mgold-8 I have to ask these questions because I don't understand how anyone could have read this script or seen this movie and not wondered about these things.1) If I were planning to rob a house with my 2 cohorts, the 3 of us would certainly not just leave our bikes lying (or standing) in the driveway of the house we were robbing. Nor would be throw them down in the street in the front of the house we were about to rob. There were obviously neighbors; someone would notice the bikes and wonder what was going on.2) How is it that Phillip and Jack and the girl were able to bike to this suburban neighborhood, and back to their "home" in the middle of nowhere, and never even break a sweat. How did they transport the things they stole, when all they had was bicycles? 3) In the second robbery, where Jack hacks up the housekeeper, how could they not have known that someone was home - the garage door of the house was open. Obviously this means someone's home, and likely will be returning to the garage very soon. People don't leave their house, and leave the garage door wide open while they're away. So of course they were going to encounter at least one person in that house. Why not simply choose a different house? 4) Towards the end, when Jack tells Phillip to "just go" and explains that civilization is just over on the other side of "those mountains" -- well, they were just in "civilization" committing acts of robbery earlier that day. Or maybe it was the day before. Either way, did Phillip already forget which way they rode, when they found civilization in the form of the suburban neighborhood? Also, why would Phillip just walk away on foot when he knows where the bikes are, and could have easily taken one.I don't see how it's possible to watch this movie and not wonder about these glaring issues. To me, these things ruined what otherwise might have been a decent film. It had great atmosphere and seemed so promising for the first half of the movie. Unfortunately, the fact that Jack devolved in to a one-dimensional nut job, combined with these ridiculous lapses in logic mentioned above, made me come away from this film feeling like I wasted an hour and a half of my life. Hardly the end of the world. It just seems like with a little more thought and effort, Desert Son could have been a whole lot better than it was.

Johnny_Hing The setting was unique, I'll give it that much. 2 runaways and an abandoned kid struggling to survive in a dilapidated shack somewhere out in the desert. Phillip is the new arrival, having been booted out of the car in the middle of nowhere by his step-Dad with no reason given other than possibly being spoiled, on his way to or from tennis camp.He meets up with Lucy and Jack, an odd couple for sure. Lucy is an orphan with a troubled past, but seems kind and good-natured. Jack is narcissistic and a bully, with a non-stop angry barrage of boring, obscene expletives directed Phillip's way. We see a scene fairly early on with the 3 of them sitting at the table eating rabbit, and Phillip impresses with a magic trick. Perhaps the beginning of a friendship? Or at least a common bond of survival for fellow outcasts? We can only wish.The story goes downhill from there, with Jack morphing into a senseless, cold-blooded killer. Phillip has several opportunities to leave, but chooses not to. He seems resigned to living in the desert, and all because his step-Dad is a jerk?? Phone your Mom, Phil! He also seems rather witless and unresourceful. Whenever Jack asks him a question, Phillip has no reply. Intimidated perhaps, but hey Phil... say something, would you please??!!! Darn. It's your survival we're talking about here, buddy! Lucy and Phillip begin to grow close when Jack becomes unbearable for the both of them. Perhaps there will be some redeeming quality to the movie after all? Maybe they'll fall in love and Phillip will rescue Lucy from her sorry lot in life and take her back to civilization? Sadly, no. The conclusion to this movie resolves nothing. What was the message or intent of this movie? That there is no hope? That life has no meaning, and you might as well give up? To be a moronic simpleton when the going gets tough? Entertaining for the setting (mood, atmosphere, scenery) alone, as well as the possibilities that might have unfolded. But otherwise, a pretty big letdown for the second half of the movie.

lilysorrow Phillip was the most annoying protagonist I have ever witnessed in a movie. Not only was the dialogue obnoxious, but the characters were too. Phillip couldn't grow a set the entire movie and came out learning nothing and being weak. Jack slowly slipped into a maniac character who went on a killing spree. He ended up killing a Maid, Lucy, the Priest, but not Phillip. Lucy and Phillip just stood around coaxing him not to do it. No one stood up to him they just went along reluctantly. At the end when Phillip for a few seconds grows a pair of testicles he and Lucy escape by stabbing Jack. However, Phillip doesn't finish the job and the maniac goes back after them wounded. After a split second kiss between Lucy and Phillip, Jack comes back to the scene and calls for Lucy. Like a moron she goes out to meet Jack, Phillip doesn't stop her. He just lets her walk to her death. At the end Phillip is the only survivor, or assumed survivor because we assume Jack bleeds to death. Terrible movie overall that was unfulfillable to the watcher and the protagonist underwent no change at all. It didn't even resolve the issue between his father who kicked him out in the middle of nowhere to begin with. What about the cops and the death of the Maid? The bodies of everyone? Don't waste your time. This had potential but quickly fizzled.

clint-d-bryan Have you ever you felt cheated at the end of film because you were hoping to get some form of entertainment out of it? This is one of those films. This story has potential. But it annoys me that all the good scenes in this film have no relevance. When I sit down to watch a film I want to be entertained. I don't want to take excessive time out to try and comprehend what is happening and why. I won't deny there are some very strong and compelling scenes in this film, but I feel the director is trying to be too abstract in getting their message across to the audience. To me this seems like the easy way out. I don't need a director's ego(or laziness) getting in the way of a good story.