Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Load of rubbish!!

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Howie Blitzer (Paul Dano) is haunted by the death of his mother. His father is a jerk with a trophy girlfriend and questionable contractor business under investigation for causing a fire. He hangs out with other juvenile delinquents doing break-and-enters. His friend Gary Terrio has a sexual attraction to him. He doesn't know that Gary prostitutes himself. They break into Big John Harrigan (Brian Cox)'s home and steal his guns. Pedophile Harrigan knows Gary very well. When Harrigan confronts Gary, Gary gives up Howie.This movie is extremely creepy. There is a predatory feel from Gary and especially Brian Cox. Paul Dano was so young back then. He has the look of a victim waiting for his attacker. This movie is deeply disturbing and uncomfortable to watch.

It is a rare occurrence that I read a book or see a movie twice. When I first viewed "L.I.E." I came away mildly impressed with the acting, writing and overall production. Considering the content: man/boy sex – it was a fast-moving drama unthinkable ten years ago.However, the "content" is never fully explored -- only exploited. Obviously, vivid scenes of sexual encounters with an underage minor are (thankfully) against the law -- at least in the USA. Furthermore, such graphic depictions would have betrayed the coming-of-age thesis that is prevalent in most of the film.The director and writer, Michael Cuesta captured that theme: confusion, frustration, anger, angst, etc., with a near-superb delicateness. However, the cliché-ridden, chicken-hawk characterization of "Big John" does not mesh realistically with young Howie, amongst other things.Howie Blitzer, age 15 (born July 8, 1986 -- interesting trivia introduced - well, see the film and you'll understand) is portrayed by Paul Dano. (Dano was closer to 17 when the film was made according to IMDb.) Basically, Howie is infatuated with street-wise, teen-boy prostitute, and part-time thief, Gary. The audience is left (or at least I was) not knowing Gary's age. At least 16, I suppose? Early on in the film the "non-sexual" relationship between the two burgeoning delinquents glimpses an intimacy that is nothing but deeply sensual and sexual. This was one of the numerous lost moments when two characters (both age-appropriate) could have cemented their "angst" with something simple like a kiss. Gary's character is aggressive and well-written, but departs much too soon. Not so for the protagonist Howie.Howie, underplayed by the teen-age Mr. Dano, or over-directed by writer/director/producer Michael Cuesta, Dano's Howie appears displaced as an upper-income, motherless teen. Howie has certainly annexed the ghetto dialect of the uglier inner-city street corners with ease; a perfect fit saddled with the necessary, never-ending profanities of a street-tough gangster peppered with fight scenes. This characterization is difficult to believe especially from a youth who resides in an Architectural Digest ready home in upscale Long Island suburbia. He speaks fluent French and nimbly quotes Walt Whitman in a peculiar mental-seduction scene with the chicken-hawk, Big John.Big John Harrigan is portrayed by Brian Cox. Lost moments are abundant. No doubt that Cox is believable in his attempt as the 'under-the-radar' pedophile. The simple flaw is Cox's Big John portrayal is overly ostentatious in speech and macho bravado. Big John would've absolutely raised eyebrows, if not direct questioning, by the police in the scene where he rescues his "nephew" Howie from a night in jail. Additionally, Big John's rejection when near-naked Howie (clad only in his jockey's) seeks physical (and emotional?) comfort in Big John's embrace. I imagine this is to show the "love" for the youngster knowing that sex is just a matter of time and some grooming.I remain supportive of the film simply because it tackles a taboo subject. Sometimes it tries too hard and bounces back to the viewer. In an unusual way we can easily empathize with the characters. But, not so fast. The script takes the easy way out – or does it? See the film and agree or not.

L.I.E THE BEST MOVIE EVER. Hey I'm Joel from Toronto Ontario Canada I'm 18 and i was whouldring if any one know's Howie's E-mail because i want to Congratulat him on a really good movie it really reached me he is just like me and one day hopefully i can get a hold of him i seen the movie in 2001 and now it's 2007 it's really been a long time but the movie is still in my mind so if any one can help me out and get my e-mail to Howie that would be greatly aperhated THANK U SO MUCH CAN'T WAIT TO TALK TO HIM ABOUT THE Movie MY E-MAIL IS jdmotorcross15@hotmail.com plz send me back a messege thank u so much thanks agine bye for now.

This is one of those films that must be hard to fund -- films like the Woodsman, The Magdalene Sisters, War Zone (by Tim Roth) or Monster -- but which, when made, distributed, and seen, recoups any expense and undresses any doubt. The problem with films like this is that they involve inappropriate undressing, be it by pedophiles, institutions, families, or serial killers. The appeal of the genre is in some ways the unthinkable, unacceptable, the distasteful and the unwatchable. It's that last part, the unwatchable, that creates tension, serving as a kind of off-screen reference that anchors the film's story and becomes its power for not being seen. (Herzog's Grizzly Man reveled in this, for it was a film about a guy who was eaten, along with his girlfriend, by the very Grizzlies he believed himself to be protecting, and everybody knew it. That was the whole catch: to know something that is not going to be shown, to be compelled by it, and to rent and watch this film knowing that it's a long set up to a final act we will not be allowed to see. Can it be that a film such as that prepares us for something horrible? Do we become complicit with it then, as consumers of that preparation?)Complicitness. This film shows us what happens. It is simple in its presentation, and for that complicates its subject matter. Because it does not plant a stake in the ground and draw clear, distinct and straightforward lines between right and wrong. Those are the films that are hard to fund. But better to watch. For they complicate their concepts, distribute perspectives and motivations, and sometimes even put the viewer harm's way.