It's a disturbing fact of life, and when handled responsibly, as it is by this writer/director team - meaning without nudity or pandering - the topic can provoke a vital discussion between teens and their parents. Although unrated, MPAA would probably slap an NC-17 rating, barring those under seventeen from attending the film, which would ruin the discussions. Such hypocrisy is invariably at the expense of indie films, while studio product such as American Beauty, in which Kevin Spacey enjoys graphic fantasies of the underage Mena Suvari, slides by with an R rating. The system stinks; Costanzo's movie does not. It's a powerful and provocative achievement from a first-time filmmaker of enormous promise.
23 Reviews
Mixed bag
RickManhattan3 December 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The more I think about it the lamer this movie seems. First of all, the plot starts out impossibly implausible. No double-PhD who has studied child molestation and who runs a boys' school would find himself in the dorm massaging a 13-year-old's forehead, then getting in bed with him and hugging, clothes on or not. Second, that scene and a couple of others carry strong homo-erotic overtones that might appeal to the pedophiles but mainly detract from the story's integrity. Third, the actors especially the boys are clearly amateurs. The grownups are good enough but nothing special, and the only real standout is Glen's lawyer, who is pretty good. Fourth, the suicide of Chris is entirely predictable so the melodrama is overdone.
The limp-wristed Philadelphia queer the prosecutor digs up to call into question Glen's behavior is straight from limp-wristed-queer central casting and that is offensive. The circumstances of the storage of the doctoral research, including the existence of evidence the researcher told the police about it, seems pretty contrived. The revelation of the boy Glen saved for Jesus is almost sickening. There is a deus-ex-machina feel about the whole sequence of events. Tommy doesn't really have a good explanation why he lied, so I thought it would have been more interesting if it had turned out the other boy in the dorm room had sodomized Tommy after Glenh had departed, and he could have revealed that in cross-examination, but there I go rewriting the story.
There are after all good lessons: appearances are not always accurate, public perception can be wrong, there are a lot of preconceived notions about man-boy relationships, prosecutors often exceed the limits of decency, and above all: If you are a middle-aged man running a boys' school avoid getting in bed with a thirteen-year-old under any circumstances, unless you are looking for a brief good time and spending the rest of your life in jail.
The limp-wristed Philadelphia queer the prosecutor digs up to call into question Glen's behavior is straight from limp-wristed-queer central casting and that is offensive. The circumstances of the storage of the doctoral research, including the existence of evidence the researcher told the police about it, seems pretty contrived. The revelation of the boy Glen saved for Jesus is almost sickening. There is a deus-ex-machina feel about the whole sequence of events. Tommy doesn't really have a good explanation why he lied, so I thought it would have been more interesting if it had turned out the other boy in the dorm room had sodomized Tommy after Glenh had departed, and he could have revealed that in cross-examination, but there I go rewriting the story.
There are after all good lessons: appearances are not always accurate, public perception can be wrong, there are a lot of preconceived notions about man-boy relationships, prosecutors often exceed the limits of decency, and above all: If you are a middle-aged man running a boys' school avoid getting in bed with a thirteen-year-old under any circumstances, unless you are looking for a brief good time and spending the rest of your life in jail.
A Sparkling Little Gem
piouhjfgydhgtr9 June 2003
When did movies go from great stories involving humanity to incredibly lame computer-generated images? I was so pleased to find this gem as a return to the movies of old. Beautiful performances and robust story line. One that has stayed with me since I watched it 2 days ago. I can only hope the big boys take note that some of us enjoy the simpler things in life.
Written work vs. Filmmaking
cmmescalona11 May 2003
Rocky's effort is plausible. But the use of video in too-brightly lit scenes flattens the experience. When the story gets darker, things just get better. The storytelling becomes gripping once the trouble really starts. The scenes of the trial are superb, very flat-old style, but i still think that B&W should be shot on film. The depth of most scenes is so deep, that you instantly come to think of tv, something I just didn't expect in a film. Alas, there's a huge difference in budget if you shoot on video with a full HD equipment, as this is the case.
The story is definitely a very difficult subject to portray without morally judging each and every character. But the way Rocky and the writer did it for the screenplay is rather superb. This is something to really talk about with kids around that age.
Maybe the topic of age of consent is one of the most complex things in our society to talk about. And I think it's quite absurd to legislate on it. Consent depends on the individual's maturity, background and beliefs. But I'm most sure that consent depends really on just one thing: freedom. The decision capability of an individual to act in a way he or she considers helpful, good or whatever positive adjective you can put on that behaviour. Usually, the real consent in whatever conduct the society claims as criminal, is, alas, love! Two thumbs up for this work. Technically film was a better option for dramatic expression.
The story is definitely a very difficult subject to portray without morally judging each and every character. But the way Rocky and the writer did it for the screenplay is rather superb. This is something to really talk about with kids around that age.
Maybe the topic of age of consent is one of the most complex things in our society to talk about. And I think it's quite absurd to legislate on it. Consent depends on the individual's maturity, background and beliefs. But I'm most sure that consent depends really on just one thing: freedom. The decision capability of an individual to act in a way he or she considers helpful, good or whatever positive adjective you can put on that behaviour. Usually, the real consent in whatever conduct the society claims as criminal, is, alas, love! Two thumbs up for this work. Technically film was a better option for dramatic expression.
Kiddie Porn Its not
demsd14 November 2010
I would have to disagree with krewjay - suggesting that the FBI is going to kick down your door for having this movie is preposterous. There is not one single scene that is even remotely close to being visually suggestive as far as sexual abuse goes - it is only verbally implied.
That being said, I was not impressed with the movie at all. It was poorly scripted and lacked enthusiasm. I don't understand why it was shot in black and white, and it didn't help and either did the excessive dialogue.
The subject matter, although taboo, was not as perturbing as some here suggested - the rape scene in Precious (2009) was more disturbing.
That being said, I was not impressed with the movie at all. It was poorly scripted and lacked enthusiasm. I don't understand why it was shot in black and white, and it didn't help and either did the excessive dialogue.
The subject matter, although taboo, was not as perturbing as some here suggested - the rape scene in Precious (2009) was more disturbing.
Disturbing subject that makes you think
Andreas_N5 January 2006
Return to Innocence is a very interesting movie in terms of its subject. It deals with relationships between boys and male adults and their effects. The movie is based on Gary M. Frazier's novel. The author himself does the screenplay and thus participates in the making of this LifeLine Entertainment Picture. The movie is directed and produced by Rocky Costanzo, Black&White and endowed with a gripping score by Orren Merton.
It is the story of Glen Erskine (a solid Richard Meese), director and chief of staff of New Horizons, a group home and counseling center for abused boys, and the relationship to one of his boys, 13-year-old Tommy Jackson (Andrew Martin). Now Glen Erskine is the leading personality in the field of child therapy and a first-rate scholar of male sexuality, having dealt with the phenomenon of pederasty and intergenerational relationships in various books and articles. When Glen finds out that one of his counselors has had a sexual encounter with Tommy Jackson, he confronts him with the consequences, which ultimately leads to an accident and the death of this counselor. Now Tommy Jackson strikes back by accusing the man he believes responsible. With that accusation of child molestation, the stage is set for a gloomy, disturbing, yet still emotionally stirring and poignant tale of love and sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness. Thus this movie becomes a thrilling court room drama and provides a riveting inside look at the processes and agendas involved in the handling of a child sex abuse case.
Rocky Costanzo has approached a subject that many ordinary citizens would preferably sweep under the carpet. The story of Glen Erskine is indeed very controversial as is the man and some of his attitudes. What I find particularly striking about this production is the fact that Glen Erskine appears to be a man of strong character and principles. He believes in what he his doing, he shows fierce commitment and unwavering sacrifice. In fact, as we find out in the movie, he has never had sexual contact with any of the boys under his custody. His entire life turns upside down as he has to defend himself in the courtroom. He has to defend his honor, but also his entire personal background of caring about boys and working for them with unselfish passion. In the course of the trial before the grand jury, we get an idea of Glen's work, his values and his character. He has committed himself to a cause that leads a morally biased public to question his righteousness, which makes you think about the controversy of men who devote their lives to help young boys. Thus this movie is a pervasive tale of the most human of all emotions: love.
To make this very clear, the movie does not answer the most urgent question it evokes: Is a sexual relationship between an adult and a boy always considered molestation and abuse, leading to negative effects on the boy's mind? Or can it under certain premises if not be appreciated at least get rid of its sinister reputation? Or in other words: Is there really no difference between sexual predators and boy-lovers? This is the main essence of the story. The answer is not given; it is left to the audience to make up their minds, if they are open-minded enough to even consider reflecting about this issue.
Having seen this movie, my thoughts circled around this issue for a while, and I started doing some research on the Internet. I am too young, too inexperienced and lacking the scientific knowledge to assess any of the heavy moral questions addressed. However, I quickly found many information about the movie, the novel and the issues brought up in there. The devotion and passion Glen Erskine embodies is something I could never live up to, but I can easily identify with his intentions. He loves his boys, and his boys love him. I have found some articles that differentiate between so-called 'boy-lovers' and pederasts. The latter are primarily interested in getting sexually stimulated by boys, while the former just care about the boys and would never do anything that hurts them. I was not aware of this distinction before, but having seen this movie and reflected about the issue, it makes some sense to me. So the question is, should every male adult strictly refuse any sort of sexual touch, even if there is no threat, violence or whatever, but just mutual love? Having said this, Glen Erskine is not even a member of this category, for he has never done anything like that. There are scientific articles that claim that boys are not necessarily harmed, even if there is some sort of sexual relationship; something hard to digest for dour conservatives.
I just meant to point out the moral aspects addressed by the movie, issues that are shunned by the public and rather ignored than discussed which ultimately leads to branding everyone who spends too much time with boys, even if there is no evidence of child abuse. Rapists and men who care about boys must not be put into the same category. I cannot see anything sinister in the kind of devotion Glen Erskine shows towards his boys; on the contrary, this movie made me glad that there are men who overcome our morally biased public and give boys the kind of love they need.
However, this movie has done a great job in bringing these issues to the fore. I give it a 8, basically due to the theme. The movie itself has some weaknesses. While the score was wonderful and the Black&White did strengthen the visuals in a stunning manner, the acting was somehow shallow and not as convincing as I would have liked it to be. The actors were awkward occasionally and not really capable of giving their characters the emotional depth and authenticity that this subject would have required.
It is the story of Glen Erskine (a solid Richard Meese), director and chief of staff of New Horizons, a group home and counseling center for abused boys, and the relationship to one of his boys, 13-year-old Tommy Jackson (Andrew Martin). Now Glen Erskine is the leading personality in the field of child therapy and a first-rate scholar of male sexuality, having dealt with the phenomenon of pederasty and intergenerational relationships in various books and articles. When Glen finds out that one of his counselors has had a sexual encounter with Tommy Jackson, he confronts him with the consequences, which ultimately leads to an accident and the death of this counselor. Now Tommy Jackson strikes back by accusing the man he believes responsible. With that accusation of child molestation, the stage is set for a gloomy, disturbing, yet still emotionally stirring and poignant tale of love and sacrifice, redemption and forgiveness. Thus this movie becomes a thrilling court room drama and provides a riveting inside look at the processes and agendas involved in the handling of a child sex abuse case.
Rocky Costanzo has approached a subject that many ordinary citizens would preferably sweep under the carpet. The story of Glen Erskine is indeed very controversial as is the man and some of his attitudes. What I find particularly striking about this production is the fact that Glen Erskine appears to be a man of strong character and principles. He believes in what he his doing, he shows fierce commitment and unwavering sacrifice. In fact, as we find out in the movie, he has never had sexual contact with any of the boys under his custody. His entire life turns upside down as he has to defend himself in the courtroom. He has to defend his honor, but also his entire personal background of caring about boys and working for them with unselfish passion. In the course of the trial before the grand jury, we get an idea of Glen's work, his values and his character. He has committed himself to a cause that leads a morally biased public to question his righteousness, which makes you think about the controversy of men who devote their lives to help young boys. Thus this movie is a pervasive tale of the most human of all emotions: love.
To make this very clear, the movie does not answer the most urgent question it evokes: Is a sexual relationship between an adult and a boy always considered molestation and abuse, leading to negative effects on the boy's mind? Or can it under certain premises if not be appreciated at least get rid of its sinister reputation? Or in other words: Is there really no difference between sexual predators and boy-lovers? This is the main essence of the story. The answer is not given; it is left to the audience to make up their minds, if they are open-minded enough to even consider reflecting about this issue.
Having seen this movie, my thoughts circled around this issue for a while, and I started doing some research on the Internet. I am too young, too inexperienced and lacking the scientific knowledge to assess any of the heavy moral questions addressed. However, I quickly found many information about the movie, the novel and the issues brought up in there. The devotion and passion Glen Erskine embodies is something I could never live up to, but I can easily identify with his intentions. He loves his boys, and his boys love him. I have found some articles that differentiate between so-called 'boy-lovers' and pederasts. The latter are primarily interested in getting sexually stimulated by boys, while the former just care about the boys and would never do anything that hurts them. I was not aware of this distinction before, but having seen this movie and reflected about the issue, it makes some sense to me. So the question is, should every male adult strictly refuse any sort of sexual touch, even if there is no threat, violence or whatever, but just mutual love? Having said this, Glen Erskine is not even a member of this category, for he has never done anything like that. There are scientific articles that claim that boys are not necessarily harmed, even if there is some sort of sexual relationship; something hard to digest for dour conservatives.
I just meant to point out the moral aspects addressed by the movie, issues that are shunned by the public and rather ignored than discussed which ultimately leads to branding everyone who spends too much time with boys, even if there is no evidence of child abuse. Rapists and men who care about boys must not be put into the same category. I cannot see anything sinister in the kind of devotion Glen Erskine shows towards his boys; on the contrary, this movie made me glad that there are men who overcome our morally biased public and give boys the kind of love they need.
However, this movie has done a great job in bringing these issues to the fore. I give it a 8, basically due to the theme. The movie itself has some weaknesses. While the score was wonderful and the Black&White did strengthen the visuals in a stunning manner, the acting was somehow shallow and not as convincing as I would have liked it to be. The actors were awkward occasionally and not really capable of giving their characters the emotional depth and authenticity that this subject would have required.
one of the worst movies I have ever seen
Xeridian17 December 2009
Normally I don't comment on a movie unless I feel the other comments don't do it justice, and this is no exception. I'm absolutely stunned that this movie received even remotely favorable comments from other viewers. I can't think of anything about this film that was to its credit, and after just 5 minutes in I was sure this was either a joke or a high school film student's class project.
To begin with the script is just atrocious. The characters are very two- dimensional, the coincidences are ridiculous (such as the main character's son skinny dipping when the main character comes home, wrapping a towel around himself, then sitting on his dad's lap right after the child abuse accusation and right before the arrest), and above all there is absolutely no motivation for the boy, Tommy, to accuse the doctor of molestation in the first place. In fact, there is every reason that he WOULDN'T do this. It just makes no sense.
The lines themselves are contrived and make sure that even the most inept of viewers understands every single detail of what is going on, including what everyone is thinking. It is also unbelievable dialog at many points, such as the emotional outburst of the accused doctor as he is surprised by the questions he's being asked during deposition. The doctor even makes the comment that he's testified at many child abuse/molestation cases before, so he in no way should be surprised by the questions.
The acting, without exception, is pitiful. It doesn't help that both of the main characters, the accused and the accuser, are the worst actors of the lot. The main doctor character reminds me of John Walsh, the host of the old show America's Most Wanted. He reminded me of John so much that I had to look up his IMDb profile to confirm that it wasn't him (I thought perhaps John had gotten fat and aged poorly then began staring in film student level movies).
The directing and editing are on par with the other criticisms. Pointless shots that lasted too long and that often included characters that were superfluous to the plot.
I just have nothing good to say about this waste of time.
To begin with the script is just atrocious. The characters are very two- dimensional, the coincidences are ridiculous (such as the main character's son skinny dipping when the main character comes home, wrapping a towel around himself, then sitting on his dad's lap right after the child abuse accusation and right before the arrest), and above all there is absolutely no motivation for the boy, Tommy, to accuse the doctor of molestation in the first place. In fact, there is every reason that he WOULDN'T do this. It just makes no sense.
The lines themselves are contrived and make sure that even the most inept of viewers understands every single detail of what is going on, including what everyone is thinking. It is also unbelievable dialog at many points, such as the emotional outburst of the accused doctor as he is surprised by the questions he's being asked during deposition. The doctor even makes the comment that he's testified at many child abuse/molestation cases before, so he in no way should be surprised by the questions.
The acting, without exception, is pitiful. It doesn't help that both of the main characters, the accused and the accuser, are the worst actors of the lot. The main doctor character reminds me of John Walsh, the host of the old show America's Most Wanted. He reminded me of John so much that I had to look up his IMDb profile to confirm that it wasn't him (I thought perhaps John had gotten fat and aged poorly then began staring in film student level movies).
The directing and editing are on par with the other criticisms. Pointless shots that lasted too long and that often included characters that were superfluous to the plot.
I just have nothing good to say about this waste of time.
A Topic for Discussion
ttihjiu610 July 2003
"Return to Innocence" is a prevailing film about child abuse, seen from the perspective of its main character, Tommy Jackson. The movie has a documentary feel to it, and the story of a misguided kid growing up in a 'boy's home' youth shelter is nothing new, but the performances here make this a little more than just another movie about a troubled childhood. Tommy Jackson (Andrew Martin, 13, in a tremendous role) is placed into New Horizons with other abused and neglected teens. The struggle for Dr. Erskine is finding this boy's innocence hidden underneath his quiet and demoralized exterior. Erskine truly cares for the boys and is openly close to Tommy, but it is this closeness that makes him vulnerable. The fact is made very clear that children can and do lie without realizing the consequences of their falsehood. Erskine gets a first hand look at the power of a false accusation and we the audience get to come along for the ride.
Return to Innocence is not as hard-hitting as it could be, but it's still honest and straightforward. It never strives for cheap sentimentality, either, as it's moments of power seem to draw from real-life itself. Although the ending is rather open-ended, leaving you wondering if the implication is positive or negative, the director's message is absoultely present, and it personally set up a 45-minute conversation among the group of people I watched the movie with.
Return to Innocence is not as hard-hitting as it could be, but it's still honest and straightforward. It never strives for cheap sentimentality, either, as it's moments of power seem to draw from real-life itself. Although the ending is rather open-ended, leaving you wondering if the implication is positive or negative, the director's message is absoultely present, and it personally set up a 45-minute conversation among the group of people I watched the movie with.
A total waste
jackpaints18 February 2013
The acting in this is so terrible, It actually made me laugh! This story is so unbelievable I stopped watching about a third through. This should be classified as a comic fairy tale! During Chris's interview he was asked the intimate details of the sex act he performed on the boy rather then simply call the cops. It was as though he was relishing all the steamy events for himself. What a joke and a terrible depiction of anything that resembles real people and real life. Don't waste your time on this one! The review must contain ten lines it tells me but I honestly cannot think of anything else to say about this comic of a movie!
Intimate & Complex
hkhgkdhk11 May 2003
I enjoyed this film immensely. The combination of intimacy and complexity are truly amazing. The darkness of the picture and music really set the mood and pulls the film together visually. The acting was superb as well. I highly recommend this piece of cinema art.
Kiddie Porn
krewjay23 January 2009
This borders on kiddie porn. The "counselor" condones sex between another counselor and a kid. The way it was filmed makes it look like someone with a camera filmed it in some back woods house. And the counselor massaging the kids head while he is in his underwear? It's creepy. I bought a copy of it and destroyed it because I thought I could be arrested for having kiddie porn. If you don't want the FBI kicking down your door don't buy this movie. I didn't even want to give it 1 star but there was no option for negative stars. I can't believe the first bunch of "reviewers" gave it good reviews. They must be members of the Man Boy Love Association. If you aren't into pedophilia don't watch this movie.
This damn thing was good
indiebuff20014 November 2002
I was totally blown away by this movie. I guess mostly because I thought it was going to be another "Oh let's all feel sorry for this poor troubled boy" flick, but damn this thing was much better than that. Some of those scenes were intense. Any movie that can make me squirm in my seat deserves a "thumbs up."
I am pleasantly shocked...
coldshot1 April 2003
...that a film with no star power could hold my attention throughout the duration. I was glued to my seat. The pace was perfect and the tension built from one scene to the next. The images and concept still with me long after the film was over. This is a great film and I look forward to seeing what the director comes up with next time.
A job well done
upifilms23 May 2002
Simple yet very well made. Props to the filmmakers. The court scenes are right on, unlike your typical TV courtroom dramas. However, I must say that I find the scenes similar to the old Perry Mason programs with great close-up shots of the actors showing perfect emotions.
A true look at humanity
Tracy-3518 August 2001
Looking beyond the obvious plot, I found myself caught up in the side story hiding within. The story of this sad little boy's search for love. Something his mother never gave him. When the boy does find someone that truly loves him, their relationship is torn apart, sending the boy back to his familiar loneliness, with added confusion on top of that. This side element alone makes this film terrific.
Observed through the captive audience
fhbgvfbhguyvrety30 August 2003
As I often do with other films, I observed the audience reaction to RTI as the unsettling scenes flickered on the big screen. Facial reactions don't lie and neither does this film's expedition.
One of the few great aspects of this film can found in its subtleties. The multiple variations of abuse Tommy has suffered are present, yet aren't spelled out to the sophisticated audience. Instead they appear deep in the eyes of the young lead. It is elements such as this that make it clear to us industry folk that the direction and of course acting were at its best.
It comes as no surprise then that this film has done very good for itself. Finding the "right" market is a goal of every filmmaker, which more times than none is a goal that is never met. I am very anxious to see what these producers do next time out.
One of the few great aspects of this film can found in its subtleties. The multiple variations of abuse Tommy has suffered are present, yet aren't spelled out to the sophisticated audience. Instead they appear deep in the eyes of the young lead. It is elements such as this that make it clear to us industry folk that the direction and of course acting were at its best.
It comes as no surprise then that this film has done very good for itself. Finding the "right" market is a goal of every filmmaker, which more times than none is a goal that is never met. I am very anxious to see what these producers do next time out.
Warmth and Liberating
reelworks19 September 2003
This isn't the first film to touch on themes and issues far more universal than not, yet it certainly does make its mark on the "exceptional" wall of independent cinema. It handles the extremely risky subject matter with grace and charm, and does it with warmth and liberation within the characters, however with only festival status behind it, the film has neglected to achieve global market success.
A strong but important movie
rhthythth28 April 2003
This movie needs to have a warning label attached, letting people know what they're in for. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great movie with strong writing and acting, but wow, what a disturbing topic. Not for the kiddies:-)
A True Eye Opener
dave_klem14 May 2003
You never know what to expect from indies. Too many times no money means no good. This is not the case here. I think the producers did very well with what they had to work with. This film grabs you with the characters because they are easy to identify with.
Not bad at all considering...
hgktsbvjtr24 August 2003
I just watched the dvd and I really enjoyed it. The fact is, the makers of this movie could have used more money to spice it up, but after hearing on the commentary how much work they put in just to get the movie made, I have to give them all a big thumbs-up! To me the message comes through and the actors helped to make that possible. I will recommend this movie to all of my people. Great job!!!
Both acclaimed and vilified for its subject content
hfbghjtbgtjrveytr3 November 2003
This film has been noted as being both acclaimed and vilified for its subject content. I always tend to pull for these kinds of films because they are truly the chance takers. The writing and directing were very good. Most of the acting was great, other than some of the smaller parts. If you are looking for a true court drama story...its worth watching.
Way to go, Rocky
asdfdhgl28 May 2003
I have followed this filmmaker's venture for quite some time and I am so very impressed with the immense climb from the previous films. Return To Innocence really connects you to the story so much that I couldn't break away from the action. I needed to see what was going to happen next. I especially enjoyed watching the court scenes and how they seemed to portray a real criminal trial and not the stereotypical movie trial. I hope we are all fortunate enough to see other films from Rocky and his team in the future. Great Job!
Abuse is bidirectional
hamidi226 July 2017
Age doesn't matter. A human being is a human being. I think the man is shown to be abused in this movie. We used always to accuse the older one, while age doesn't matter. The boy needs the relation and the man loves him and helps him and brings satisfaction to him. Certainly he gets satisfied too, but this is not a child abuse. We should learn to respect everyone's feelings. Love may happen in a child's heart as well as need to have sex...
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
