A young man is sent to prison for 25 years and is taken under the wing of Jake, a lifer with dark intentions.A young man is sent to prison for 25 years and is taken under the wing of Jake, a lifer with dark intentions.A young man is sent to prison for 25 years and is taken under the wing of Jake, a lifer with dark intentions.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 1 nomination total
Photos
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
I saw this at TriBeCa Film Festival, and I loved it. Even though there is only one brief moment of violence in the movie, I found myself breathless and tense through out the entire film. All of the harassment was insinuated. The degradation was hurtful and apparent. The movie was only the two cell mates for the majority of the film, and it was just so...you just have to see it. It is heart breaking and leaves you helpless and angry and sympathetic. The scene between Randy and his mother...ugh. I don't know, there's not much you can say about the film with out seeing it...it is an emotional ride more than anything else...a lot of insinuation, a lot of fantastic wordless acting...I hope to god it's released for all to see.
Thank God this film will finally receive its long-overdue theatrical release later on this summer! I saw it a while back at a film festival and thought it was one of the best independent films I'd seen in a long, long time. It is extremely powerful, disturbing, thought-provoking and funny all at the same time. The performances by all four actors are spot-on. Michael Pitt continues to impress. In fact, I think he went deeper emotionally in this film than any other, with the possible exception of 'Last Days.' Stephen Adly Guirgis surpasses his 'Palindromes' performance by a country mile. He's fantastic. And the film as a whole has a very mature, seasoned tone, pace and structure. It reminded me of some of Fassbinder's films. And early Louis Malle and a bit of Bresson. A great debut by writer/director Brett C. Leonard. I heard after the screening I saw that they shot the whole thing in 8 or 9 days. Incredible. Does anyone know when it will premiere in L.A.? I believe it opens New York sometime in July. Anyway, if it comes out where you live, I highly recommend it. A great example of auteur, personal film-making on a shoe string budget.
I started watching this movie with no pre-conceived notions. (I only decided to see it based on the presence of Michael Pitt, who has proved himself to be a very capable young actor, and that it was produced by the same producer as L.I.E. I had heard nothing about it.)I wish I had read a review before hand and saved myself some time and money. (Though the review I read here for it wouldn't have stopped me from seeing the film. They seemed to think simplicity means "art".) The acting was surprisingly good. That I am willing to say. If you want an acting class on how to react silently on film, Pitt's performance is sublime. Sadly, those moments do not save this clunker of a movie.
Some times you see a movie that was based on a play and you can feel the story not fitting the medium of film. This was a very similar experience to that. It was like watching a badly lit stage play with close ups. You are robbed of the joy of going to see a play while also being robbed of the pleasures of film. They are two completely different mediums and this movie fit neither one.
If it was play at a local theater, I would recommend it solely based on the mental exercise that would accompany the play on the ride home. But as a film, I must say this movie left me feeling flat. The camera felt intrusive. The pace felt forced. The violence seemed tame and unreal. Even the dialouge seemed as if it were written by someone who had never seen the inside of a prison. (Or if they had, it was in 1957.)The actors clearly did the best they could. They had to take this job for the chance to do good work and not for money, but sadly the direction and script didn't allow them to make a movie you don't forget about ten minutes before the credits even start.
Some times you see a movie that was based on a play and you can feel the story not fitting the medium of film. This was a very similar experience to that. It was like watching a badly lit stage play with close ups. You are robbed of the joy of going to see a play while also being robbed of the pleasures of film. They are two completely different mediums and this movie fit neither one.
If it was play at a local theater, I would recommend it solely based on the mental exercise that would accompany the play on the ride home. But as a film, I must say this movie left me feeling flat. The camera felt intrusive. The pace felt forced. The violence seemed tame and unreal. Even the dialouge seemed as if it were written by someone who had never seen the inside of a prison. (Or if they had, it was in 1957.)The actors clearly did the best they could. They had to take this job for the chance to do good work and not for money, but sadly the direction and script didn't allow them to make a movie you don't forget about ten minutes before the credits even start.
I just recently saw this fil at the Woodstock Film Festival and found it .... amazing.
Michael Pitt and Stephen Adly-Guirgis were incredibly perfect for these roles. It was the first time that I had seen either actor and the cinematography made you feel claustrophobic and trapped as a prison cell. I think it really hit home about the prison system and how young men are raped and mentally abused by cellmates. It should send a message to the judicial system to monitor prisoners more and keep "chickens" from the hawks. Extremely provoking and sad. One of the best films of 2004.
Michael Pitt and Stephen Adly-Guirgis were incredibly perfect for these roles. It was the first time that I had seen either actor and the cinematography made you feel claustrophobic and trapped as a prison cell. I think it really hit home about the prison system and how young men are raped and mentally abused by cellmates. It should send a message to the judicial system to monitor prisoners more and keep "chickens" from the hawks. Extremely provoking and sad. One of the best films of 2004.
I first saw Michael Pitt in 'Funny Games US'. He portrayed a character so dislikeful , that I wanted to see the otherside of his acting range. He surely did not disappoint. This guy is a wonderful actor and not that popular yet. I do not want to give him all the credit in JAILBAIT. Stephen Adli Guergis was awesome as well . The movie played like a Broadway Play with a low budget for actors . Thus most of the movie was dialogue . That was very OK though. These actors had great chemistry and I believe the realism of a jail cell was portrayed accurately. Basically it was an alpha dog that took charge of a meek individual and thus the psychological and sociological ramifications of the movie were explored . The movie did not break new ground I must admit as some other reviewers brought to light. The movie did show , in entertaining fashion , I might add , the dynamics of an individual prison cell. This was a tasteful movie with some untasteful , but realistic manner of what goes on in 'said' prison cell. Where the movie was different than most was that it explored the individual cell , with just the 2 characters , as opposed to most prison movies that basically involve the whole penitionuary. From that aspect the movie did differ. In summation, I recommend this movie at optimum alertness and revel in the great acting while you are watching.
Did you know
- TriviaThe movie was awarded the Grand Jury Prize at the 2004 Lake Placid Film Festival
- How long is Jailbait?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official site
- Language
- Production company
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $5,741
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $1,890
- Aug 6, 2006
- Gross worldwide
- $5,741
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content