thinker1691 The Writer and Director of this incredible film Called " Long Island Expressway " is non other than Michael Cuesta. In this day and age, this type of film challenges not only social convention but moral platitudes as well. Indeed, any solid actor has to fear possible Ridicule and also the disdain from critics and small minded individuals as well. However the main cast which includes Brian Cox (Superb performance) as John Harrigan and Paul Dano as Howie Blitzer do such a brilliant job, they are sure to earn great praise, awards and high acclaim when accepting such hazardous roles. Their characters in this movie are sure to attract social venom, vile comment, and stern condemnation, but is doesn't alter the fact that stories such as these, need to be addressed, not shunned. The world is filled with such stories and burying ones' head in the sand will not dissipate their fear, nor make them go away. In essence, the film reveals the life of fifteen-year-old Howie Blitzer who's mother has died and who's' father is facing Federal incarceration. Further, his best friend is a house-robbing thief, male prostitute, who with his other friends are juvenile delinquents seeking kicks. Howie himself feels abandoned by his abusive and absent father and is easy prey for his close friend John. Sensing the lonely boy struggles with his anger, sorrow and personal demons, John offers understanding, shelter and companionship. However, John, a retired, ex-military man suffers from his own dark desires which includes rebellious teen-age run-aways. Together, the two are drawn towards dangerous goals which invite disaster. Adding to the danger of the two are their youthful friends. There is Howie's friend, Gary, an unstable teen kleptomaniac forever seeking the Big Score which will allow him to escape to California and John's envious teenage house guest who believes he's about to be replaced by a younger boy. The story is one of pain, sadness, redemption and hope, none of which come in abundance. However, the movie is unlike most and future audiences Will judge if the writer has created a monster or a Classic. Recommended to anyone with an open mind. ****

Richard von Lust Big John is a 50 something ex US marine who lives with Scott, a youth of about 18 in a smart suburban villa somewhere in Oregon. He holds parties for middle aged folk at home and is nagged by his aged mum to look after his health. He was in love with girl when he was young but never married citing the reason that all women are 'maneaters'. Although Scott has his own room they sometimes sleep together and in his private moments Big John looks at internet pictures of young teen-aged boys.Big John isn't strictly a pedophile as no prepubescent children are involved in his life but he certainly appears to be a pederast. He cruises the local pick up zone where teen-aged male prostitutes ply their trade offering blow jobs behind a road sign for a few bucks. And there he meets 16 year old Gary, a good looking local tearaway and hustler who also burgles houses with his school mates for extra cash.Gary isn't necessarily gay but he uses his looks and charm to best advantage. Accordingly he is the object of adoration by 15 year old Howard, a gay school mate, who dreams of running off with Gary to a romantic life together in California.But their plans and dreams must change when they decide to rob Big John of his prized antique revolvers - and the ex marine quickly discovers their guilt.The subsequent drama is beautifully intense without being heavy. And most of all it raises essential questions about the true nature of pederasts and the boys they befriend. Who is exploiting who? Who is the real victim of this sadly common circumstance? Are pederasts always evil? What exactly are the real motives of Big John, Gary, Scott and Howard? And who is the villain? The film ends very suddenly with an emotional shock. And it is our personal feelings towards the characters after that shock which seems to be the whole point of the movie. Well recommended for all - and particularly for parents of teen-aged boys with crushes on other boys.

maddo16 Firstly, as much as this movie is being praised for the less simplistic portrayal of a relationship between an adult and a child than we usually get in the national discourse, there's a definitely creepy underlying message along the lines of the NAMBLA ideology that this "pederasty" as it's known is serving some sentimental need of both participants - the ending to the film leaves Howie essentially a 3-time orphan, and as such we are supposed to feel his relationship with "Big John" (eugh) was more one of support than of abuse.This idea is pushed upon us at other points, such as the man's rejection of the child on the bed, and a line about Howie needing a father figure (in case we couldn't read between the lines ourselves) but I just found the whole notion of Cuesta trying to make the audience question the self-righteousness of paedophile-bashing pretty nauseating - these 'relationships' are child abuse, and from initial blackmail to driving back to the rest stop at the film's (flimsy) ending this man is clearly not changed by the Walt Whitman-quoting benevolent influence of Howie as is suggested. Rather he corrupts the alienated suburban teen and his death leaves the poor kid with one more kick to the bracesThis weird moralising undercurrent basically ruined the second half of the film for me, as well as the occasional tasteless monster-clichés that I guess the director felt were necessary to balance the pro-paedophilia stance of the rest of the movie - one scene has the abuser explaining he's "always ashamed" but that's all that is verbalised and as such the sentimentality feels very phony.ANYWAY I wanted to add that the first half of the film actually really impressed me, the Larry Clark-style diner sequence and general hoodrat bravado, the boredom of a big empty house, slow scenes of his life being given the time to become realistic, it was all going so well but then the plot started to lose its way, and the whole stupid non-romance shifted into fast-forward and Brian Cox kept pulling this bemused face to show he had depth while Howie said something profound-but- essentially-out-of-character (flicking between bright-spark-with-love- of-poetry//confused-and-bewildered-victim).Although not a bad piece of film-making on the whole, this doesn't deserve a second viewing and I wouldn't go out of my way to recommend it, and I'm even thinking now that this is a film destined to preach to the ephebophile choir in the disturbing way the internet serves to already. Go watch Mysterious Skin instead

legspinner Quite a conventional film, this. It'll probably date quite quickly as screenplays move towards more culturally-mature discussions of sexual matters. I agree with the commentator who said "We need more films like this," - in places the characterisation is very comic-book; the father, especially. Nevertheless, Brian Cox is superb, and is quite the most complex portrayal of that type of character.At several points, though, I have issues. The counsellor gets far too irritated far too easily. If you've a problem kid, you don't stop them doing what they need to do to distract themselves, you read their unspoken thoughts and give them time while you work out the right question. She should have known that scolding wouldn't work with this kid. If this was the point, they should have developed the character of the counsellor, and shown that she was a product of a system that couldn't do anything but fail Howie. Having said that, we don't condemn 'Dambusters' simply because the dog is called 'Nigger.' These are notes for a future film.The kid himself is still too passive, too unable to think for himself at relevant places. I have tutored kids in this age range, and they have the intelligence to put two and two together vis-a-vis their father being arrested. Not to mention the weak way in which Howie's father's assault is dealt with. It gives the idea that all homosexual teenagers are pacifists whose only response to parental violence is to feel victimised, curl up in a ball and cry. If the kid is breaking and entering, and his father assaults him, he's unlikely simply to dissolve into tears and then give his father a rather strange hug. Which might be a good point, but unless it's developed more than it is in this film, we'll never be able to tell it from directorial sloppiness. This is a shame, because here was a chance to really call time on casually-violent fathers. The characterisation of Howie's dad smacks of committee thinking, "Well, is this kid's father gonna be an abuser or isn't he?" and the scene where his dinner partner has a heart attack just... missed the boat completely.Furthermore, the film doesn't seem to know how it wants to end. The shock of Howie being about to kill himself is utterly dulled by over-repetition of the bridge scene, and that Big John is going to get killed by his partner is telegraphed and spun out way too long. And, not to sound too Kermodish about it, but Howie's poetry *isn't that good,* and his commentary right at the end seems ponderous and unsatisfactory.Having said that, this film is worth watching for Brian Cox alone. Plus the fact that it is experimental, and, as Dr Frankenstein found out, experiments are never perfect. I'd love to give this a 9, but it's like the first University essay - you haven't quite developed the knack, the style; you're tentative in places, irrelevant in others. On the other hand, I was going to give it an 8, but Brian Cox is simply not to be missed. So 9 it is.