Un nouveau printemps

not for story, who is far to be original. not really for cast - except S. Lue McWilliams who reminds few roles by Charlotte Rampling. maybe, interesting for first/last images, for music, for the location and for art of measure of director. but, surely , interesting for the imagine an European director, cast and manner to use the story. the delicate European / maybe French/ flavor is its basic virtue.the big sin - performance of Benjamin Weaver. than, the end. it is a family movie and a gay movie. and the impression after its end is far to be disappointed. because, it is not great or a revelation. but it is decent fresco of a family and a fragile relation , all in a not uninspired balance. so, just interesting.

Honestly, I think this is one of the best gay theme movies in 2013. Despite it's low budget film, everything run perfectly well. The great part is the casting. Richard LeMay, the director, really done a careful and brilliant job to pick up the only six casts. Well, he is also the writer, I guess he know know pretty much a fit character to his own story.

Like I said, it's low budget. The casts only six and 98% appeared only the fourth main actors and main location just in big house with big garden. But, surprisingly, I didn't get bored, a good cinematography really helped with that problem.

About the story, I have to say that it's not really original. I mean, I have seen some gay interest movie with the same main story, sick mother/father/children, broken family members, guilt, reconciliation, and new future, but somehow, I like "Naked As We Came" twisted ending. Well, I don't really expect that ending and still can't figured it out yet, but mostly I have some in mind. The ending really help with whole plot story.

Love the character. Actually, this movie still a simple story, I figure it out why Richard LeMay picked conspicuous characters for the four main actors. It was great, like to see every character develop as it's be. The only lack is Benjamin Weaver's character as Ted Kingsley. He has the worst acting and likely incomplete character.

The ending? Well, I guess everyone has their own dream ending. One last thing, I think this movie more likely called as family movie than gay theme/interest movie.

I'm highly recommended this movie. I just hope it has bigger budget, could be very promising movie.

The two male protagonists in this film were clearly chosen for their pectorals rather than for their acting ability, and that about sums up the general quality of this forgettable drama. With the exception of S. Lue McWilliams who, as the dying mother (and only grownup), has too few moments on screen, the acting is very "daytime soap" – in short, overwrought and about as subtle as a crutch. Karmine Alers in particular starts at about 120% pit bull and ramps up from there. In most of her scenes you're too worried that she's going to have a stroke to pay attention to what she's saying. The scene in which she supposedly softens enough to expose her "true soul" by singing, a cappella, a banal Britney Spears knockoff is almost too painful to watch. The real dog of this movie, however, is the direction and the screenplay, maladroitly handled in both cases by Richard LeMay. LeMay shows that he understands approximately nothing about pacing, and there so many crescendo moments that the overall effect is numbing rather than engaging. The characters fight about the same things, over and over. They say the same terrible things to each other, over and over. They come to moments of gut-wrenching emotional crisis, over and over. And then they make breakfast. It's about as amateur as it comes, and LeMay cries wolf too many times. When we finally reach the final scene, Elliot's deathless lines can only provoke peals of laughter. For the entire rest of this film, his character has displayed the emotional depth of a garden gnome, and his sudden moment of deep, voiced-over wisdom is an unbelievable, unearned fortune-cookie aphorism.

The two women in the movie are the only ones worthy of any mention. However, as some other user already pointed out, Laura (played by Karmine Alers) is a cliché of the control freak and her singing moment is too soapy to be taken seriously. S. Lue McWilliams, however, is great as Lily. I think she doesn't over do it - even though she has cancer, she's the one in charge of keeping the movie light and entertaining with her brutal honesty. The weakest links are obviously the men and their expressionless faces. By looking at LeMay previous work, you can tell they were chosen just because of their physique - but he failed to create any kind of connection or memorable dynamic between the two of them even when they have some "intimacy". I did not hate it, I had a good time with it and we should also appreciate the fact that homosexuality is taken as an everyday thing and not a big revelation or the heartbreaking point in a movie that was already battling with other clichés of its own.

A very stupid, plodding, heavy-handed, badly written, badly directed, VERY badly acted (especially the "dying" mother who looks like she could wrestle lions in a circus), extremely tiresome movie about extremely unpleasant spoiled people with way too much money and way WAY too much unnecessary drama. The mother is dying. So what? People die. People as obnoxious as this bunch should die a lot sooner.

For some perverted, homophobic reason, many gay reviewers of gay movies LOVE to declare that a gay movie is not "really" gay. This is one of those movies. It isn't really a gay movie.

Oh, yeah? When two of the four characters in a movie are gay men, and the ONLY sex in the movie is between those two men (who are - of COURSE! - hot and buff and West-Hollywood hairless and gorgeous), and the two women in the movie are ugly, strident, manipulative, shrieking, raging and/or whining, moaning b!itches... THAT'S not a gay movie? Why? Because the phrase "eating out" is not in the title?

Ahhhh. NOW I understand!