Robert Thorpe This film has some of the most beautiful images I have seen in a film in a while. It is a shame that the film lacks substance. Thank goodness for the box that says a couple searches for their son that was lost in a Tsunami because that is never mentioned in the film. All we learn way late in the film is that the child drowned. The film takes us to an eventual old temple where tons of kids with white painted faces are running around like Lord of the Flies. The film gives no answers to the questions it poses. It is not a horror film, more of a drama. We never learn anything about the characters other than Ms Beart never smiles in the film and in fact her facial expression never changes. Rufus is left acting against a bunch of amateurs it seems. Trying to be the logical one in the film but since everything illogical happens he is lost as is this film. There are things to like though, most of it with Imagery. Sound was another good point as well over all creepiness of the kids (albeit without explanation). So, for photographers and cinematographers you will enjoy some wonderful work. For directors, shot selection and placement was very nice. For writers, um, yeah, it lacks everything. The ups and downs, the almost got what we wanted only to be let down. Basically, everything in the SAVE THE CAT BOOK and How to Write a Screenplay. The film starts in a depressing mood and only goes deeper into depression with no hope of satisfaction.

D Vee Well, yeah. That says it.From the description I expected something along the lines of Children of the Corn, but in reality the scary feral children have very little to do with this movie, they just kinda show up at the end to rub mud on a naked woman's body.Most of the movie is about the mundane, anti-climatic journey to the home of these not so scary feral children(who we only get to see briefly) so a crazy wife can have them rub mud on her naked body.You see, a rich couple's son died not so long ago. The mom is obviously not coping well and going nuts as a result. But she convinces her husband to pack a bag with hundreds of millions of dollars so they can pay Asian gangsters and human traffickers to lead them to some forbidden Burmese district, just to make sure their son isn't alive. So for the first hour and 10 minutes people argue, there's lots of rain, someone gets shot, and there's a sex scene. 15 minutes before the closing credits, feral children show up acting kind of creepy, the husband gets killed, and yes I'll say it again... the children rub mud on the wife's naked body. And that's the end.

barrymalvina Straight away I must say I agree with most comments in the "I hated this movie" category. However, I am writing this review to point out what I think might have been some redeeming features of it until they were totally spoiled by the fantasy elements and the ridiculous ending.Both my wife and myself were first attracted to it as it was classed as a drama on its TV showing (totally wrong, it should have been a fantasy/horror - there were certainly no thrills in it for us, we do sometimes quite like a good thriller - and then we wouldn't have bothered at all). We also thought the plot sounded plausible - a wealthy western couple losing their son in a tsunami, and then the seriously disturbed mother persuading dad to go with her look for him.On watching the film, we thought it went well along these lines, with the boy apparently being spotted on a video of children playing on a river bank, with one of them wearing a red shirt - possible the Manchester United shirt their son was wearing when he was washed away. This video was seen in a screening amongst wealthy patrons of charities organizing relief for the tsunami victims, also very plausible.So off they go, with some very good shots of the scenery and local means of transport, etc. Unfortunately much of it was at night-time, so we saw little of it. Why do film makers do this, or is it the reproduction on a TV screen? Anyway, that was the first put-off for us. Another put-off was the interminable length of many scenes, where nothing else happened (e.g. when the husband rescues his wife from the sea and they were splashing around in the water for far too long) and we were trying to be patient whilst waiting for the scene to change.As events unfolded, and I will not say more to avoid further possible spoilers, the only other redeeming quality for us was the chance that they might find their son, and we watched it through to the end with this hope in mind.I must add one major criticism of the use of the children in the film, on top of everything that has been said in other reviews. Were the film- makers trying to emulate "Lord of the Flies"? I can understand how boys of rich parents in an English prep school can turn into little savages, but the local children in such a disaster, having lost their parents, would not gang up in the forest like this. I think it was very degrading of the people who live in these areas to suggest they would.Googling child abandonment in Burma does not change my view of this film. This child abandonment is due entirely to the military, of which there is no mention. If there had been, and cut out the fantasy, then it would have been far more successful as a drama, albeit fictional.

helaumur This film makes no sense, I thought Rufus Sewell is fit it;ll be a good film, but no. All it does is rain, they run out of cash they end up in the middle of no where, looking for a kid who might not exist, why didn't they just go to the law? There is a lack of script and character study, nothing is explained like why is Sewell killed by weird kids and why does Emannuelle Beart sit in the jungle being felt up by the kids, do the find the kid, how are they getting home?Worst film ever, makes no sense at all, someone please tell me if i have missed anything.Awful.