SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

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

Im baffled as to why this film gets such poor, or at least middling, reviews. This is one of the most captivating documentaries/films/shows i've ever watched. Im glad the filmmakers didn't try to explain the whys or wherefores, they just allowed the boys, their homes, the location to be the story in a truly fascinating and wonderful way. The relationship between andrew and his father is one of the most superbly captured father/son relationships I've ever seen on screen. I don't understand how people can feel frustration or anger while watching this movie and then give it a poor review. You're supposed to feel frustrated and angry! You're supposed to like Andrew! He seems like a great kid! You're supposed to want to give that other kid a kick in the ass! And his mom! To me thats the beauty of this film. I laughed, got mad, and even cried while watching it. I experienced the full spectrum of emotion throughout the 90or so mins Super filmmaking - I wish i could erase it from my memory so i could watch it anew all over again.

Is there something I should know about these people?Because as much as I am concerned, I just watched something about low life without any sense or purpose?It's like watching insects or something, why does this "movie" exist other than showing me the lowest possible state of being?I am not being sarcastic here, I just don't get it. As much as I like documentaries and as much as I like diversity and learning about different people,this is just depressing and useless.Not enough lines, ,yeah? Well sometimes you don't need to write ten lines to make your point. Still need more? Have another line!

I don't understand what the filmmakers are trying to achieve. They're showing what it's like to be a young, poor teen in Missouri without explaining why things really are the way they are. The subject is glossed over with a thin layer of hometown bias. It would take a two-week documentary from Ken Burns just to scratch the surface of this complex issues. Don't believe for one second that this is something new in America. Change the year to 1954 and the location to Ironton, Missouri, and it could have been my dad in Harley's place. All of the boys in this documentary were far better off than my dad or grandparents, but that's not saying much. Yes, poverty exists in Missouri and water is wet. As long as people are free to make bad decisions and there aren't any job requirements for "parent", this will continue to be the case. If this documentary showed something new to somebody who can do something about it, that's great. I hope that is the case, but I doubt it. And, please, avoid making comparisons to Ferguson, Missouri. The issues are completely different, though the solution would help alleviate both problems.

My wife and I both looked forward to seeing this at the Traverse CIty Film Festival. Living in an impoverished area of Michigan makes us have first-hand compassion for those who have so little. But this movie seemed to us to be little more than a repetitive and depressing look at families going nowhere. There was absolutely no arc in the documentary study of 3 young boys who ended up with little more knowledge or ability to cope at the end of the film than when it started. No one seemed any wiser or less clueless. The film follows 3 young boys (why not at least one girl??) and, unfortunately, two are clearly psychiatrically challenged. Only Andrew seems to have some ability to logically analyze his sad situation and the failures of the adults around him. Harley is "scary" unbalanced emotionally with huge outbursts of violence (especially so, when one sees him fondling knives in a store and knowing he will soon be legally able to purchase guns). Appachey is very similar. Both have completely unrealistic expectations of their future. It is hard for me to understand that the filmmakers say they come from this area and know this poverty firsthand. I see the working (and non-working) poor everyday as a physician who sees such patients. There are a few who resemble these boys and their families but most do not. When viewers see the families in this film continuously chugging down high-caffeine drink (and with the adults, beer), and chain- smoking, while playing video games day and night, it makes it pretty hard to be sympathetic. The poor in my practice hunt, fish, spend time with their kids, and basically do the best they can. These parents lay in bed all day and call the truant officers when their kids become too much for them. The images presented here just seems so far from the reality I have seen in my patients living in poverty. And, as I said, no arc and no story is being told except that these people are living an existence they are unlikely to ever escape. We were very disappointed.