Let's be realistic.

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Ever lie awake at night, watch something on some obscure cable channel, and end up wondering why you didn't drink yourself into a stupor several hours earlier? I just did. I'd probably feel better tomorrow, had I chosen the booze.THE LOCUSTS is a truly awful film. It's one of those that always makes me ask the questions "WHY was it done and WHERE did the money come from?" Forget the attempts, so en vogue today, of trying to date and sentimentalize a film by mindless overlays of classic music! Genuine inability is timeless.Here is the one good thing I can say about this film: Ms. Judd's make-up artist, Ben Nye, Jr, had the sense to leave her alone. She's radiant...from the safe distance she was photographed. But, everything else is likewise-photographed. I guess the photographer didn't feel comfortable any closer to the storyline.The acting is laughable, especially the three leads. The kid spends two hours trying to do a James Dean and succeeds only in setting back the cause of the speech-impaired a couple decades. He is in rarefied atmosphere here. Only Jennifer Jason Leigh in KANSAS CITY and Richard Gere in BREATHLESS have given comparable performances. Capshaw is, well, Capshaw. Vince who? Doesn't he do novelty records? But the plot takes the cake. To think that human beings would allow themselves to dwell in or near this attempt of some swaggering pump-up to inflict his "values" or "Code of the Cool" on a defenseless kid is ludicrous. The mindset of the executive(s) responsible for the allocation of funds and the filming itself, who must have found SOME potential in the story, is unfathomable. There is none. GIANT and DUEL IN THE SUN and LONG HOT SUMMER have been done before. With taste, opulence, style or length to cover gaps in meaning or worth. This film has none of any of that.Fortunately, the family off themselves at the end, preventing a sequel.I think I now understand why Orion bankrupted.

This came on at 4:40 AM this morning, and I was tired, but tried to catch it all. I didn't, and so want to see it again, but I think I caught most of the necessary details. Vince was much better, more thorough, full, than what I've seen him in before (which isn't much) and now I'll expect more. Judd, Davies, and Rudd are also fairly unfamiliar, but now I'll get at them too. They were all fine, but I want that second viewing. I'll probably tape it, but it only came on once this month here. Maybe I'll rent it. Certainly not upbeat, but so is life sometimes. The actors had me reacting with both anger and tenderness, so I hope that won't be lost next time. As for other mentioned films, Cat left me cool, Hud I love, and remaking Streetcar sans Leigh, Brando, Hunter, et al, is fruitless, even with full dialogue. I'm much more on the positive side with this one so far...hope it lasts...

That this film has a running time OVER 2 hours, and has had little or no theatrical recognition, immediately activates my senses. This length will complicate scheduling on pay-cable, and meant pressing an additional disk for the laser package. Why?. One possibility (rare) is that it is truly an auteur's masterpiece, not for the masses, maybe, but important enough, as is, to be kept intact. The more likely scenario is that this movie is such a waste of time that everyone involved could really care less what gets released. By now they've all changed their names, left town, and moved onto the next..Predictably, The Locusts falls into category 2. Vince Vaughan in a muscle shirt and Ashley Judd with her cotton dress flying in the wind are about all this film has on the plus side. Dragging and nagging situations, disconnected dialogue, and uncertain motivation tend to make most every frame tortuous to endure.First time-writer-directors (John Patrick Kelley here) tend to script a very personal project, one based on material with which they are intimately familiar-they draw on their strength. Subsequent efforts can wane, as the writer ventures into more unfamiliar territory. With this in mind, I leave you with 2 questions: (1) Where in the world did this story come from? And (2) What can we expect from John Patrick Kelly when he starts writing from an unfamiliar point of view ?The answers may scare you.

I would much rather see a movie like this, that falters occasionally under the weight of a few cliches, than a thousand "innovative" films in love with their own novelties. This film seems made by young filmmakers who've done a hell of a job bringing a very American story to the screen with novelistic detail. Don't see that much anymore, and they almost pull it off here. Wish there was more Ashley Judd. Vaughn and Davies are great together. Vaughn's best role yet... hope there'll be more like it in the