mraiche1980 This movie is actually pretty good. The problem with it is that it does not stand alone as a movie. If you haven't read the book, you probably won't like the movie. If you have read the book, then you will enjoy this adaptation of a sympathetic depiction of a lonely serial killer.

shacoria14 The movie is not entirely terrible but it did feel entirely pointless. It mostly centers around a man who does disturbing things and that's basically it. The sheriff knows that he is up to something and tries to catch him. There didn't really seem to be any real story behind it. I didn't find myself caring about any of the characters in the movie at all. If you are seeing the movie because of James Franco, I would not bother because he is barely in the movie. I have no idea why he is listed as a star of the movie. His is a bit part at best. There were a couple of interesting points in the movie, but for the most part, it is definitely not a movie worth seeing at all. Definitely skip this one and see something else.

Theo Robertson With Corman McCarthy you know you're not going to get light , frothy family friendly fare . NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN saw film producers queue up to buy film rights for his novels and to be fair THE ROAD is one of the most memorable post apocalyptic American cinema has produced in a very long time , as long as you get past the unrelenting nihilistic mood . With CHILD OF GOD the same in your face attempt to shock the audience is present and at four minutes in the audience are treated to a graphic scene of a character doing a poo ! That gives you an idea of how the film continues and if you don't like CHILD OF GOD by this stage turn off and find90 minutes to do something else !!!!! SUGGESTIVE SPOILERS !!!!!Despite the cast being headed by the prolific James Franco who also directs Franco only appears in cameo . Instead the story is centered around Lester Ballard played by Scott Haze , an outsider of society whose unsocial behaviour eventually mutates in anti-social serial murder . It is a good performance and one wonders if Franco might have had one eye of the Oscars of getting Haze an Oscar nomination . It's certainly worthy of a nom and reading the trivia section we learn Haze takes method acting to new heights by preparing for the role by sleeping in the open and living in a cave . Perhaps by trying too hard the voters of these prestigious awards decided to ignore Haze for this very reason ? More likely however is that when you're playing a character it's essential that the audience emphasise with your aims . Now I don't mean the audience have to agree or sympathise with these aims but must understand them at the most basic fundamental level . Here we see Ballard embark on a killing spree . Fair enough , show me someone who doesn't harbour abstract murderous fantasies and I will show you a hypocritical liar but killing people because of motives of necrophilia is something entirely different . There might be reasons why having sex with a dead body is preferable to a live one but none springs to mind . I have also never watched a film thinking to myself "Hmmm not a bad film but we could have benefited from a few scenes of necrophilia inserted in to it" ; Like pooing necrophilia isn't a spectator sport . The fact that Franco shoots the film with hand-held cameras giving everything a cinema verite feel adds to the alienating feel CHILD OF GOD is an example of a film being well made and acted but also lives up to the phrase "It's not a film for everyone" .meaning it has little commercial appeal and isn't popcorn entertainment for the masses . Bleak and depressing it's one of these films I'm unsure I should have watched in the first place and I'm rather sure I have no compulsion to watch it again . You have been warned

Eric_Cubed I like James Franco. He is no doubt a very talented actor and very smart academician-a PHD candidate for sure. I though he was supreme as the meth huffing villain in Home-front, the weed-dealing side-kick in Pineapple Express and as Harry Osbourne for sure. But at the helm of interpreting Cormac McCarthy's worst and most depraved screenplay onto film? This movie is utter trash. Though the actor playing Lester Ballard is truly magnificent, I still can't help but to picture him gumming and grimacing his way through his lines like the unholy impunity of a constipated Charlton Heston in The Planet of the Apes as essentially a waste of his talent. Is this character a troglodyte man-ape or a severely traumatized boy who saw his father hanged and his mother abandon him. Did we really have to see him portrayed as Ben Stiller's retarded character in Tropic of Thunder? This was a opportunity to portray a multi-layered, complex character with elements of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, developmental trauma and child abuse, driven to necrophilia. James, I respect your artistic vision, but please take a hint from The Road.