Michael Neumann The annual fund raiser at a parochial boy's school becomes a battleground between integrity and peer pressure when a lone freshman defies authority by refusing to join the mandatory chocolate sale, calling down the wrath of both his megalomaniac headmaster and an omnipotent secret society of upperclassmen. Disregarding the techno-pop sound track the best that can be said about this murky allegorical drama is that it makes a sincere attempt to avoid standard teen movie clichés. But whatever message it might have had is camouflaged by the trendy, self-conscious photography (fancy POV camera moves, slow motion flashbacks) and a lack of definition to the campus background. The characters, as a result, all seem to be moving in a vacuum, which makes for a curiously uninvolving film.

btm1 I never read or even heard of the book so I had no idea what to expect. What I saw were characters that were caricatures and a director who thinks that good cinema is focusing on a person who is standing still and unsmiling like a 19th century portrait photograph. A catholic school is the setting and the teacher-monk is evil, sadistic and a megalomaniac. The campus secret society is headed by a student who is evil, sadistic and a megalomaniac. The painfully shy A-student looks at girls but won't express any interest in them even when one of them separates from her group and comes over to talk to him. Is there any new message in this film? I have to confess that I cannot give a fair review to this movie because I turned it off after 30 minutes. It was too painful to watch long enough to find out.

gcd70 Considering the powerful and harshly real novel by Robert Cormier, this Keith Gordon film falls short of the mark. It lacks the absolute power and tragic pointlessness of the book. There are some good performances, but I felt Glover was miscast as Brother Leon.The film does a good job siding us against Archie and for Jerome, but I did not feel this was necessary. Archie is not the only, and hardly the worst, villain.The ending, which does not comply with that of Cormier's novel, defeats the whole purpose of the story. Evil can, and will in many circumstances, win over good. This movie lacked that harsh finish it needed.Friday, February 8, 1991 - Television

foOki Just a quick note on the much debated ending. ----------------------------------------------------Jerry won adulation from his superficial peers who didn't have the courage to stand up against their oppressors, and instead simply followed whoever seemed to be `on top'. A rather shallow victory if one at all, as succeeding in a circus-like fight against just one minion of the `Vigils' could hardly have been Jerry's desired ending. After all that, Archie was simply replaced by his apprentice.Cormiers ending was a far longer one and obviously darker. However this ending is still satisfying as the same underlying story remains, Jerry stood up for what he believed but in the end he was still a pawn.