The title of this film refers to the title of a collection of novellas and short stories by Stephen King. This collection contains two novellas and three short stories with recurring characters: "Low Men in Yellow Coats," "Hearts in Atlantis," "Blind Willie," "Why We're in Vietnam," "Heavenly Shades of Night Are Falling." The film only concerns the first and the last sections of this book. Ted Brautigan is an old man on the run who one day arrives in the house where a young boy Bobby Garfield lives with his mother. A relation is constructed between the two and it is this very theme of the friendship between an older man and a young boy whose father is dead that the film studies after Stephen King. It is a very pregnant and important theme in Stephen King. Children are always, in a way or another, the victims of the world, of grown-ups especially. Bobby is thus confronted to bullies and he learns how to confront them and defeat them. He is confronted with what might have become love with Carol after a first kiss if he had had the opportunity t-o stay around, but his mother moves away after having been molested, at least, by her own boss during a professional seminar away from home. When back she overreacts against Ted Brautigan accusing him of some crime he did not commit.Yet there is mystery behind Ted Brautigan because he is supposed to be "WANTED" by some low men in yellow coats and he is finally taken away soon after Bobby's mother return. And the betrayal of Ted by Bobby's mother who calls the low men to tell them about where they can find Ted Brautigan could have brought some complete different future to Bobby, but he does not go with Ted and remains with his mother. The film then is very short since we miss everything after that departure and before his return for the burial of his and Carol's friend John Sullivan. The end is even made kind of sentimental with Bobby re-visiting his old home and meeting Carol's daughter, Carol being dead, and he presents her with an old picture of Carol as an angel in some school play.The film misses what some see in the book: the fact that baby- boomers missed their historic challenge to produce a better world that is, instead, drowning under a heavy hurricane of consumer's goods. We are far from "love and peace = INFORMATION," as Carol used to state. Love has become self-centered satisfaction of hormonal impulses. Peace has become the crisscross pattern of simultaneous limited wars all over the world. And information has become the meaningless soup of being over-bombarded by a constant flow of undecipherable news, fake or not. Even the central theme of the friendship between an older man and a young boy is rather schematically reduced to something that is always seen as fishy, fuzzy, maybe false, definitely failed when ending with no hope, like in the book, no hope of Ted Brautigan being free again. That's a shame because such friendships are essential for the simple maturing of boys into responsible and strong adults, and the breaking of it meant for Bobby a ruined youth with two periods in juvenile detention facilities. I regret that mellowing of the book in this film.Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU

A traditional reason for a film to use symbolism and metaphor is because it is dealing with a subject that is too controversial to refer to in a plain manner.This film is carefully set up with the following situation: 1. We see only a negative view of adult sexuality. 2. Youthful interest in the subject is romanticized and idealized. 3. An aging single man spends his time overseeing the life of a boy during a key developmental stage, and the guy is keenly interested in how the boy handles his problems,including romantic ones. 4. In the process, a metaphorical secret is shared between both of them, and the end of the film is set up to imply that this mystical quality will get passed on to the next generation. (A misguided stereotype here, but one that many persons actually believe...)5. Although the film includes scenes in which the mother questions the propriety of this arrangement, her doing so is cast purely in negative terms. Superficially, this viewpoint is supposed to rule out the theme that is otherwise obvious on its surface, and the handling of the film's details is actually quite consistent with her initial suspicions. Her initial reference therefore serves a useful literary function in that it defines one of the main metaphorical themes of the film. Since the film has the mother sexually assaulted, it is suggested to viewers that the mother's traditional sexuality is not at all a good thing, and her judgement is untrustworthy (and that it's okay for some alternative form of love to be sought).The script's handling is very interesting, because if this film is not dealing in metaphor than it is overloaded with contrivances, including things that make no sense whatsoever, such as the "lost pet" flyers. The flyer is portrayed late in the film as if the mother had called the number on it to report Anthony Hopkins' character. This strongly suggests it's true nature, as a kind of wanted poster, or "missing child" poster. The "mind reading" has evidence as a mere ploy by a guy who collects and then uses information to gain trust and set things up just right. For example, it appears that the entire scene in the bar could have been set up by him so that the boy is given a different story about his father (and a photo), thus planting distrust and resentment in the boy toward his mother. The grown-up boy at the end echoes this by meeting a teen girl and providing her with a photo and interpretation of her own parent and background. The boy had said flat out that he had come to love Hopkins, toward the end. But because there is also a girl around, audiences are supposed to accept Hopkins' trustworthiness? Did that thin blouse of hers really need to be unbuttoned in order to adjust her shoulder? Was Hopkins' mind reading really just the research he had done along with the reading of people so that everything was "just so?" For example, he identifies the teen bully's insult patterns as a probable reaction-formation. The strongest hint of actual mind-reading comes in the idea that he could somehow read that the girl needed help. The reason she would be attacked in the first place is never explained; could Hopkins have set up things so that the rescue scenario could play out, just as he had suggested a romantic role for the boy in one of their earliest meetings?Almost everything in the film is therefore consistent with a darker, more ordinary scenario rather than the fantasy. Hopkins' character is a wanted man, because of unnamed crimes that keep him on the go. His power that must be controlled is not a telepathic one, but his urges that probably involve controlled intimacy with young persons. Now it is made clear that this is not portrayed in the stereotypical manner of violence or coercion, but is instead done in a more insidious fashion through the power of gradual suggestion, trust, and friendship. Rather than a swift attack that could be easily interpreted and thus possibly recovered from, the relationship takes on a form in which the boy is seeing things according to the man's vision, and in a way that makes the boy willing to defend him. It's a very classic circumstance well-known to actual police investigators. The fact that there may be some actual friendship, and even love, does not un-do the fact that the relationship most probably went beyond that which is legally permissible, or appropriate for our contemporary culture (which is not ancient Greece, after all).Since this is a carefully written script, and not a traditional genre film, these elements are quite suggestive of a controversial agenda. It's interesting that no one seems to comment on this. Given the large number of persons who like this film, this issue is worth discussing. What indeed is the message of this movie? The answer seems to be evident from the elements listed above!

I loved this movie, with Anthony Hopkins playing Ted a mysterious renter in the house with Bobby Garfield and his mother. There is a mystery surrounding Ted which we slowly learn more about, and the rest is small town kids growing up. There are some wonderful lines in the movie, presumably penned by Stephen King. The acting is superb by everyone. Anton Yelchin as "Bobby-O" is outstanding, but you will also be charmed by Mika Boorem's Carol. Hope Davis is terrific as the self-centred mother. Hopkins character is very likable, but he doesn't dominate this tale because he treads lightly throughout.All of the supporting characters are interesting and convincingly portrayed. The story will probably leave you misty-eyed, and wishing there were more movies like it.

It's been many years now but every once in a while I go through this story/movie again, bringing up the same emotions and fondness of it. This movie is nothing spectacular, not a major hit by any standards, but personal experience for intelligent and thoughtful people. Behind it is some brilliant work of Mr. King (at his best, when not writing horror stories), which makes him (for me, at least) one of the best writers America ever had. And this story has been told through an excellent movie, with carefully picked up cast, to give probably their best, yet simple, performances. It is a very smooth movie, very well and sensibly directed. I'm highly recommending it but not to everyone - just to the ones who know how to appreciate a little masterpiece. To them it will be timeless. Everyone else – just forget it.