You know for a while into the film I was re-examining my own behavior towards "easy targets" when locked up, as it is a habit to "bid" off of other people's misery in whatever way possible for amusement when stuck in such a dire environment. Whether you're the perpetrator or just having fun watching the "kid's play" for lack of a better term, it's a part of ANY prison system and in some cases I'd like to think I'm responsible for at least one person never going back, BUT obviously what happened in this prison just does not happen in 99.99% of cases. In a larger group dynamic this situation wouldn't even be possible, you could get beaten up, raped & shanked but not this type of situation, you need to have the perfect storm of personality traits for this. The people in this cell were just the right/wrong mix with the wrong string of events. Some people have mentioned being shocked that this was a juvenile facility when in truth this bizarre event could likely only have transpired in an environment housing young offenders.
Furlong plays the all around amoral scumbag(himself in a nutshell)who is mixed with the violent skinhead(Mennekes). Combine them with the kid Peter(Levinson) who was really just happy having someone below him on the totem pole to keep the bidding off of him, innocently aggravates the already poor situation for Mitch the cell bitch(Sipos). When the skinhead Jack ratchets things up to an insane level, the scumbag Harry, unaffected at the level that the skinhead has went to, gives Mitch the broomstick treatment, why? For the hell of it, in his mind, why not was likely the only reason for his motivation. Suddenly, the stakes are raised well above Peter's comfort area, so he, out of an act of pure self preservation tries his damnedest to work with what little handle he had on the situation(which was slightly less than zero). Out of desperation he throws out the hanging theory, in his mind it was either appease his cellies or it would be him on the other end of the broomstick or worse, he's just witnessed what they were capable of. If that was as accurate of a portrayal as I've heard then I actually have some sympathy for him, it appears he was put in a situation far beyond his control. In the end I think they were all sentenced very properly. So many times when someone is killed and there are multiple defendants they charge everyone as equals & even often try them as one. In this case it could have easily went that way, but instead they did happen to show some leniency on Peter for his case.
I know I failed to mention the writer/director. Being based on a factual account, I felt the manner in which it was filmed worked very well, going without scripts for much of it. It's not a very satisfying watch, there is very little entertainment value to be had in a telling of this tale regardless of who directs it. I usually don't review old films but after hitting Boll's latest Assault on Wall Street(2013) and getting pleasantly surprised I cracked open the Boll vault & had me a second look. I had COMPLETELY written him off after seeing a few really unsavory early films of his and I'm glad I took a look after seeing Rampage, Seed, Postal, Darfur and now Stoic. When adding his latest flick Assault on Wall Street it actually makes for a decent looking six pack. Who knew? A month ago I would have called him an irredeemable hack. I know, I know, put a batting helmet on a blind person and you're bound to make contact with the ball a few times.
Furlong plays the all around amoral scumbag(himself in a nutshell)who is mixed with the violent skinhead(Mennekes). Combine them with the kid Peter(Levinson) who was really just happy having someone below him on the totem pole to keep the bidding off of him, innocently aggravates the already poor situation for Mitch the cell bitch(Sipos). When the skinhead Jack ratchets things up to an insane level, the scumbag Harry, unaffected at the level that the skinhead has went to, gives Mitch the broomstick treatment, why? For the hell of it, in his mind, why not was likely the only reason for his motivation. Suddenly, the stakes are raised well above Peter's comfort area, so he, out of an act of pure self preservation tries his damnedest to work with what little handle he had on the situation(which was slightly less than zero). Out of desperation he throws out the hanging theory, in his mind it was either appease his cellies or it would be him on the other end of the broomstick or worse, he's just witnessed what they were capable of. If that was as accurate of a portrayal as I've heard then I actually have some sympathy for him, it appears he was put in a situation far beyond his control. In the end I think they were all sentenced very properly. So many times when someone is killed and there are multiple defendants they charge everyone as equals & even often try them as one. In this case it could have easily went that way, but instead they did happen to show some leniency on Peter for his case.
I know I failed to mention the writer/director. Being based on a factual account, I felt the manner in which it was filmed worked very well, going without scripts for much of it. It's not a very satisfying watch, there is very little entertainment value to be had in a telling of this tale regardless of who directs it. I usually don't review old films but after hitting Boll's latest Assault on Wall Street(2013) and getting pleasantly surprised I cracked open the Boll vault & had me a second look. I had COMPLETELY written him off after seeing a few really unsavory early films of his and I'm glad I took a look after seeing Rampage, Seed, Postal, Darfur and now Stoic. When adding his latest flick Assault on Wall Street it actually makes for a decent looking six pack. Who knew? A month ago I would have called him an irredeemable hack. I know, I know, put a batting helmet on a blind person and you're bound to make contact with the ball a few times.