Linbeymusol Wonderful character development!

ScoobyMint Disappointment for a huge fan!

Breakinger A Brilliant Conflict

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Apocalypse_Salem Andrew Birkin's Fantastic The Cement Garden (based on Ian McEwan's controversial Novel of the same name.) follows awkward and feminine looking Teenager Jack (Andrew Robertson) and his family that live in a council-house surrounded by ruins somewhere in England.Jack is a hard to like character at first, spending most time either looking at himself in the mirror or roaming the ruins to read and masturbate. In contrast to narcissistic and rebellious Jack we have his sweet, reliable and comionate sister Julie (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who appears to be wise beyond her years. There's also youngest brother Tom, who wants to be a girl (and gets bullied as result in school) and younger sister Sue, who is rather quiet and internal and keeps a diary. Jack's father is strict and eager to criticise all of his kid's actions.Jack's father is sick of keeping up with the garden and plans to cover it up with cement, asking Jack to help him out. Jack soon leaves the old man alone after getting a glimpse of his sister Julie's legs and disappears to the bathroom to masturbate to his own reflection. In a wonderfully edited scene, his father dies of an heart attack and lands with his face in the cement just as Jack is about to cum.Jack first seems careless over the death of his father and continues perving over his sister, and nearly rapes her following an erotic tickle fight.Soon after the death of the father their mother falls sick and is unable to get out of bed, since Jack is to lazy; his sister takes over doing most of the duties in the house. and more games start between the two siblings; after she bosses him around on his birthday she purposefully teases and arouses him with a handstand. (revealing her knickers to him) Julie seems to be very aware of the control she can have over her brother. And despite her motherly and mature nature might not be as sweet as she first appeared to be. It is impossible to take your eyes of Charlotte Gainsbourg, Crossing lines between Tomboy and Femme fatale.The mother es away from her illness only months after the death of the father and the 4 children are now all alone. Afraid that they will be split up and put in orphanages they hide their mother's death by burying her under the cement. (Loved this scene when the cement ran over her dead body, simply beautifully shot and then followed by a flash-back of the kids burying their then living mother in the sand during a Family vacation)The photography overall is superb, from the agoraphobic eagle-eye views of ruins, grey skies, big black shadows and almost monochrome images that create a hostile and dead world where it would almost seem like the kids are the last survivors of a nuclear blast.Despite grief and alienation from the world, The kid's are in a way liberated; youngest boy Tom starts openly wearing dresses and a wig, while Julie starts dating a 30 year old, much to the jealousy and dislike of her brother Jack.I started to warm up to Jack, who despite spending so much time looking into the mirror actually seems like he never quite feel well in his skin, Andrew Robertson subtle performance is wonderful and as the film progresses all characters are extremely well fleshed out on screen, the dialogues feel natural (even if sometimes deliberately awkward) Also loved the tone and pacing; a hauntingly beautiful, sensual and gripping film. 10/10

funkydvd I have heard people writing comments about being shocked by the sexuality in this movie and about being shocked by who was involved in producing it (i.e. relatives). Consider this: the actress who plays Julie was not 14-15 years old when this was shot, she was 22! It's called acting. And, her older "brother", an actor who was no relation, was 19. So, get over it folks. It's a movie, a slow moving but very well done movie.Truth is, I'm sorry if this movie offends some people. But, for goodness sakes, it's a story on a screen that is not even that racy. The movie is actually paced quite well to fit the somber mood and really, who can complain about the acting. I think some who have found any serious fault in the production are just trying to justify their uncomfortable feelings about the subject matter.Anyway, read the other comments, choose for yourself whether or not you care to watch it. But, if you are not put off by the subject matter, you will find a beautiful and sad story.

aimless-46 Aspiring production designers and location scouts should take note of "The Cement Garden" (1993) as an example of especially good use of an available on-the-cheap location. Like the equally low-budget "Carnival of Souls", the film owes much of its effectiveness to the creative use of an available location. "The Cement Garden's" outdoor shots should look familiar as Stanley Kubrick used the location back in 1987 for the main battle sequence of "Full Metal Jacket". He used the abandoned Beckton Gasworks just across from the Royal Docks area (Beckton-Silverton London). The area has now been transformed into London City Airport. As a film, "The Cement Garden" could best be described as pretentious (marked by an unwarranted claim to importance or distinction). It is a movie that tries embarrassingly hard to be more than the sum of its parts. The strategy is to introduce shocking and scandalous elements in such a casual way that it will amp up the effect of breaking taboos far beyond what they would otherwise merit. This too owes much to Kubrick (insert "Lolita" here). "The Cement Garden" is what you would get if Gregg Araki remade "Our Mother's House" on a shoestring budget; although it is safe to say Araki would have done a much better job of acting for the camera direction. It is an adaptation of Ian McEwan's controversial novel, but as the adapting was done by Director Andrew Birkin (later to be blamed for "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" script), the result is likely to be disappointing to readers of McEwan's book. I recommend the film, although some viewers will not enjoy it most will be mildly shocked and entertained by it. I found viewing possible only in 20 minute segments (not so much because it was painful but because it was not involving enough for me to ignore household interruptions). Since the macabre elements aren't particularly shocking (just a couple of stylish "Blue Velvet" type shots), Birkin must fall back on incest and gender identity. It is one perversion too many and there is no logical connection between the two. The story is about a family of six (mother, father, two daughters and two sons). The older son is meant to look like a girl, the older daughter is meant to look like a boy, and the younger son wants to be a girl. The mother's death occurs a few weeks after the father, and the children conceal her death in an effort to stay together. The story is told from the point of view of the oldest boy, who is turned on by his own reflection and by his tease of an older sister. Since he looks so much more feminine than her, his sexual orientation may actually be straight. The younger sister (who is not involved in any of this) looks perfectly normal but spends a lot of time writing letters to her dead mother. Like "Our Mother's House" (a far better film), an older man is inserted into the story in an effort to make something happen. While a little hard to decipher, the basic themes concern the problems associated with assuming responsibilities before you are emotionally mature enough for them. In fairness, an attempt is made to insert an allegorical element into the film, as the older boy frequently does a voice-over reading of a science fiction story. This is meant to reflect his internal moral struggles but the connection with the events of the story is rather fuzzy. Not surprising since the weak direction builds neither suspense nor convincing characters. But at least there is that great production design. Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

shneur The premise of offspring who try to hold their family together after parents' death or desertion has been done a number of times, most notably in "Our Mother's House" (1967), a little-known masterpiece directed by John Clayton. Here the emphasis is different though, concentrating on the developing intimacy between the oldest sibling Julie and her brother Jack. This is presented in a matter-of-fact and non-judgmental fashion, seeming to fit "naturally," as Jack in fact says, with their increasingly weird circumstances. Be warned: there is much adolescent nudity here, including a wild transcendental dance-in-the-rain performed very well by Andrew Robertson. BTW, that scene is reproduced almost identically in "Edges of the Lord" (2001), but with a much younger boy. Ned Birkin, whom I suspect of being director Andrew Birkin's close kin (an irony unintended I'm sure) plays the cross-dressing younger brother, and his sub-plot is not developed, which is probably just as well since he exhibits little talent. I suppose this is included to emphasize the point that in a family untrammeled by conventional moralities, each individual is accepted with whatever modus operandi "works" for him or her. Not an altogether bad idea when one considers it