Watch The Child For Free

Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Before seeing this movie I had seen three other Dardenne movies ("The kid with a Bike," "The Son," "La Promesse") and liked them all. So, I was looking forward to another of their movies. This story of twenty-something Bruno (a petty thief operating in a rundown section of a nondescript industrial city that had seen better days) and his teenage girlfriend Sonia fell flat for me. It was a tedious chore for me to get through this; frequently I had to resist the temptation to hit the fast forward button. Many, if not most, of the scenes lasted far beyond what I thought was sufficient. For example, when Bruno goes to the police station to talk to a member of his gang of child accomplices we are shown his entering the station, asking the policeman on duty to see the kid, waiting while the guy calls for permission to come up, entering the elevator, following the elevator while it slowly goes up several floors. Could this not have been played by cutting to Bruno asking for permission, having it granted, and going to the room? There are interminable scenes that follow Bruno aimlessly walking the streets, standing around, talking on his cell phone, walking up and down stairs, and so forth. Perhaps this was to give us a taste of how dull Bruno's life was, but the dullness was transferred to me.The first third of the movie details how amoral Bruno is, the key event having him sell the newborn child that he has had with Sofie, without even consulting her. When Sofie surprises him by being deeply wounded by this, he simply says, "But we can have another." Bruno does try to reverse the sale, but I was left with deciding whether he was sincere in this, or rather just did not want to lose the support that Sofie was giving him. In an interview with the Dardennes in one of the DVD extras they commented that they did not want to judge Bruno. Well, I had no trouble judging him. He was an amoral, small time crook. Maybe I was supposed to understand that Bruno's society had ground him up and spit him out, leaving his only option trying to survive in any way he could. But I did not feel that there was enough background to make that deduction. Maybe I would have had some sympathy for Bruno if he was at least trying to adhere to some worthwhile goal, but his comment that working for a living was only for losers did not endear him to me.The final couple of scenes held out the possibility that Bruno was moving beyond his anti-social ways, but I did not buy it. What were he and Sofie crying about in their insufferably long crying jag? Were they crying about their misspent youth, about their hopeless position in society, about realizing that there actually was a connection between them, or simply because they were such bummers?

A captivating 'peephole' into welfare-life in Belgium's dark under belly, L'infant is a unique movie in its stark realism, intentional lack of a musical backdrop, and limited, authentic and sometimes painfully awkward dialogue. It centres around a young, poor couple - Bruno (Jeremie Renier) and his girlfriend Sonya (Deborah francois), and their meandering descent from 'carefree' love. They are seen play fighting and horsing around many times at the beginning of the movie and their lack of meaningful (or any) dialogue lends itself to the sense of childishness, youthfulness and naiveté that characterizes them both. Bruno thinks 'working is for fools' and sporadically brings in money from petty criminal activities carried out with the help of his underage 'gang' of disaffected school boys. It is clear from the start that Bruno is immature, thoughtless, impulsive and self-obsessed, and one cannot help but be contemptuous of his unawareness of others' needs or feelings. When Sonia shows him their baby son for the first time, Bruno shows next to no interest in the baby. Although one sees his fondness for Sonia, his immaturity does not allow him to see beyond the moment, or beyond the next opportunity to make 'easy' money. Neither Sonia or Bruno grasp the 'reality' of having a baby nor how it will impact their lives; Sonia, however, bearing the brunt of the responsibility and having, it appears, some maternal instinct cannot escape that reality as readily as her lover. Even so, she is painfully unaware of the extent of Bruno's recklessness when she gives him the baby to 'take for a walk'; Bruno seizes upon this as the ultimate money-making opportunity, and seeks out an illegal, underground 'adoption agency' where he can sell their baby and make more money. His naivety is apparent in his total astonishment at Sonia's reaction to this shocking misdemeanour and his desperate pleas - 'but the money's for us! We can have another one (baby)'. These puerile words seal his fate in Sonia's eyes.L'infant, despite its minimalism, harsh realism and dismal portrayal of life, is nonetheless entrancing and engrossing; from extended 'road-crossing' scenes, to Bruno's realisation that he really has over-stepped the line and must return to the criminal 'baby adopters' to get his child back. It is here we see that beneath his brash, indifferent, superficially carefree exterior is a child-like, fearful young man, very much in love with Sonia, and totally unhinged by her contempt for him. Even after a nail bitingly suspenseful scene where Bruno retrieves the child, he is still backed into a corner by his foolish actions and helplessly sucked into a vortex of blackmail, violence and censure. He is now very much a tiny fish, swimming against the current, in a large and vicious pond. One realises that maybe Bruno, all along, is 'L'infant'; so foolish and infantile his actions, and so desperate his desire for forgiveness and acceptance. L'infant's cinematic naturalism, sparse dialogue, suspenseful scenes, and bleak realism make it a great film for the discerning movie goer.

This is a simple story about two young unmarried people. The young man, Bruno (Jeremie Rennier) is a street hustler and thief; the young woman, Sonia (Deborah Francois), simply lives on her social security benefits. Together, they have fun, work the streets, laze about, and generally do very little – much like children.Until comes the day when Sonia, as the film opens, delivers of a son, Jimmy (look in the cast list to see who plays that part). While Sonia is busy at the welfare office, Bruno goes for a walk and unilaterally decides to sell Jimmy to the illegal trade in babies. The rest of the plot then follows, as Bruno desperately tries to get Jimmy back so that he can redeem himself with Sonia.With great acting and direction, this is a powerful, gritty, realistic story on film. It's the sort of story you'd read about in the media, almost every day, where people abandon, steal, maltreat, kill babies. This is one such story in fictional form, and much better than I'd hoped. I'm reminded of early films from Ken Loach or Joseph Losey.The production is faultless; the settings are suitably filthy urban; the actors just perfect – and seemingly unlovable, unfit, unworthy of the babe, especially Bruno. Neither of them is particularly likable; much of the time, Bruno displays an almost sociopathic pathology. They are, however, both victims of modernity – and the luck of the draw.There is no sound track. There is no comedic relief. There is only grief, despair, anger, rejection and, finally, some sort of hope. Maybe that's how life truly is, for a large section of humanity? It's not fantasy. Actually, it's so real, it's not even entertainment as we all like to see it.Give this nine out of ten. Recommended for all adults, young and old.March 14, 2013

Some will find this movie to be dark, moving and gritty. Others will simply find it boring. I belong to the latter group.The film is set in Eastern Belgium, in an unromantic city, void of colour or interest, and shot during miserable weather in the crappy parts of town. There is no music, and nothing by way of art in the style of filming. The camera work is shaky and plain, and as a result, it is very much a case of - what you see is what you get.O.k. I understand why - it's to place the viewer into the world of the underbelly of society, to remove creature comforts, and to enhance the feeling of real grittiness. A reasonable idea, and it works. You certainly feel part of it, and if this way the directors' aim then they have achieved it well.But my main problem was that if, like me, you are accustomed to the underbelly of society (in my case it is through my job), you will be seeing nothing new, and you will most likely have seen or heard dozens of stories like this - except that they will be real, and you will have witnessed them first hand.The plot line focuses around delinquent young lovers who have recently brought a baby into the world. For some reason (which is never fully justified to my mind), the young father attempts to sell the baby, the result of which is that he ends up getting himself into trouble, both with his girlfriend, and the potential buyers. But the "trouble" is not exactly fascinating. His methods to dig himself out of his hole are not exactly surprising (in fact, they are exactly what you would expect from someone from his background). The only element of interest that stands out is his level of love, loyalty and compassion, as well as general friendliness and manners to the people he meets. Yes, this sets him apart, but in fact it makes his character rather unbelievable. A loving, loyal, compassionate man ... who thinks it's a good idea to sell his baby? When he doesn't need to. Just to get a bit of money to have fun with. How does that work? Well, it doesn't.So, we have a story which sounds like it should be interesting, but never does anything remarkable. We have characterisation that doesn't work. And we have a general style and feeling that could be imitated simply by going to a park or hanging around a bus stop in the slums of your own city ... in the rain. Nothing to excite. Nothing to amuse. Nothing to elicit any emotion. I sat and watched this with my arms folded and a glum, bored look on my face.Like I say, if you've never had any real glimpse into the underbelly of society and you wish to get a feel for what it can be like, then this is not a bad recommendation. But if not, don't bother.