MovieChat Forums > Song for a Raggy Boy (2003) Discussion > One of the worst movies about child abus...

One of the worst movies about child abuse I've seen

posted 18 years ago by JudeMillsy
10 replies | jump to latest

I've just seen "Song for a Raggy Boy" and it may make me look unsensitive but this is probably one of the worst movies about child abuse I've seen.It's not nearly as funny as "Mommie Dearest" but it's really bad.

I found the movie to be very manipulative with a lot of sappy scenes and Aidan Quinn hamming it up.Most of the child actors lacked natural acting chops and some scenes felt staged.It did'nt feel real.

And let's not talk about over the top caricatures with Ian Glen taking the prize for diabolical demon in priest's clothing.We even see him with foam in his mouth in a particularly gruesome scene.People have said that Geraldine McEwan's Sister Bridget in "The Magdalene Sisters" was a cardboard villain.Well,next to Brother John,she's the virgin mary.

The movie lacks the true emotion that "The Magdale Sisters" conveyed.It did'nt need to force feed it.Also,the movie was too TV-like.

I was disappointed because ,ironically,Aisling Walsh directed a TV version of "The Magdalene Sisters" called "Sinners",that showed promise and I expected this movie to touch me.Instead all it gave me was boredom,numbness and some unbearably gruesome scenes.

The horrific true story deserved a better movie.And please,next time,get a better lead actor.Enough with the Dead Poet Society's cop outs,with D-Listed actors.

[–] leoquagmire_uk 18 years ago

i strongly disagree about the quality of the acting.

i think it's so refreshing not to be bombarded with stage school child actors.

All that "look at me" affected stuff ... now that is cringeable!

And just because Aidan Quinn isn't A list doesn't make him a bad actor in fact quite the opposite. This was a small film you know with limited release and although it wasn't perfect i think the performances were very powerful.

[–] JudeMillsy 18 years ago

I have nothing against Aidan Quinn.I just don't find him that great of an actor.And it's not about being a major star.Some of the best acting I've seen had come from unknown actors.Ex:Crissy Rock's heart wrenching performance in "Ladybird Ladybird".

and I agree with you with the "look at me" affected stuff.I was'nt asking for that.I expected natural acting.I wanted to believe in these characters but the movie was so filled with clichés and a black and white view that it was hard to feel moved by it all.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] majorsmith-1 18 years ago

Shut up you degenerate

[–] ninoguapo 17 years ago

I disagree as well. The movie was excellent and the acting was really good - the boys were performing in a much more professional matter than many older and famous actors.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Suki_Weeks 17 years ago

This is not an easy film to watch (some scenes were very graphic) I thought the acting was amazing and the lead gave a fine performance.

[–] realplayer54 14 years ago

Sheesh, this is an old thread. But I just wanted to say I agree with the original poster for the most part. I don't think the performances were as bad, but a lot of it(especially Brother John) had more to do with the writing I think. Aidan Quinn did pretty good for what he was given, John Travers was good, and Chris Newman was pretty good, too.

The scene where Brother John flogged the two brothers was SO obvious and somewhat cheesy(the boys little protest is what kind of saved it for me) and he let us know from the first time he struck Marc Warren that he was NEVER a decent and loving man and whoever picked him should have been flogged themselves. Also, I knew the minute I saw Liam put the picture in the book he was a goner(it was THAT predictable). I've seen it before: Liam was about to get out and start a new life in a positive direction, but Brother John was just not satisfied yet so the only thing he had left to do was set one final example to "get back" at Brother Franklin. I knew that psycho wasn't going to let Liam out of there alive.

And why did they have to strip down to their underwear for every punishment? With the exception of the flogging, it would seem to me that the punishments administered are made easier without those heavy clothes.

I spent my entire childhood growing up. What a waste.

[–] arlo_elam 13 years ago

And why did they have to strip down to their underwear for every punishment?

Humiliation, of course. The Catholic Church were big into shame. Shame of the body happened to be top of that list, so - to them and to those indoctrinated by them - having to strip (especially in front of others) was considered a hugely shameful activity. In other words, the stripping was part of the punishment.

This film had its problems. SPOILERS The ending where Franklin supposedly decides to stay due to the boys' gesture definitely sticks out in my mind. However, I still felt this film was important; something that needed to be made. And - this might sound bad - but I was pleased with the final decision regarding Mercier. What happened him is more in touch with reality than most here seem willing to admit. That's why there were often graveyards on the grounds of such institutions - a nice discreet burial ground. If you really want a cliché, think of what the alternative ending for Mercier would have been - saved by Franklin in the nick of time... yeah, right.

There is also the fact that, ultimately, his death has meaning. He dies because he refuses to kowtow. He refuses to betray his principles. He is willing to sacrifice his life for that which he believes in. It is as though the filmmakers are reaching out to us - beseeching us to be this brave, this principled. Hence the verse recited earlier in the film - 'I will not yield, I will not fall, I will eat dynamite and one day I will explode like a volcano'.

I believe the whole central message of this film revolves around Mercier's death. He couldn't not die. Not because the writer wanted to pull on our heartstrings, but because his death presents us with the film's raison d'être. That being the dilemma each of us will face at some point in our lives - stand true and suffer, or back down and get by?

[–] realplayer54 12 years ago

Humiliation, of course. The Catholic Church were big into shame. Shame of the body happened to be top of that list, so - to them and to those indoctrinated by them - having to strip (especially in front of others) was considered a hugely shameful activity. In other words, the stripping was part of the punishment.

Of course! Thanks for clearing that up.

As for everything about Liam, I had no problem with his demise(as in, I understand it), but it was everything leading up to it. I think the cliches hurt the movie enough to where it was hard to take key scenes seriously. The lead performances(Quinn, Travers, Newman, Warren) was all that stopped it from being somewhat laughable to me. The ending would have been way more powerful in a better movie, but the performances of those four that I mentioned definitely made the scenes watchable.

And while I understand Brother John's significance, his character was WAY over the top in spite of a good performance by the actor with what he was given.

That's my corn out there! You guys are guests in my corn!