anna-heine I thought it was very well written. True to life on how homosexuality was look upon in that time period across the country in general, and especially in the deep south. I loved the fact that they didn't write the story with the attitude that coming of age and self discovery isn't always sunshine and rainbows. That growing up is hard enough, let alone if growing up with a very troubled family. I thought it addresses realistically the torment and fear of abuse can cause. Still being able to find the courage to reach out and get close to someone enough to fall in love. I loved the way it showed that the two boys loved each other. Both boys knew exactly how they felt about each other without actually speaking the words. It also touches on how hate crimes were just simply overlooked during that time period. I absolutely loved this movie. I would also definitely recommend people to watch it. It definitely tugs on the heart strings.

foxc-2 I'm a gay man so I can speak with some credibility about the portrayal of the main characters in this film. There is no chemistry portrayed here and although the leads are cute and the situations realistic, for the most part (teenagers take every moment for personal connections no matter how inappropriate or imprudent they may be) we are left with a coming-of-age story that while sweet and tender against all apparent odds is betrayed by a thin-as-paper, muddled plot that is formulaic and unsatisfying. The adults are cardboard and the parallelism with "Brokeback Mountain", hyped on the cover, are obvious and contrived. Nowhere do we get the deeply religious/conservative milieu of the 70's Deep South in which the primal and quite beautiful emotional drive of these two boys is cast, beyond episodic church scenes with flatulent pastoral murmurings. So much could've been made of the story but it's a wasted effort I'm afraid.

sandover The South and cinema, ah! Will there ever be a true collaboration between the two? It certainly is sure that something that has to do with the Gothic element, or stern, colorful zealotry, will remain impossible to sublimate into images. Anyway, I prefer Flannery O'Connor, when it comes to such matters.But that is enough proemium. Let's turn now to the true matter: would Flannery O'Connor prefer this film? Just kiddin'.I read some of the other comments. What stroke me was the elaborate analysis on psychoanalytic terms of passivity and aggression and what you will happening somewhere at the film. And I admit right away that I am of the psychoanalytic, especially lacanian persuasion. I would call that my true persuasion. The problem with this, though, is that it will never, never tell you if a film is good or bad, because it is an analytic discourse that avoids evaluations. For evaluations and appreciations I turn elsewhere, say Oscar Wilde, or Harold Bloom.And, dear me, have they told me this film is bad. It is, like the french say of hell, paved with good intentions. And it fails miserably on almost every level. There is no chemistry between the boys (watch how they always fail to engage their kisses, but when Roy kisses - and just once - the girl, the straight element of the actor, to put it that way, seeps through). There is no plausibility in genre-shifting: from maybe adolescent love story, coming out story, perhaps parental abuse story or even maybe religious bashing story coming and brainstorming us early on the film we pass to awkward sexual discovery lamely interconnected with sexual harassment from parent story and at the third act a gruesome, dismaying horror/fantasy element thrown in and allegedly remains unresolved. Ha! When all such stories need a proper mood for anything in them to happen, and when we have in the film no mood at all, just amateurish, half-engaged and ill-conceived stabs at it, tell me where you think it will head to.Too bad, because it has Maximillian Roeg in it, who has something of his mother's, Theresa Russell, off-kilter beauty. But the boy is obviously inexperienced, and the lack of suggestive or guiding direction wasted his presence.Once more, to share Oscar Wilde's splendid aphorism: All bad poetry is sincere.A quite sincere film...

holden_dog I found this first half of the movie to be alright. There isn't a lot of talking and the small amount where someone does pipe up is hardly profound, this coupled with the worst music selections EVER! The lack of talking would have been better if the acting was better, I just found the acting to be incredibly awkward.The second half of the movie left me thinking to myself, 'What just happened?' But not in a good way. The supernatural vibe at the end came out of no where, and the move between the dream world and real world plus the flashbacks was just too much. I was highly bemused by the whole movie. I understand this was a book so maybe taking something out of the book and turning it into a narration wouldn't have gone astray.