Not nearly as impressive or as meaningful as one may hope

Rating: 4/10 (20 March 2001)

SPOILERS
By using a character that recognizes the beauty in the most insignificant details also be a dealer of an illegal substance (and thereby supplying Spacey's character with a means to fulfill a need), the movie is saying that by pandering to such a crowd, this idyllic character still must live in a world where you can take advantage of people and be selfish. Thus his initial characterization of a kind yet strangely observant character is rendered null by having him become part of what he begs to be rid of.
I also felt that the relationship between Spacey's daughter and the neighbor's boy would have been more powerful and connected had they not slept with each other. This clever trap helped destroy their gentle and far more interesting relationship based upon conversation rather than a purely lustful situation (had they known each other for longer, I could have accepted it as part of their evolution, but as it stands, it was a poor way to end an otherwise "beautiful" relationship).
The character of Lester is also one that confuses me. His sudden awakening to another plane of existance coexists with his wife's transformation as well. His behavior in front of his daughter's friend would certainly be party to questions. The symbolism of rose petals was also overused and too simplistic to carry a true meaning. It seemed to be more of an act of reading into the literature more than anything.
A comment about the DVD: the commentary track contained was very poor and did nothing to elevate the film beyond what I could see. It was nothing more than comments on how much they liked the shots ("and I love how his face comes into the light here") and not what they were supposed to mean. At points, they tried to come up with meaning for some of the shots, but it came off as very corny and not worth listening to.
All in all, I was very disappointed that such a poor film has generated such a positive response from the general populace. Many of the people I discuss the film with who enjoyed it (consequently, these are only other high school students) simply come up with the phrase "I liked it, but you didn't have to." Many have balked at some of my arguments and have insisted that a particular sequence was as meaningful as many think. I think that most of the movie is tied up in itself. It appears that meaning has been inserted where none should exist, and when it does exist, it usually is corny and laughable.