The most difficult part for me in actually writing a critique of this movie is figuring out whether or not I actually liked the film. There were surefire moments of brilliance, but there were also long, disturbing stretches where I was tempted to turn the movie off. As mentioned by almost every other review of the film I've read, this movie explores all sorts of depths of depravity and doesn't let up. It seems to have the most fixation upon how almost every sleaze-bag guy that Jeremiah's mother dates is also a closet pedophile. The film also doesn't shy away from the fact that Jeremiah's mother is not only participating in all sorts of debauchery herself, but also knowingly introducing Jeremiah to all of the drugs and alcohol that she consumes on a daily basis.
I guess, in a way, this is really the main redeeming quality of the film: it doesn't shy away from anything, especially when it's bizarre and cringe-inducing.
I don't think anyone can say that Asia Argento doesn't give an inspired, "tour-de-force" performance, so to speak. She literally becomes this disgusting, wastoid of a human being, and it's a marvel to watch. The scenes in which she begins to convince Jeremiah that his foster parents don't love him are perhaps the highlights of her role; the malice and mischief in her eyes perfectly sum up her function in completely corrupting this poor little kid.
Most of the other characters in the film mostly make up bit parts, and I didn't really even take the time to see the names of most of her boyfriends. It's actually pretty unreal seeing Henry Fonda in this movie as Jeremiah's grandfather. He portray's the role effectively but, to be honest, I thought he had better taste than this. It's also pretty weird to see a cameo by Ben Foster as some creepy guy that gives Jeremiah a bath at his grandparents house--I guess maybe you could see that small part as a precursor to his magnificent performance in 3:10 to Yuma.
All of the performances are for the most part adequate; even Dylan and Cole Sprouse of The Suite Life of Zack and Cody fame are convincing as Jeremiah, though you can't help but thinking "What sort of parent would let their kid even be in this sort of movie?" You can't really focus on those sort of ethics if you want to effectively view and enjoy a film, but in a film that investigates such turpitude, it's hard not to.
Something that this film is also very effective in doing is rousing my interest in the original novel. After viewing something this different and unsettling, one can't help but wonder as to what sort of book would spawn this film, and what sort of book has such a devoted cult following. I researched the book and the film, and found out just how popular the book was in certain circles, and went over the discussions pertaining to "how much the movie left out" and "how much better the book was." In general, any devoted fan of any book that is adapted into a movie typically is unhappy with the finished product and bitches endlessly about how much better the book was. A similar, though significantly less disturbed fanbase may be the most arduous of the Harry Potter fans, who tend to complain no matter how noble the film's attempts are at capturing the essence of the books. A novel similar in subject matter to The Heart is Deceitful Above All Things may be Naked Lunch, which also has a quite prominent cult following that was not all too happy with Cronenberg's valiant attempts to adapt it. Closing out the subject of the book-to-movie adaptations: Books and film are a completely different medium. When the rights to a book are given to a film-maker, the fans of the book just as much as the owners must be aware of this. They must also be aware that the film-makers will express the book creatively onto film, and it is inevitable that certain aspects of the source material will be changed to fit the film-maker's vision. And only in certain instances is this a bad thing.
Anyways...
Being one of the many viewers of this film that have not read the book, there are several complaints that can be made about the film itself. One is that not enough attempts are made to characterize the young Jeremiah in the beginning, making his descent into madness with his mother not as shocking as it could have been. The kid in beginning seems clean-cut, but it is not really known, since almost right away the mother neglects and he begins to freak out. Also, another discrepancy with the exposition of the film is that it really only displays the bonding of mother and child through a sketchy montage. It's well put together, but not all that effective in what it's trying to show. There are several points of the film that feel this way, as though director Argento almost got it right, but fell miserably short.
Some of the surreal imagery of the film is very cool, but once again, not effective; for example, there is a trippy sequence during which the kid is running to a police station. And not only is it trippy, but it is shown from the kid's viewpoint as being trippy. It's interesting, but overall, pretty dumb. The one aspect of that sort of imagery that I enjoyed was the significance of the two red birds. It's a VERY provocative addition to the theme of Jeremiah's loss of innocence and slow plunge into mother-induced madness.
In writing this review, I came to realize my true feelings on the film itself: I don't like it, but I don't dislike it. The description of three-stars as given by Spout really describe it perfectly: I'm neutral about it. Which is strange, because it's quite obvious that there's so much to dislike about the film. The best explanation I can think of is that humans are inherently drawn to the most bestial of entertainment, and my subconciously human mind enjoyed seeing a mother giving her son speed pills. But my better nature tells me that this movie is basically just an exercise in degeneracy, and I disliked it immensely.
I'm neutral about it.