The first must-see film of the year.

It is both painfully honest and laugh-out-loud funny at the same time.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

"Mean Creek" is a film I feel is half entertaining and half devastaing and depressing. The young actors do a great job at playing the characters they were associated with. Josh Peck's character wasn't too likable at times, but he was able to give a good performance for the film. As well as Rory Culkin for the movie's protagonist. Great pacing, story, acting. It is low budget, but it is worth a watch!

Let me start with the fact that I love this. This is a realistic look at the frameworking of bullying and its consequences. No one wants to be bullied. I think it is safe to say that most victims of bullying fantasize about revenge even if most never seek it out. I also think that the premise of taking out a pack revenge is realistic as well as the idea of backing out of it is. I think most kids realise that the bully is the one who has the real problem and in the end revenge is not as rewarding as it might seem to be.I'm not sure if what I am about to talk about would be considered spoilers so this is just a heads up warning in case those reading are seeking to avoid any kind of potential spoiling.The scenario that unfolds here clearly ends up being an accident. Watching the kids try and come to terms with it is the gem of this movie because even if their initial actions were wrong, they end up doing the right thing. That makes this a beautiful glimpse of the maturing mind and a wonderful movie to watch.Where this fails for me is that there is no resolution. It would've been nice to have seen how their choice to do the right thing was handled. I would've like to known if they were reprimanded in some way and how their friendships were affected. I also really felt bummed out by the fact that the ringleader of this group was clearly shown to be going off the rails at the end but what was his overall outcome. This had been so captivating yet it just stopped leaving me with the desire to know more about what happened and hating that I'd never really get answers. That causes what was shaping up to be a high rating to lose a few stars from me.

George Tooney (Josh Peck) is a foul-mouthed big kid obsessed with his video camera. Sam Merrick (Rory Culkin) gets into a fight with him and gets beaten up. Sam tells his older brother Rocky who starts planning revenge with his friends Clyde and Marty Blank. They lure George on a fake birthday trip for Sam. Millie (Carly Schroeder) finds George loud but not necessarily mean-spirited. She convinces Sam to change his mind. Despite the change, a conflict escalates on the trip going down the creek.This is River's Edge with younger kids. That is very compelling. The kids are solid actors. They feel real. After the incident, they need time living with the secret. It would be nice to have more conflict time as the cops search for missing George. The second half is set up for more drama.

First off, good movie, worth the watch on Nflix. But, I have to comment on something that bothered me the entire movie, the smoking. I wonder why Estes felt it necessary to have a puffing teen and/or adult in every scene? The smoking was obviously overdone and became a distraction, for me at least. It was obvious the actors weren't smokers, double distracting. Smokers don't take a drag every 15 seconds. The way each actor held their cigarette was also an obvious indicator of a non-smoker trying to look like the cool smoking tough teen. This may seem like a petty complaint but my point is that is detracts from otherwise good acting. When you're forced to watch almost every actor in the film smoking cigarette after cigarette it becomes a little distracting. For those Hollywood insiders could you explain why screenwriters/directors make this move? Are there kickbacks and sponsorship from big tobacco companies? Are we really this simple of a people that we need props like that to make a film more enjoyable, authentic? If that was Estes' attempt then he failed big time. Someone explain the logic please.