fadeinlight I'm usually not a fan of inner-city dramas, but this one is different. There's no overt political message--in fact, in that regards it comes off more like an impassive documentary: you are the disembodied eye, witnessing the lives of two young abandoned cubs as they struggle to survive in one of the harshest environments in the country. There's no finger-pointing, no cliché'd "bad guy"...in fact, (almost) everyone is a "bad guy" at one point or another, except for Pete (the voice of innocence, acquainted to the local Hell by a more seasoned Mister).The acting by the two young heroes is fantastic--particularly from Skylan Brooks, who (I'm sure) will be gracing our screen for decades to come.The directing is both solid and refreshing--Mr. George Tillman Jr.'s style features is a wonderful change from today's prevalent "cut to another scene every half seconds" style. He's not afraid to dwell on a seemingly-unrelated scene to fill in atmosphere, and he doesn't insult the audience by explaining what is clearly implied. His is a name worth remembering as well.This movie is well worth a watch--I doubt many will find fault with it, as it shares some resonance with almost everyone.

Turfseer 'The Inevitable Defeat of Mister and Pete' is a first-time screenplay by Michael Starburry. His protagonist is the 'Mister' of the title played by Skylan Brooks. The plot is rather simple: when Mister's crack-addicted mother (played by Jennifer Hudson of 'Dreamgirls' and 'American Idol' fame) disappears during one particular summer in a Brooklyn public housing project, 12 year old Mister and Pete (an eight year old abused Asian-American kid Mister's mother is supposedly taking care of for a drug addict acquaintance), must fend for themselves.Right off the bat the premise is a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps it's happened in some rare cases, but the idea that two young kids would go unreported for an entire summer without anyone from child protective services being notified, would be a rare event. Nonetheless, 'Mister and Pete' plays out more like a 'fable' than a drama culled from real events.Still, Starburry's narrative suffers from wandering aimlessly throughout the bulk of its second act. The whole idea is that Mister has become hardened by events and characters in his environment. He can no longer act like a normal twelve year old and falls into a shell where he doesn't allow anyone to help him. It's called 'tough guy posturing' and beginning with the overly aggressive Mister cursing his high school teacher out for giving him a failing grade in school (despite his teacher offering him a ride home in his car), we must endure (over and over again) this kid 'with an attitude', until he experiences an epiphany at the denouement.Starburry also attributes an additional character flaw to Mister, more befitting of a young adult: the quest to 'make it big' in the entertainment business. The deluded Mister believes that if he passes an audition for a TV show based in Beverly Hills, this will solve all his problems. He even has Mister reciting a well known scene from the film 'Fargo' as his audition pieceThe aforementioned 'tough guy posturing' attributed to our protagonist is the result of a series of interactions that causes Mister to clam up emotionally. The most dramatic of these interactions occurs when he spies his prostitute mother performing a sex act on a man during a bathroom break, while the family has been having lunch.There are additional interactions Mister has with a series of characters from the projects including a bully who at one point beats him up, a gang leader (Anthony Mackie) who gives Mister a wad of money after taking pity on him and a homeless man (Jeffrey Wright), who suddenly warms up to Mister, after the beleaguered kid shares some of his dwindling food supply with the gruff bum on the street.Occasionally, Starburry goes in for cheap stereotypes, like the grocery store owner (was he supposed to be Arabic or Indian?) who attempts to strangle poor little Mister after the kid obnoxiously overturns a few store displays inside the man's store.Only Jordin Sparks manages to temporarily evoke a sympathetic note as Mister's 'adult friend' who promises to help the 'home alone' kids but even she ends up mysteriously vanishing, later revealed to run off with a well-heeled white guy from the suburbs.After resorting to stealing to put food on the table, Mister finally sees the light and runs for 'help' after poor Pete falls ill. This leads to both being discovered as neglected children and ending up in a dreaded juvenile institution (which Mister imagined initially to be some kind of torture chamber). All's well that ends well for Mister, when his mother turns up sober at the facility and reclaims him. But what about little Pete? Presumably he'll remain with the state, until his own mother gets herself together (or will she?).Unlike most reviewers, I did not find Mr. Brooks' performance as the hardened 'Mister', to be at all enjoyable. But whose fault is that? Clearly Mr. Starburry's, as the first time screenwriter boxed himself into a corner by making 'Mister' into a thoroughly obnoxious character throughout. Yes we did get the point that Mister was a victim of his environment, but still, wasn't there a way to make him a little more charming? Even kids who have been "damaged" by their tough upbringing have their likable sides. Kudos to Mr. Starburry for pointing out how tough growing up in the projects can be--but his main character simply needed a few more shades of gray!

Chris Kay Why did this film get such bad reviews? Because it wasn't your typical happy story, that's why. People these days (yeah I'm just an 18 year old, but still) just can't enjoy sad movies. They feel as if a movie doesn't make you happy it isn't good for some reason.THE GOODI'm here for the people who believe otherwise. The Inevitable Defeat of Mister & Pete exceeds in all aspects of film. My favorite part about it was it's unusual sense of realism.You expect the kid to get the acting job, you expect the kid to get helped out when he's getting beaten up, you always expect the typical helping hand that every other movie protagonist gets. It made the film unpredictable and makes it feel like it's giving a more legitimate look at the struggle of the poor than most films.The acting is also a strong point. A film revolving around child actors is always a hit or miss. This film was a hit. Skylan Brooks is one of the best child actors I've ever seen. Ethan Dizon does a good job, too. The rest of the cast was well selected, although no one stood out as much as the two leads.Everything else, like pacing, cinematography, music, and etc... is great. It seems like the film was put together by people who knew what they were doing.THE BADMy problem with the film is personal. It just didn't impact me the way the films I rate 9 out of 10 usually do. Don't take this as a bad thing, though, because this film has the potential to easily become one of your favorite movies. VERDICTAs you can see, everyone who actually paid attention to the film (the people who wrote reviews) really enjoyed the film. By now you can probably gauge if this is the type of film you will enjoy. If you think so, give it a watch and be sure to write your own review.8.5 out of 10

agapesophy Children survived without parents that loved them. The tragic ending was the capture of the children to which the state held them captive. The point of view of children is far more realistic than adults. Children understand the difference from being cared for because they are loved, and being cared for because the state gets paid to do so. Plainly children perceive abuse when the state cares for them for money. Why adults do not perceive this fact is beyond me. When a state gets paid to take care of children its child abuse. How the state justifies child abuse is beyond me. I question the benefit of taking a child from abusive parents just to replace the abuse parents with another another abusive system. Children understand the difference from someone doing their job responsibility and someone who cares for them merely that they love them. So the movie was realistic, it is a ten star movie, I claim to only be a eight star movie, merely that it conveys the benefit of the state, when in most cases the state does more harm than good.