Steinesongo Too many fans seem to be blown away

Janae Milner Easily the biggest piece of Right wing non sense propaganda I ever saw.

Tyreece Hulme One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Irishchatter I have to tell ya, this movie might be romantic as you say but really it lacked a lot of stuff that I don't understand!The boy Nathan was abused by his father then was raped by his lovers friend? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The father in the beginning seemed like an ordinary bloke and only became evil when Nathan didn't go to church. I read on the plot that he was evil. It seemed to me he was bipolar then an abusive dad. I honestly didn't see any beating or hitting in this movie. Like what are they talking about?With the friend, he seemed to me that he was extremely jealous of Nathan getting a bj from Roy. Like where did he come out of? It seemed too fast for me to look at a better reason why he came out of nowhere?! Seriously it was such a filthy scene. I think there shouldve been lines involved in this movie, this is the worst movie I've ever seen and which it gave me a headache!

zingbot1000 I was thoroughly enjoying this film, with its talented and attractive two leads, the evocative setting, and a decently realistic premise.Then came the final act.What happens in the ending is both poorly written and a waste of a potentially fantastic film. In a story that felt so natural and real, the entire third act comes seemingly out of nowhere in effort to force the characters into a specific type of ending. An ending which, though I would have preferred otherwise, could have been achieved much more organically with story pieces already in place (the father) instead of driving an underdeveloped secondary character into an unjustifiable decision, and forcing a main character to passively accept their fate with no fight.Awful. Truly awful.

preppy-3 Shy teenager Nathan (Stephen Bender) moves into the deep South with his parents. Right next door to him is teenager Roy (Max Roeg) who is out-going and friendly. They form a friendship which quickly turns into a physical relationship. Naturally they can't tell anybody. Half way through things about Nathan become clearer--and more disturbing--and the movie gets dark.I read the book years ago and loved it but I hated the ending cause it's so ambiguous. I bought this movie cautiously because I didn't think it could be as good as the book and I was curious HOW they would end it. Well the movie IS as good as the book. It's low-key but the book was too. Bender and Roeg perfectly play two teenage boys in love--you can see the confusion and passion in their faces. The sex scenes are very tastefully done (nothing remotely graphic) and these two are so obviously not teens it's not disturbing to watch. I also like how their kissing and having sex is treated so casually--as it should. It (sort of) retains the ambiguous ending of the book. Like I said I hated that ending but I'm glad the movie didn't change it. All the acting is good--Roeg especially. He has the wonderful actress Theresa Russell as his mom and obviously inherited her acting abilities. There's some beautiful cinematography and a good music score too. Low-key and somewhat disturbing but effective. I give it a 7.

sandover The South and cinema, ah! Will there ever be a true collaboration between the two? It certainly is sure that something that has to do with the Gothic element, or stern, colorful zealotry, will remain impossible to sublimate into images. Anyway, I prefer Flannery O'Connor, when it comes to such matters.But that is enough proemium. Let's turn now to the true matter: would Flannery O'Connor prefer this film? Just kiddin'.I read some of the other comments. What stroke me was the elaborate analysis on psychoanalytic terms of passivity and aggression and what you will happening somewhere at the film. And I admit right away that I am of the psychoanalytic, especially lacanian persuasion. I would call that my true persuasion. The problem with this, though, is that it will never, never tell you if a film is good or bad, because it is an analytic discourse that avoids evaluations. For evaluations and appreciations I turn elsewhere, say Oscar Wilde, or Harold Bloom.And, dear me, have they told me this film is bad. It is, like the french say of hell, paved with good intentions. And it fails miserably on almost every level. There is no chemistry between the boys (watch how they always fail to engage their kisses, but when Roy kisses - and just once - the girl, the straight element of the actor, to put it that way, seeps through). There is no plausibility in genre-shifting: from maybe adolescent love story, coming out story, perhaps parental abuse story or even maybe religious bashing story coming and brainstorming us early on the film we pass to awkward sexual discovery lamely interconnected with sexual harassment from parent story and at the third act a gruesome, dismaying horror/fantasy element thrown in and allegedly remains unresolved. Ha! When all such stories need a proper mood for anything in them to happen, and when we have in the film no mood at all, just amateurish, half-engaged and ill-conceived stabs at it, tell me where you think it will head to.Too bad, because it has Maximillian Roeg in it, who has something of his mother's, Theresa Russell, off-kilter beauty. But the boy is obviously inexperienced, and the lack of suggestive or guiding direction wasted his presence.Once more, to share Oscar Wilde's splendid aphorism: All bad poetry is sincere.A quite sincere film...