This film seems to be rated by its use of extreme violence. Those who allow the violence, whether they object to it or not, seem to rank the film the highest with an 8, 9 or 10 out of 10. Yet, the film introduces a series of issues it never resolves: illegally entering an area that has been bought by a developer (an area that was formerly a public park), the use of a boom box playing extremely-loud rap music, a couple that is extremely-intimate in front of under-the-legal-age children, and a legal-age male engaging in labeling or name calling (I believe the stereotypical term 'dick' was used). An equally-horrific scene is the killing of the children's dog. Whether the killing was an 'accident' or not, being 'sorry' for the killing is not adequate.
Two or more wrongs, on either party, do not make a right. Granted, it was not right for the children to puncture the tire on, or steal, the couple's car. But, it is not right for the legal-age male to enter the children's home without permission. There is plenty, in this film, to incite both sides--and, thus, 'fuel the fire' (anger) and engage in violence. Both parties, at various times in the film, are persecutors. And, at other times, are victims.
The rebellious children are at the age of defying authority. Couldn't the adult female, a teacher, see that? It seems that at least one member of the couple should have been able see that trouble was ahead, and they should clear out. But, after the children puncture the tires on the couple's car, they go back to Eden Lake for more--and further 'fule the fire' (anger) and the use of violence. The use of anger and violence, no matter on whose side, never solves a thing.
Somehow, the film seems to side with the couple because they have 'squatter's rights', but the under-legal-age children (who also engage in anger and violence) have no 'rights'. The couple can be 'intimate' on private property, but the children can not play (loud) 'rap music' on the same piece of private property.
I am not saying that the under-legal-age children are right for what they do, in the film, but there is a legal matter of both parties entering private property. If either party had respected the private property, the anger and the violence (depicted in the film) wouldn't have happened at all. By not respecting private property, both parties become persecutors and victims. As such, I can not find innocence on either side, and I rank this film a 1 out of 10. The children depicted in the film are 'rebellious', but the adults depicted in this film are 'brainless'. I am tired of films that continually glorify lust, anger, violence, and the 'gloom and doom'. Lust is not the same as sex, and sex is not a substitute for love. And, violence--even when shrouded in anger--is not a substitute for good acting, good direction, and a well-written script. This film justifies 'the ends' for 'the means', and ends up saying that the use of anger and violence is okay, if an immediate resolution cannot be found. Such a message is not only faulty, but is completely untrue.
Two or more wrongs, on either party, do not make a right. Granted, it was not right for the children to puncture the tire on, or steal, the couple's car. But, it is not right for the legal-age male to enter the children's home without permission. There is plenty, in this film, to incite both sides--and, thus, 'fuel the fire' (anger) and engage in violence. Both parties, at various times in the film, are persecutors. And, at other times, are victims.
The rebellious children are at the age of defying authority. Couldn't the adult female, a teacher, see that? It seems that at least one member of the couple should have been able see that trouble was ahead, and they should clear out. But, after the children puncture the tires on the couple's car, they go back to Eden Lake for more--and further 'fule the fire' (anger) and the use of violence. The use of anger and violence, no matter on whose side, never solves a thing.
Somehow, the film seems to side with the couple because they have 'squatter's rights', but the under-legal-age children (who also engage in anger and violence) have no 'rights'. The couple can be 'intimate' on private property, but the children can not play (loud) 'rap music' on the same piece of private property.
I am not saying that the under-legal-age children are right for what they do, in the film, but there is a legal matter of both parties entering private property. If either party had respected the private property, the anger and the violence (depicted in the film) wouldn't have happened at all. By not respecting private property, both parties become persecutors and victims. As such, I can not find innocence on either side, and I rank this film a 1 out of 10. The children depicted in the film are 'rebellious', but the adults depicted in this film are 'brainless'. I am tired of films that continually glorify lust, anger, violence, and the 'gloom and doom'. Lust is not the same as sex, and sex is not a substitute for love. And, violence--even when shrouded in anger--is not a substitute for good acting, good direction, and a well-written script. This film justifies 'the ends' for 'the means', and ends up saying that the use of anger and violence is okay, if an immediate resolution cannot be found. Such a message is not only faulty, but is completely untrue.