One Bizarre Movie

Movies made from books quite typically lack much character development, we are introduced to this bunch of morons by being akin to beamed into back seat of Ali's 5.0 a they ride along...what we see is what we get.

To develop a movie to same extent even as the book it is based on, you know, book is about 240 pages...how long would you need.

the nudity means nothing to me, no comment, neither of the two girls is attractive enough to me to get turned on by them nude or clothed.Lots of movies feature nudity, if a lot is gratuitous, well, that argument rages all over.

the male nudity, I think, is a vehicle for some brief insight into the role of sexual perversion in the Kent/Puccio friendship, and then it's role in the altercation with Ali Willis, which was one of, not all of, the drivers for what happened.
the reason for doing it, is we had a fairly unusual teen murder here.You point out that they are middle-class, right, no doubt a lot of the reason for writing a book, then making a movie of it. If it was a drive-by in the 'hood, poor blacks, pfft, same old same old every day in the hood.
You say they all have apparently solid middle-class parents and homes.Maybe, mostly, the victim was actually an immigrant for what is worth, and Heather Swallers is the exception, she is from a horrific and piteous home background.

You honestly cannot conceive of a group of teens wasting themselves, and their parents at a loss what to do about it?
I'd have thought it one of the most common stories out there.
If these reviwers say it did not happen like this, and the movie is a reasonable telling of Schutzes book imo as I recall it, then how do they say it did happen???
I'm not aware of anybody except people like Willis and Connolly themselves, who claim it was a misrepresentation of what happened, and their role in it.
They would say that, wouldn't they?
They themselves have contradicted known facts and common sense and logic, in their denials.
They make claims such as there never being any intent to actually kill Kent...deny ever participating in a conspiracy where Kent would actually be killed.That so far as they knew, Kent was simply to be beaten up.

If so, why bring in outsider Derek Kaufmann, in his role in the plot ?
Kaufmann was sought out and included specifically because he was believed (wrongly, but a belief encouraged by himself) that he was an experienced killer with mob affiliations).

Nothing appealing?
Well, there is nothing pretty or beautiful or noble in it.It is what it is.
No reason to care about any of them?
With the exception of Heather Swallers,because of her sad and horrific childhood, maybe kind of in some ways Puccio, who although participating in some vile activities with Kent, never seemed as bad as Kent, so he flushes his life down toilet with a life sentence getting rid of Kent when there were surely other options to be tried...

You're up in arms about it which I still don't fully get.
You point out two factual things, that most are from middle-class families, if not particularly actual exemplary ones...and, this kid Kent got butchered one night by them operating in a pack.
Those are the known facts, if you say it cannot happen that way...how do you picture it happening?
What do you think is missing or misrepresented...or what, you just don't accept that middle-class white kids can act as a lost mindless trash in this way?
I don't know what to tell you, maybe we are just more /less pessimistic about the social health of our societies than each other.I think we are in pretty bad shape, and kids like these are not that hard to find.
Anyway, they made the movie and wrote the book, because a bunch of crazy white teens set one of their friends up to be offed one night. I'm sure it made the national newspapers, not just the local ones.
They're there, a group of seven was it, all up, not including victim, he's dead, and actual blows were struck by three of the group.
They are what they are, and he's dead in the way and location that he is dead.