Instant Favorite.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Years ago I went with some friends to see an offbeat film called Prizzi's Honor. I still remember walking out of the theater and saying something like "I think I liked it." I had a similar experience with Paul Schrader's film Affliction. I actually saw the movie four weeks ago in Chicago, but since it is just opening in Jackson, I thought I would return to the subject-after four weeks I still think I like it, but I could be wrong.In subject matter, tone, and structure, Affliction is not a typical film. Nick Nolte was nominated for best actor for his performance here as Wade Whitehouse, a small town New Hampshire sheriff who's really not a very good sheriff. As the story develops, we also discover that he's also not a very good husband, father, boyfriend, friend, and-as long as we're on the subject-not a very likable guy in general. But as the story develops we also discover his past as one of two sons of an abusive alcoholic father (the Oscar-winning role for James Coburn). If there is a clear theme here it is about the sins of the father being visited on the children.This is not the first time Paul Schrader has dealt with people on the edge. Schrader is the Calvin College graduate who wrote the screenplays for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Hardcore, Mosquito Coast, and The Last Temptation of Christ. Dark characters and divergent perspectives are Schrader's stock in trade. In that regard, Affliction is consistent with much of his previous work. Schrader also provides some caricatures of born-again Christians who deal with unpleasantness with simple-minded platitudes.Because of the unusual nature of the story line it is difficult to reveal too much about the plot without misleading or destroying the element of suspense. At the core, this film is about someone who finds his life spinning out of control. As his immediate world crumbles Wade Whitehouse is forced to take a look inside, and when he does he finds little but festering wounds that are forty years old.This makes for a dark and somber film, but a powerful film nonetheless. Schrader walks us to the edge of the abyss without a net or even a parachute. While the film is certainly not uplifting, it is insightful and powerful. Outstanding performances by Nolte and Coburn are ably supported by five-time Oscar nominee Sissy Spacek as Wade Whitehouse's girlfriend who watches in disbelief as the man she loves becomes "that which he beheld." This is clearly not a film for all audiences or all tastes. If you're looking for fluff, there are more than a few options at the box office now, since we are stuck between the end of the Oscar season and the beginning of the summer blockbusters. If you are ready for something more thought-provoking (in the tradition of Ingmar Bergman) Affliction is worth a look.

The affliction referred to in the title of this film is clearly intended to be interpreted as violence. Wade's brother makes this clear when he tells him that he has not been affected by Wade's "affliction." And yes, we see extreme verbal abuse along with "mild" physical violence in their father, Ben. And yes, we see a pent-up violence in Wade. Without condoning or encouraging murder, consider an alternate interpretation...As an alternative, is Wade's passivity and his refusal to fight back against his abusive father truly admirable or healthy? Is passivity the sane condition from which Wade falls into madness? Or is his continued acceptance of abuse a mental illness? Consider the scenes when Ben abuses young Wade and his mother; don't we want to stop Ben? Don't we want Wade to stand up to his father? And later, when Wade is a grown man, don't we want him to protect himself and Margie and his mother from Ben's continued abuse? Instead he takes it; he still acts like a child who is under the control of a parent.An alternative interpretation would be that Wade's character flaw is not that he is drawn to violence but that he can't stand up against violence. His unhealthy desire for his father's love keeps him trapped in an abusive relationship. Perhaps it is not an affliction to want to fight back against Ben's sickness. Ben is cruel and enjoys being cruel. That is an illness that deserves to be stopped, preferably without violence, but still it deserves to be stopped.If Wade hadn't stuffed his anger so far down his entire life, if he hadn't let himself be a victim for so long, perhaps he could have found a non-violent response to his father's abuse. Perhaps he could have followed the more healthy path his brother did - he could have left his father and lived his own life.As a comparison, consider abuse in a marital relationship.We would call the Wade-type partner an enabler of the abusive Ben-type partner. We would counsel the enabler/victim Wde to develop a sense of self-worth and self-actualization in order to leave the abusive relationship. Right? We would not encourage the enabler to continue to accept the abuse endlessly. Perhaps it is Wade's inability to stand up to his father in a healthy way that is his true affliction.After a lifetime of struggle, it would seem that the only way for the abusive relationship to end is for one of them to die. The two are locked in a metaphorical fight-to-the-death as Ben abuses Wade and Wade stays around to take it. If Wade continued in the path of an enabler, if he continued on the same path without character growth, he would kill himself to allow his father to win. Instead Wade finally finds the strength within himself to react to the abuse. Isn't that a logical, i.e. sane, response? Again, without condoning murder, don't we think the old bastard deserved it? Isn't it possible that by finally reacting to Ben's abuse, Wade has discovered his true self rather than losing it? For example, consider two interpretations of the murder scene. As Wade aims the rifle at his fallen father, we see a flicker of emotion in his face when he suspects his father is already dead. Then, when he discovers that his father is in fact dead, his expression relaxes into something else. One interpretation would be that the first expression is disappointment that he has already killed his father and doesn't get to shoot him in a more intentionally violent way. Then. the reaction after realizing his father is dead could be the joy of having embraced his innate violence.But Wade's initial blow to Ben's head is more reflexive than premeditated. And he doesn't actually shoot the gun even though he is still in a rage. He looks through the site but he doesn't shoot. He hesitates. Shooting the gun would be an act of intentional violence and symbolic of a descent into violence. But he doesn't do it. Perhaps the first reaction is not one of disappointment but of concern for what he has done. Although he hates his father, he could be appalled and frightened to find that he has killed him. It is possible that the second expression is one of peace. Not the peace of being violent but the peace of being free of his tormentor. Peace at being free to move on from the childish state his father has kept him in into a state of self-actualization and growth; of adulthood.Consider also the sub-plot of Twombly. The murder of Jack is also represented as a descent of the rationality of Wade and his descent into madness. And yet the writers have set up the story so neatly and the evidence so clearly that it seems that Wade's "hallucinations" about Twombly's death are rational. The characters look and speak as if they are guilty, too. Again, without condoning murder, isn't it possible to interpret Wade's murder of Jack as a rational action in the face of the evidence? Of course murder is inexcusable in real life but as an artistic device isn't it possible that Wade's self-actualization allows him to finally stand up to the namby-pamby Gordon figure? To stand up to the actual and real conspiracy? In the final voice-over, we learn that Twombly's son-in-law does, in fact, destroy the town for his own financial gain. Isn't it possible that this supports Wade's conspiracy theory? Again, while not condoning violence, instead of thinking that Wade slinks off in disgrace after his violent behavior, it is possible to envision a stronger, healthier, and self-actualized Wade who leaves town with a sense of his own worth; that despite his guilt over his violent actions that he becomes more in tune with his true emotions and is able to enter into healthy relationships.Just food for thought...

I read the novel a couple weeks ago and thought it was a masterpiece, couldn't put it down. The character of Wade Whitehouse and how he progressed from childhood to his 40s was masterfully related. So I just got the movie on Netflix. Ugh. The movie is SO rushed, with almost no back story whatsoever, that there is no logic behind how anyone acts. Nothing about his youth and how his high school sweetheart and he supported each other through their family issues, nothing about the 2 older brothers who died in the war, totally sugar coated the violent father (one smack in one flashback!), cut major plot points altogether. Basically where everything flowed and you could understand how he got to a point and you felt bad for him in the book, the movie he just seems nutty.Read the book, it is a rewarding, haunting experience that will stay with you. The movie is good actors trying their best but it is a mere shell of the source material.

With a cast headed by James Coburn, Nick Nolte, Willem Dafoe & Sissy Spacek, you might expect a tour-de-force in screen drama. Well; you'll be disappointed.This item was pulled from the bran-tub. Suspiciously, it came in one of those very thin plastic cases which usually betoken a crap movie, but for £1 it seemed worth a try. The case didn't deceive.Set in small town New Hampshire, USA, during the winter, we are treated to a dismal and rather confusing drama. Once more, the lighting crew appear to have gone on strike and even the interiors of buildings are places of unremitting gloom. The script may be 'realistic' but it is largely boring. Most of the dialogue is spoken in a hushed and hurried way that is frequently unintelligible. You strain to hear a clue that was never there, or a snippet of conversation that wasn't worth your attention. Nick Nolte's character has family problems. Yes; he's a dead-beat dad. Aren't they all? His own father (played by Coburn) was himself a violent man and - well; the abused eventually turns abuser.Partway through, a homicide bi-line appears in the form of a suspicious shooting. Is it an accident, or is it murder? It begins to look as though the movie will finally develop into something. 'A Perfect Plan' comes to mind, or even 'Fargo'. But not so. This issue just limps confusedly along with the dead-beat dad plot to no particular outcome whatsoever. It's also rather curious how many movies depict small-town America as cultural black-holes riven by disillusion, drink, and unhappiness. Can't humans ever be comfortable together? Just occasionally there are moments - all too brief - of tension, drama and tenderness, but for the very most part it's just a 109 minute dirge.The movie begins with a long-winded and convoluted intro narrated by Willem Dafoe (who plays Nolte's little brother) and ends in a similar way, but this time with a reproval of universal male domestic-violence that is as heavy-handed as it is plain wrong. It's a piece that might have been written by the most embittered, self-righteous feminist. And it absolutely stinks.The politically-correct with no discernment will love this crap. Those with a more balanced outlook will see it for what it is.