Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Pretty Good

A Masterpiece!

A different way of telling a story

I must confess the ONLY reason I bought this film was because I live in Sealy, TX, and some of the scenes were shot a few blocks from my house. Considering all the preparations made to the buildings in downtown Sealy for this film, I was disappointed to discover very little of the town was actually shown in the movie. It seems a lot of effort for so little, but I'm sure the city administration was happy just getting Sealy in the credits. As for the movie itself, really not my cup of tea. I don't like these kinds of films at all. But I will say I thought the acting was as good as it could be considering the script moved like a pregnant snail and the dialog was often very weak.

Normally when I hear or read the title of a movie, I have some idea of what it could be like. That's not always correct, but most of the time it works - especially with famous movies of course. But when I read the title of this movie, I really didn't know what it would be about. Of course I didn't think that it would be a movie about the insect, but I just couldn't form a good idea about it. That's why I just gave it a try, not knowing what to expect, but hoping for the best. And I'm glad that I did, because this certainly was a nice movie."The Locusts" is situated in the 1950's and shows how the arrival of Clay Hewitt changes life drastically in a small town. He's looking for a job and is hired by the local feed ranch's owner, an aging widow who likes to drink and seduce younger men. He quickly becomes her new lover, but also has an eye for her quiet son Flyboy. The boy hasn't spoken a word in years and is completely withdrawn since the death of his father. The only one who he talks to since his recent return from a mental hospital is his pet bull. But Clay wants to give it a try and gradually he manages to get the boy out of his isolation, much against the will of the boy's mother...Even though this is perhaps not the most original story ever, I must say that I had a good time watching this movie. The acting has a lot to do with that of course. Vince Vaughn is very enjoyable as Clay Hewitt and Kate Capshaw did a very fine job portraying Delilah, but in my opinion it is Jeremy Davies as Flyboy, who was the best this time. But overall this is a movie that portrayed its characters well and didn't drown in an overdose of plot twists. This is John Patrick Kelley's first and so far only film, but it certainly makes me look forward to new projects from this man. I give this movie a rating between 7/10 and 7.5/10.

I got lung cancer from all the second-hand smoke. In nearly every scene, cigarettes play a prominent role. Either the director was a cigarette junkie, the cast were nicotine addicts, or tobacco companies funded the entire production.The plot was predictably hokey, the acting mediocre (with the exception of Flyman), and the directing lazy. It seemed to pause often to make some point but never delivered the point. Capshaw was especially disappointing. I managed to struggle through all 2+ hours waiting for something to reach out of this film. It never did.The high point was seeing Vince Vaughn take off his shirt - and I'm straight.Don't waste the time and money. It could drive you to lighting up.

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.