Stylish but barely mediocre overall

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Butterfly-8335 must have Stockholm syndrome,because I bet If they were murdered or if their child was raped, they would you say "I deserved it" or "it's God's will". no way movies should give real life merciless murderers movies. It won't condone their actions. That's saying " you're a horrible person, but you'll have your own movie about you". It's okay for fictional people to do evil things,because they are not real. using the actual murderer and victim is a slap in the face to real people who suffered. A couple lost their child, yet they make a movie with the merciless killers as the stars. They even had the actual murder take place in the movie, that's a big middle finger to the victim. There are different ways they could bring awareness to this case,donating to the family, talk to teens and kids, talk to the public.making a movie that is going in theaters, about the killers it not the right way. As for the movie flow, it was boring. Plus who's the star? How am I suppose to follow someone who live their daily life, but brutally murdered a child for no reason? I was like "Fuck it, just kill them and end it already". the scene were the boy blamed his mother for his behavior is the trope of terrible parents leading to serial killer children. It's getting old. it's the number one excuse teenagers use to get softer punishment in real life. Like before, don't glorify it.

Some true crime stories are so horrific, that they are scarier than any horror film Hollywood can come up with. In February of 1993, Two ten year old boys took a three year old from a mall in England, bashed his head in with a rock, tied him to the train tracks, and watched as he was run over by a train. According to the law they were released at age eighteen, and disappeared under assumed names. 2 Little Monsters is a based on that event, speculating what these boys lives would have been like after they were released from prison. How hard would it be for them to hide their identities? Could they blend into society, having lived their whole lives in prison? This film answers those questions as well as following the paparazzi, who are in for a big pay day if they can find the boys and take their pictures. The idea here is very original and I was very much looking forward to this film, unfortunately, despite a lot of critical acclaim, nothing really happens. Yes, the boys are shy and awkward, and it becomes increasing difficult for them to hide who they were, but there isn't an urgency to any of it. This film moves at a snails pace and nothing substantial ever happens. The producers basically used the story of this horrible crime to sell DVDs, when truthfully they had nothing more to go on since the boys release. Everything is supposition, and it's probably very close to the truth, boring, predictable, and uneventful.

Although the movie doesn't state it, the film is loosely based off of a real murder done in England, in Feb 1993. In the true event, 2 10-year- old boys (Robert Thompson and Jon Venables) lured a 2-year-old, James Bulger, from a mall and after walking 2½ miles with him, tortured, killed him and left him on the train tracks. As in this movie, the killers were released after 8 years, were given new identities and moved to separate, secret locations. That's where the similarities end. In true life, Jon Venables had been arrested and/or returned to prison a few other times since his release.The crime in this film takes place in America and although it uses many of the main facts of the Bulger murder (the film version of the murder isn't actually as violent as the actual crime), it is truly a fictional story of what the 18-year-old men did after being released from jail. The film itself feels low budget. It is slow, aged looking and with poor acting. It is shot partially as a documentary style, going back and forth between how the young men are adjusting to their new lives, and the press re-interviewing everyone from the murder trial, as well as trying to find out the new identities/location of the released young men.The characters have no depth and it's hard to even care about the emotional victims of this murder. Everything in the film seems detached, lacking feeling and empathy. This movie has no redeeming qualities and was basically just sad, in My Humble Opinion. 3/2015 NOTE TO PARENTS: This movie must have originally been made for theater or cable, because although they were "bleeped", there was cursing (F- words, etc) and there was a semi-nude scene, where one of the men was standing alone and naked by a pool and they blurred out his back side.

I agree with everything Andrew Mann said, I cannot believe this tragedy has been made into a movie. People in the UK will be sickened by this, James Bulger a trusting toddler went with these evil sick boys who took him and slowly killed him, while they were stoning him he was apparently screaming for his mummy. I just pray his family NEVER see this. Clearly someone in America decided it would be a good idea to make this movie and profit from the torture and death of a small innocent boy. The movie should be banned. David Schmoeller should be ashamed of himself, perhaps he needs to seek guidance from god and pray for forgiveness. I truly hope this movie is one of the biggest flops of all time and hope that nobody is sick enough to want to see it. Those who do decide they want to see it better take a lot of tissue because the story of what happened to this wee boy will rip your heart out.