Mulligans

Well-heeled family man, a loving husband and father of two, is forced into coming out of the closet after falling in lust with his college-age son's best friend, a budding artist and (somewhat timid) homosexual. Facetious drama ostensibly aimed at gay viewers, but one which fails to give its target audience anything substantial or upbeat to connect with. Everyone suffers with such relish, but where are the bracing highs of finally bonding with someone who shares the same feelings? The dialogue is fairly worthless throughout (Child: "Mommy, what were those two men doing in the bushes?" Mother: "Probably looking for a lost ball."), which may be the reason why the movie is carpeted from one end to the next with generic 'romantic' music worthy of a daytime soap (it often substitutes for dialogue which, in this case, isn't such a bad thing). The film's weakest link is the casting: Dan Payne (as the dad) and Charlie David (as his young house guest) are both attractive actors, but Payne is too young for his role and David (looking about 30) too old for his. It's a step in the right direction that no character here perishes in an accident or commits suicide--but queer cinema still has an awfully long way to go. Cutting down on the guilt and the shame are the next obstacles to conquer. ** from ****

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.

I caught this film at its Toronto festival release and I have to say that this movie was a very very pleasant experience. This is a story that is all too prevalent in society and still under-addressed. Charlie David's exploration was extremely in-depth emotionally and kept a beautiful balance between dark and light, sad and happy, drama and comedy. I also found the cinematography breath-taking. It conveyed a high production value with an excellent 'polish'. It has a quality acceptable in any market. I hope this allows for it to reach a large audience. I was very pleased with all the actors performances, however, I was most impressed by Dan Payne. His portrayal of Nathan was unbelievably well balanced and vulnerable. I have followed his career for a while and have seen his prowess in the comedic realm but this performance displays great talent I would like to see more of. I highly recommend watching this film if you get the chance.

I watched the first 50 minutes of this, then I gave up. It was by and large unbearable. I have no problems with the basic premise, i.e. the son of a well-off family returns home for his summer holiday, brings a friend, the friend turns out to be gay, this causes the father of the family to confront his own feelings and his latent homosexuality. I buy it.

The biggest problem with this film, as I see it, is that even though (most of the time) I understand what it is that the filmmaker aim for - it's just very poorly executed. There isn't enough flesh on the bones for things to make sense. It's as if whoever wrote the script knows WHAT the characters need to do, but not WHY. For example, in one of the early scenes, the son of the family makes a big song and dance about how his friend should cover up when he's drying off after a swim. A few scenes later (after the friend has come out to him), the son questions why the friend is covering up (after a shower) when he's normally not shy. Rather than saying, "Because you told me to in no uncertain terms," it turns into an argument about whether the friend's coming out has changed things between them. And this is exactly my problem with this film: even though I understand why they argue and I think the question of what changes when someone comes out is valid, it's as if the filmmaker had to rush to explicitly make that point rather than allowing the audience to see for itself.

In this respect, the film is shallow. I don't see that whoever wrote it actually understands what the characters go through and why they act the way they do.

If you're not bothered about what motivates characters, then you might still get some enjoyment out of this film.

Feast your eyes on wholesome, hunky daddy Payne for over an hour and that's pretty much what this movie is about. The rest of the cast were just distractions. The writer should have picked another lead to play Payne's love interest. The scene where Payne admits he's gay falls completely flat due to weakness in the script and Charlie's lifeless, unconvincing acting during the hugging scene. "It will be alright"....is what Charlie says. What a senseless line that just kills the whole scene. Dan Payne was well worth lots of screen time, but he didn't get a similar love interest, so the movie just sputters along.