BlazeLime Strong and Moving!

AboveDeepBuggy Some things I liked some I did not.

Infamousta brilliant actors, brilliant editing

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

ChorusL106 I viewed this film last evening on Netflix. My personal opinion is that the film's general storyline is an important issue facing GLBT culture today. Given that the American public is still coming to terms with homosexuality and that homosexuality only started becoming publicly accepted within the last couple decades (maybe less), I think this film depicts an issue that occurs very often today. We are finding that, as America's perception of homosexuality has increasingly softened, older men and women who repressed their identities in their youth are slowly starting to come out and address their own sexuality issues. I think the film's desire to create a narrative of this sort is excellent. I thought their portrayal of the situation was ghastly. Part of this negative review is due to personal experience with the issues portrayed in the film and part is also a reaction to the film's poorly developed storyline.There is actually a school of psychology that has been aptly dealing with the emotional damage that's affected by the later comings-out of closeted men and women. It is a small school of thought, and probably not particularly well known or received in the greater medical community. But whatever research these groups churn out does not match with what occurs in this film. The truth is, these late revelations wreak havoc on the relationships and marriages they change, change which normally manifests as destruction. While I can appreciate the film's creators' wish to create a situation and characters sympathetic to the struggle of these men's and women's long denial of their homosexuality, it's not a particularly accurate portrayal of what normally occurs in such a situation. It also didn't give justice to the struggle that the deceived partner goes through after learning something of that magnitude. The wife's reaction, while initially convincing, dwindled to acceptance far to quickly. It didn't accurately show the length of time it normally takes for a "surprised" spouse to recover from his or her partner's lies. It also didn't adequately show the emotional turmoil. In other words, nothing in the latter half of the film was believable. I wanted to see the wife kick her husband out, drink herself into oblivion, maybe attempt a suicide, and, after a long montage, finally gain a smidgen of acceptance for what happened. The wife's complete turnaround in what appeared to be one day was just incredible.Personally, I am quite sensitive to this issue because I have friends who have been deceived in this way. I also know men and women who are living the situation of the husband in the film. Personally, I think these scenarios make a great case for augmenting public respect for and learning of homosexuality. Repression of sexuality leads to people getting deeply emotionally hurt, often scarred. I feel these kinds of stories are a good way to educate the public at large, mainly because it shows the greater harm to society as opposed to the harm that is endured exclusively by the homosexual person. But unfortunately, this film did not serve that purpose.My second gripe with this film was the bad story telling. As I said earlier, I had difficulty believing the wife's short turnaround. But also, I took issue with the lack of build-up in this film. There was relatively little interaction between the son's friend and the father. None of the interaction was really significant enough to truly warrant the turn of events that came about. It felt as if the father was actually a heterosexual, but decided he wanted to "try it out" a bit on a whim instead of finally being able to experience what he's been missing out on for years.Lastly, the script for the film was wretched. There was no subtlety or nuance that helped create the characters. Characteristics of each character was blatantly shoved in the viewers' faces and demonstrated awkwardly. The example that I found most obnoxious was the writer's wish to convey the wife as an uptight conservative. They first developed that quality through a tacky scene involving a exhibitionist young boy and his skeezey mother, and then followed that with her participation in a predictable, hackneyed dinner conversation regarding homosexuality. While I don't think the actress that portrayed the wife was particularly good in this role, I can't really blame her given that her character was so clumisily developed. This was also true of the son's character as well. The script really suffered from a very rushed development, which unfortunately probably had to do with budget concerns. While I don't fault them for that, one other review mentioned several slow-moving, overly-lengthy scenes, the house party in particular. That thing just dragged on for close to fifteen minutes, and really didn't introduce us to any new or interesting qualities in the relevant characters. It was used mostly for comedic effect. That's fine, but the film really isn't a happy, light-hearted comedy; indeed the ending is particularly tragic. It didn't fit and it took away time from scenes that should have been more fully developed, particularly the growing interest between the friend and father, and the wife's emotional trauma. All in all, it case across as something written by a beginning film student.So yes, while I think the message is important and worthwhile, this film bungled it and really did a bad treatment of the material. None of the characters' situations were believable, nor did the script allow the actors to truly develop their characters. One good thing about the film was the cinematography. There were some really beautiful shots and settings, the lake in particular. The scene with the wife sobbing at a patio table towards the end was quite breath-takingly beautiful. But none of these positives made watching the film worth it. There are better films out there that address this issue and I would suggest looking to those. Thanks!

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU I like the film but maybe not for the good reasons. I like it because it is both sentimental and at the same time tense and dramatic. I like it because in the end they all manage to accept the real facts, the gayness of Chase and the gayness of the father forced to be straight for 20 years and revealing itself during the vacation with wife and children as witnesses. To be gay is hard, we all know that, especially for someone who has not been able to experience that kind of love for twenty years in spite of what he felt and knew he was feeling. I like this situation and the way it is dealt with by all the protagonists. The first one to go big bang is the mother but she negotiates the obstacle rather fast. The son will come second but he will find it hard to accept it and make up with his best friend after all. The father has it hard because a door opened and he could not even control what was happening. He is the one who did not think one single minute. He fell in love and ga-douche-bag down it went. He needs some time to try to find out sex is sex and love is love and that there is an enormous chasm between the two because they are not even the same thing, not even close cousins. The mind and the heart on love's side and the endocrine hormonal glands on the other side. It is sad but understandable for a forced straight monk till the ripe age of 38.I like that piece of dialogue that reveals how hard it is in our society to just accept love is a passion of the mind and the heart and not of some other appended organs.Tyler is the son and Chase is his best friend, who is gay though Tyler does not know it yet.Tyler Davidson: I love you man, like a brother... just... Chase Rousseau: I know, no sword fights. Tyler Davidson: Maybe we can find a more macho way of saying it... Chase Rousseau: ...Go Steelers? Tyler Davidson: Yeah, Go Steelers, I like that. Go Steelers. Wow I never said I love you to a guy before. Chase Rousseau: Me either. Tyler Davidson: Good talk.But that's the reasons why I like the film but they are false reasons indeed. And the real reasons I should consider may make me dislike the film.The first one is that the older man falls in love with a younger man, his own son's best friend, at once, without hardly one moment of hesitation, without courting the younger man, having some value or quality time with him, exchanging ideas, feelings, emotions, literature or whatever that has nothing to do with sex but everything to do with knowing the other and letting the other know who you are. Within five minutes on the screen, without any exchange of anything but a few looks, the older man starts undressing the younger man. Things may happen like that but it does look and sound like rape or at least hygienic hormonal milking. Sorry but I am a romantic somewhere and when two people meet, even if they fall in love at first sight, they have to spend some energy and time finding about each other, and they generally do. It is too much like: "I am… I know. Hug, First kiss. Second kiss. Older man undresses younger man." At least the older man does not seem to be shy, for a closet gay man for ever since his birth, he is catching up on the fast track.The second one, and this is a pattern in many films, is that the mother explodes first and then she is the first one to come to terms with the situation. She may pretend she knew the unexpressed sexual orientation of her husband, it does not explain the violence and then the acceptance. She should have been waiting for that moment of revelation, that epiphany all the time. I do not say she could have helped before it came all by itself, hence by accident, but she could not be surprised, not to mention angry and violent, even if only in words and packing a suitcase, because she knew it was going to come sooner or later in today's world of course. Twenty years ago things were different, but she lives in this here modern world with our TV and the Internet. The third one is the superficial acceptance of gayness, as long as it is abstract, by everyone, even the son who is told by Chase himself and in private that he is gay. As soon as it becomes real they all lose their footing. And this time again it is the mother who completely scatters her marbles with her younger daughter when on the beach the girl is looking at the penis that a friend of hers her age is showing her. Then she scatters them again because the girl is fond of her tennis instructor, a woman, after the first lesson. She is afraid of the word lesbian. And her defense is so weak: I have nothing against it but I do not want my daughter to be like that. And it is this mother who accepts after all rather easily her husband's gayness. Unbelievable. I am afraid that tolerant surface is there only to teach the audience a few lessons about the subject. It is pure ideological wrapping. But the film is quite entertaining, though we know from the very start who is who and who is going to go with whom. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

B24 I have a feeling this story is played out in real life far more often than most people think. The psycho-sexual sublimations of real married men in middle age are if anything more intense than those lying at the heart of the character played with understated anxiety by the actor Dan Payne. The fact that the subject of his desire is a younger man rather than a younger woman sets this film apart from the trashy stuff of soap opera and carries it into the realm of social commentary as well as legitimate drama.Does it succeed on its own as a gripping and well-produced story? Yes and no. There are problems with continuity from scene to scene and timing in general that interfere with the viewer's ability to stay on course by way of identifying with the main characters, in spite of generally excellent acting in the separate episodes comprising a more or less believable plot.I liked the casting with the single exception of the writer's inclusion of himself as Chase Rousseau -- somewhat long in the tooth for a college kid. He was also quite wooden (no pun) in scenes with both the buddy and the dad. How does it all end? How do stories of this kind usually end? To the extent that this one prepares the viewer for a unique catharsis the answer to that question will be revealed and the viewer will be satisfied. A solid seven of ten in my book.

preppy-3 Tyler Davidson (Derek Baynham) brings home buddy Chase (Charlie David) for the summer. His hunky father Nathan (Dan Payne) and mother Stacey (Thea Gill) love Chase. Then Chase tells Tyler he's gay. Tyler has no problem with it and tells his family...and Nathan realizes he might be gay too.The story was totally predictable from beginning to end. I was always one step ahead. Also there's a little sister (Grace Viskovic) who's too cute and intelligent for anyone her age. Still I loved this. It was written by David (who is openly gay himself) and he perfectly caught the feelings and emotions of a gay man coming out to his friends. The acting is exceptional. David, Gill and Baynham are all good but Payne is just great. He has a very hard role to play and he pulls it off. Also the movie just looks gorgeous. They shot it in a small town in Canada and the scenery was just breath-taking. Also there's a few very hot man on man kissing scenes! So it is totally predictable but beautifully done and acted. I give it an 8.