Dream Boy

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.

Unfortunately, just before I watched this movie, I read a review here stating that the story was based on a "thin-as-paper, muddled plot." With that in mind and the somewhat awkward, uncomfortable interactions between the actors at the start, I almost gave it up. The timid, brittle interactions, however, were very true to the decidedly dysfunctional family of the main character rather than tentative acting.

Yes, the plot may have been overly ambitious in all that it attempted to include. Some of what takes place was a bit formulaic and stereotypical, but the events were still integral to the story development and it felt totally realistic if not ground-breaking. There is, after all, a fair amount of shared common experience in the coming-of-age saga of most young gay men. In fact, many of us are drawn to films like this because reliving some of those common experiences, distressing as they may have been when we were young, now contribute to a comforting feeling of connection to others.

The distant, confused, tender-brutal, hateful-loving relationship between father and son, I suspect, drove a great deal of this story although it wasn't the central focus. That tension and force was very effectively accomplished without belaboring the obvious.

The movie has its rough edges as quite often happens when a complex plot is carried from book to movie. Still, I found it well worth watching.

I typically do not like the "traditional" gay cliché genre where all relationships have to end in tragedy. But I COULD have made an exception here had the writer/filmmaker decided to go in the direction of a ghost story...which was alluded to about mid-way. Meaning, there were many elements of horror/psychological thriller, beginning with the character of Nathan's family life. Then, we see the tension between Nathan and one of Roy's "alpha male" friends, foreshadowing some negative story line. But all in all, this is just too linear and has a very "made for TV" feel (the sound-track gets very annoying). And the ending seems to make this just too "cutesy" and negates the entire horror/ghost story direction (it's almost as if the writer got stuck and didn't know where to go and wanted to end on some "feel good" note...just lazy). Also, there were several instances where either the writer or the director didn't seem to understand the setting they were portraying (Baptists in the South would NEVER have a crucifix on the wall...let alone in a church...that's Catholicism). In other words, a) do your research b) pick your "mood" and where you want to go and c) be consistent. The acting was in fact superb and I think the best thing about this...so I wish all involved an excellent career.

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.

I began watching the film with mild interest and very quickly was drawn into the quiet intensity of the film. One must avoid any discussion of specific plot elements, which would ultimately spoil the experience of the film. It is NOT as some have called it, a "Brokeback Mountain" about teenagers. It is different. It is unique. It is beautiful photographed, sensitively told and atmospheric. I was especially impressed with the performances of Stephan Bender as Nathan and Max Roeg as Roy. While I had no idea what the exact outcome of the film would be, there is a "foreboding" that overshadows the entire story; You get clues along the way that "something is wrong." But the final 20 minutes or so will probably really surprise you. There is much more going on here that can be easily summarized in a user review or with a catch line that describes the plot's formula. I think it's the type of film that will provoke a great deal of discussion and it deserved to be released on DVD.