A Turma

In bringing Tom Griffin's touching play to the screen, director John Erman and his remarkable cast have brought warmth and respect to The Boys Next Door. It is clear that the team wanted to be faithful not only to Griffin's text, but also to the disabled community. Viewers can easily see that the artists are taking the job of crafting the comedy very seriously.

The performers in this talented ensemble bring great dignity to these characters. Courtney Vance is especially touching as Lucien, and challenges the audience's perceptions of the challenged in a moment of theatrical magic.

This movie is worth seeing by anyone who is looking for something more than simple laughs. While the movie is very funny, it also makes an important comment about the inherent worth of all people, regardless of their outward appearance of ability or disability.

Firstly i have to admit that i have not seen the stage play of the movie and unless Robert Sean Leonard is going to be in it, i am unlikely to :OD

i happened across this movie one afternoon and thoroughly enjoyed it. so much so that Tony Goldwyn's character inspired me to write a short story (i am a writer).

I understand that while many of you have witnessed first hand the performances in the play whether as an audience or the cast, i feel its unfair to criticise the movie. i didnt feel that Robert Sean Leonard was hogging the movie (in fact like him or not, i'd have been happier seeing a whole lot more of him - the man being very easy on the eyes and a magnificent actor). Norman and his housemates were all very good too.

i enjoyed the movie so much that the next time it came on i taped it and n ow i've put in an order to purchase it.

By the way, my fave parts have to be (other than RSl and TG's performances), the 'catch it, kill it and flush it' scene, norman's head having to be 'moved' by Jack when norman sees the neighbours keys, and Jacks response to Barry's father when he asks, 'what are you? like a 'keeper'?' and he replies, 'no, i'm like a 'friend'.

superbly acted.....10/10

evelyn

Believe it or not, I am forced to give a very low review of this movie. Even though my user name is derived from it. (At least from this script.) In 1999 I had the honor of playing Norman Bulanski in a stage presentation of "Boys Next Door" and the stage play is considerably better than this movie. While the movie seems to focus on Jack and Barry, the play gave equal time to all the boys. Each was given a particular hurdle he had to overcome. Norman Bulanski, an overweight, and simple guy who loved doughnuts, his keys and his girlfriend, had his date with sweet, simple minded (and no "skinny Minnie") Sheila. Barry Klemper, a brilliant schizophrenic who wound up in the same group home with severely developmentally disabled men through a hiccup in the system, had to endure a visit from his insensitive and cruel father. Lucien P. whatever the movie called him, (It was Smith in the play) had to go before the "State Sneck" (Senate) who had deemed him mentally competent and was threatening to completely cut his funding... even though he still had trouble reciting the first five letters of the alphabet. And Arnold... had to deal with everything. The play showed a growing frustration in Jack as he neared the end of this career, that I think showed somewhat in this movie, but I felt Norman and Lucien's scenes were underdeveloped and neglected. The movie added a scene where Arnold takes his groceries back and these scenes are hilarious and masterly done by Jeters. I do wish the play had them. Also I felt Lucien was quite well done. I don't think Nathan Lane was given the opportunity to fully develop Norman. I think he could have done much better if he had had more time to understand Norman's mind. On the whole, I suppose, it was very well done... if you aren't expecting the depth of the play. It is good entertainment and you wind up caring about these characters... but if you can... see the play too.

A viewer unfamiliar with the original stage production won't realize how much was lost in transitioning this story to the (small) screen, but playgoers will be intensely disappointed with the script revisions to Tom Griffin's original story, which equally emphasized the joys as well as the sorrows of these four men. This film version is a surprisingly humorless tale, made unnecessarily darker by the screenwriters' need to snow-shovel "substance" and "meaning" into every scene. In the play, for example, the visit by next door neighbor, Mrs. Warren, is played strictly for laughs, but in the film the humor of the situation is de-emphasized in favor of stressing, as it does ad nausium, both the barriers "the boys" face and the mounting pressures placed on their caregiver, Jack.

In fact, all we see in this telling are barriers: Arnold's inability to keep from being exploited, Barry's inability to keep from being abused by his father, Norman's and Sheila's inability to express affection for each other, Lucian's inability to express himself at all. It's telling that the only positive outcome in the film is that Jack's marriage is repaired in the last reel which, in typical Hollywood "happy ending" style, was grafted onto the story. In the original, Jack was divorced at curtain's rise and his not-so-subtle bitterness at this was an added facet to his increasing burn-out, not a full-blown sub-plot.

That the producers of the film chose to focus more on Jack's marriage than on `The Boys' betrays the discomfort they had with the humorous aspects of the material. This impression is amplified by the way Barry is portrayed. There's a far greater emphasis on Barry in the film, and the film Barry is a far more menacing character than the stage version. It's not enough to have Barry's dad drag him out to a driving range to traumatize him (a sequence far longer than in the stage version), but we have yet another Barry-centered `crisis' near the end of the film as well.

The producers unceasingly emphasis the darker aspects of the story, and both the characters and the story itself suffer as a result. In the stage production, Arnold's run-in with the corner grocer comes and is dealt with in the first part of the first act. The point that he is exploited, as many mentally disabled are, is made through Arnold's soliloquizing his troubles with a bully named Melvin. What is completely lost in the film is that Arnold is completely oblivious to the fact that he is being exploited (a point that perhaps network executives might not want made on commercial television).

To their credit, the screenwriters did try to replicate the two most effective stage effects of the original productions, the `dance scene' and Lucian's speech. Irritatingly, they undercut the meaning of both sequences with the cheap cinematic effect of showing us Jack's face in close-up before both of them, so we get the message, `this is how Jack sees them,' rather than `this is how they really are!' Given that the screenwriters were more interested in showing `the boys' as problems rather than people, it's not surprising that they were allowed to shine only in Jack's eyes, not in theirs, or ours.

That's not to say there aren't any redeeming qualities to the film production. The relationship between Arnold and Mrs. Fremus, which begs the question, `which of these two people is saner?' is a nice addition. But here, again, what's emphasized is the negative aspect of the relationship (Arnold is again exploited, this time for the cost of a magazine subscription). Always, it's the negative aspects of their lives that we're forced to see, again and again.

Most heartbreaking was the portrayals of Norman and Sheila. Both Nathan Lane and Mare Winningham are both truly gifted actors, but to say I was disappointed by their interpretations would be a gross understatement. Mr. Lane chooses to play Norman as a caricature, offering us little more than a Lou Costello impersonation. And Ms. Winningham plays Sheila as sullen and aloof, in complete contradiction to the lines she was given. The most joyful and uplifting scene in the entire show, the scene where Norman gives Sheila her keys (can the analogy be any less obvious?!?) is played in the film as yet another excuse to show how incomplete and imperfect their lives are. In the play, we see how much Norman and Sheila make each other happy. Their love for each other sustains them as does any other two people deeply in love. But in the film, all we see is what they're not.

And that's the chief difference between the stage and film versions of The Boys Next Door. In the play, we see the problems, yes, and the limitations, but we're also allowed to laugh with them and share their joys. In the film version, all we get are the sorrows. In the stage production, we get to spend two hours with people we get to know and love and will truly miss when it's time to go. In the film version, we're told a sad story about sad people who we end up feeling sorry for.

I felt sorry for film Norman, but I fell in love with stage Norman. The film is okay for what it is, but you'll only get the chance to really fall in love with `The Boys Next Door' if you experience it on the stage. For it's there, and only there, that they truly do shine.

I enjoyed this film from many aspects. The acting is first rate, and it is clearly well-researched and presented in a realistic, non-sentimental fashion. Having grown up around the mentally ill and the mentally challenged, I can decipher caricature from character rather quickly. I was absolutely blown away by Courtney B. Vance's depiction of Lucien. Mr. Vance is completely absorbed in this role. His carriage, walk, talk, mannerisms, everything is perfect. I have known people like Lucien. When Tony Goldwyn's character, Jack, imagines a "normal" Lucien, we can see the absolutely perfect acting job of Courtney B. Vance.

The other actors are very good, but Courtney B. Vance is the stand out. Nathan Lane as Norman reminds me very much of mentally challenged people I have known who are forever introducing themselves. Robert Sean Leonard plays a schizophrenic convincingly. And Tony Goldwyn is emotional and not too sentimental as Jack, the hard-working, good-hearted, but all too human caretaker. It is a very good film.