A yawn of a film desperate to be interesting. Little Children features characters as dull as their suburban surroundings. It felt vaguely voyeuristic to watch their lives, sort of like reality TV with significantly less drama up until the bitter end.

Wildly over-praised stuff. . .it was a ju-jour, sexual expose of suburban America with intelligence (according the critics)

And Winslet is solid in the role- but just about every character in this movie was rather uninteresting. And the film is a Hollywood trend that has officially run its course- suburban bashing done by artists with a sense of superiority. This trend hit its height with a terrific film "American Beauty" (which I liked) but has in part spawned this overrated slop.

The nudie scenes are good. . .there are moments when the film is well-written. . .but you can't root for these dunderheaded characters. . .they're just not particularly funny or interesting. They hate their spouses but don't do much about it. They hate their marriages but don't want to leave until. .. until. . .a bizarre and complete contrived ending will make you smack your head.

If this was a film about weakness in adults (i.e. "being a child" I get it. . .) that painted them with a more realistic brush it would've been a better work (the novel must've been more satirical than this film was) but as it stands it's nothing more than a showcase for Winslet and a vehicle for the director to barely mask his contempt for suburban life- that place where all hypocrisy and sexual frustration lie.

A waste of talent, writing, and a cheap shot. Defenders of the film will say the protagonists are the weak children. . .but the camera ogles them as complete items of desire and ennobles some of their actions- can't have it both ways.

the whole time I watched this, I was reminded of another great film, "American Beauty"...so, if you liked "American Beauty" you'll probably like this as well.

both films focus on life in suburbia, where seemingly perfect lives and marriages and families are anything but perfect. The film underscores the shallowness and superficiality of suburbian life.

Stand-out performances: Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connelly, two of the best film actresses (both have won Oscars) of our time once again deliver.

In a word, Bad. I was told this was a good movie.
Someone lied to me. How did this make it to the academy?

Superbly acted by Kate Winslett and Patrick Wilson. Comedic, drama, for adults only. First American movie I like, so far, since I am a fan of British movies (which are not commercialized, wherein actors just love to act and give it all, and are not for big bucks). As usual, Kate Winslett - comedy, drama, suspense, family, musical, she can do it, superbly.

Can't anyone make a movie about people who actually love each other and remain faithful to one another? This movie is so predictable - cheating spouses looking for romance when in reality they are just self-absorbed spoiled brats.

The way director Todd Field handles human sexuality in this movie reminds me a bit of the way Todd Solondz handled it in Happiness (1998). There are the same starkly realistic depictions of a variety of human desires, lusts and cravings with perhaps an emphasis on what devotees of the missionary position might call "perversions." Although not quite as wild as Solondz's film, Little Children is equally challenging to politically correct notions of sexuality.

Kate Winslet stars as Sarah Pierce, a suburban mom who has a Master's in English lit and a husband who finds sex in cyber space more satisfying than sex with her. She joins (at a slight distance) some other more conventional suburban moms at the local playground where they sit around and talk while watching their children play. One of the things the women talk about is Brad Adamson (Patrick Wilson), who is a handsome stay at home dad who has twice fluked the bar exam. He takes care of his son while his high powered wife Kathy (Jennifer Connelly) is busy bringing home the bacon. The women don't talk to him. They watch him warily but with keen interest and call him "the prom king." When Sarah catches her husband having sex with his computer (so to speak) she resolves to gain the Prom King for herself, partly out of sheer romantic lust and partly out of revenge.

While we watch the adulterous union unfold, we are given some perspective in the form of Ronnie J. McGorvey (played with appropriate creepiness by Jackie Earle Haley) who has just been released from prison after serving a term for exposing himself to children. A side complication arrives in the form of Larry Hedges (Noah Emmerich), who is a "retired" cop with a temper management problem and a tendency to find objects of hate onto which to direct his anger. Ronnie the pervert becomes his target.

All this seems...well, unremarkable and even tiresome except for the fact that everybody in the movie is flawed in some very serious and interesting way, and director Field's interpretation of the characters comes down resolutely on the side of the nonconventional. In some respects what Field and Tom Perrotta, who wrote the novel from which he and Field adapted the screenplay, are saying is that the characters are all little children (hence the title). And not only that, but we're all a bit perverse. It just depends on your point of view. Sarah's parenting skills are less than optimal and it's obvious that she is bored with being a stay at home mom. Her "perversion" is similar to Gustav Flaubert's Madame Bovary in that she wants more out of life than being a wife and mother. She wants, as she explains to the woman's book club, what Madame Bovary wanted, to satisfy "the hunger - the hunger for an alternative and the refusal to accept a life of unhappiness."

Brad wants to remain a child, being taken care of by his wife, while he pretends to study for the bar exam but instead plays touch football and watches the boys at the skateboard park as though a boy himself, or allows himself to be seduced by Sarah.

Ronnie wants to have sex with little girls, and Sarah's husband wants to have sex with a porn star--or perhaps they just want to masturbate to fantasies of same...and so on.

What nonetheless makes this an excellent movie is first of all Kate Winslet who continues to prove she can play a wide variety of characters and get into their skin and become them as she has done in so many films. She brings the nuances of Sarah Pierce's character, her strengths and weaknesses, to life in a vivid and compelling way that forces us to identify with her, much the same way we identify with Madame Bovary.

Also first rate is the unflinching way human sexuality is presented and the refusal to accept conventionality that is the heart of this story. I think that directors Todd Field and Todd Solondz may be working in a new genre for the 21st century that might be called "sexual realism." Perhaps it is just a coincidence but both directors had Jane Adams play a kind of forlorn wallflower at the game of life in both movies. Perhaps she symbolizes in some strange way the confused, frustrated and deeply masked phenomenon that is human sexuality.

The real essence of the film is contained in the scene in which Ronnie enters the pool with all the children playing in it and the moms in the lounge chairs watching. Suddenly Sarah becomes aware that Ronnie the pervert is in the pool and then all the other moms become aware. There is a mass hysteria and a mass exit from the pool by the children. The moms are horrified and are desperate to know, "Did he touch you?" Ronnie is seen as some kind of bug-like creature who somehow will bring a contagion upon them through his touch. The point here and indeed throughout the film (and also in Solondz's film) is that we overreact to sex that offends us. We find the touch of a creepy pedophile worse than some kind of physical violence.

This is a thesis that will not find acceptance in America for many years to come if ever because sexual perversity is more threatening to most Americans than extreme violence. Why this should be so is not really a mystery. But to explain it here is beyond the scope of this review, and anyway explaining it would hardly change it. However the fact that Field and Solandz are bringing it to our attention is something new and is perhaps the beginning of a challenge to conventional morality.