being a total disaster which is what it came close to being, he did give it some uplifting moments at times but other then that it wasn't worth seeing, so take your chances if you do decide to watch this movie as it really failed in the script and the ending. That's the reason i had to rate it a 1 out of 10.

I started watching this movie with no pre-conceived notions. (I only decided to see it based on the presence of Michael Pitt, who has proved himself to be a very capable young actor, and that it was produced by the same producer as L.I.E. I had heard nothing about it.)I wish I had read a review before hand and saved myself some time and money. (Though the review I read here for it wouldn't have stopped me from seeing the film. They seemed to think simplicity means "art".) The acting was surprisingly good. That I am willing to say. If you want an acting class on how to react silently on film, Pitt's performance is sublime. Sadly, those moments do not save this clunker of a movie.

Some times you see a movie that was based on a play and you can feel the story not fitting the medium of film. This was a very similar experience to that. It was like watching a badly lit stage play with close ups. You are robbed of the joy of going to see a play while also being robbed of the pleasures of film. They are two completely different mediums and this movie fit neither one.

If it was play at a local theater, I would recommend it solely based on the mental exercise that would accompany the play on the ride home. But as a film, I must say this movie left me feeling flat. The camera felt intrusive. The pace felt forced. The violence seemed tame and unreal. Even the dialouge seemed as if it were written by someone who had never seen the inside of a prison. (Or if they had, it was in 1957.)The actors clearly did the best they could. They had to take this job for the chance to do good work and not for money, but sadly the direction and script didn't allow them to make a movie you don't forget about ten minutes before the credits even start.