ChorusL106 I viewed this film last evening on Netflix. My personal opinion is that the film's general storyline is an important issue facing GLBT culture today. Given that the American public is still coming to terms with homosexuality and that homosexuality only started becoming publicly accepted within the last couple decades (maybe less), I think this film depicts an issue that occurs very often today. We are finding that, as America's perception of homosexuality has increasingly softened, older men and women who repressed their identities in their youth are slowly starting to come out and address their own sexuality issues. I think the film's desire to create a narrative of this sort is excellent. I thought their portrayal of the situation was ghastly. Part of this negative review is due to personal experience with the issues portrayed in the film and part is also a reaction to the film's poorly developed storyline.There is actually a school of psychology that has been aptly dealing with the emotional damage that's affected by the later comings-out of closeted men and women. It is a small school of thought, and probably not particularly well known or received in the greater medical community. But whatever research these groups churn out does not match with what occurs in this film. The truth is, these late revelations wreak havoc on the relationships and marriages they change, change which normally manifests as destruction. While I can appreciate the film's creators' wish to create a situation and characters sympathetic to the struggle of these men's and women's long denial of their homosexuality, it's not a particularly accurate portrayal of what normally occurs in such a situation. It also didn't give justice to the struggle that the deceived partner goes through after learning something of that magnitude. The wife's reaction, while initially convincing, dwindled to acceptance far to quickly. It didn't accurately show the length of time it normally takes for a "surprised" spouse to recover from his or her partner's lies. It also didn't adequately show the emotional turmoil. In other words, nothing in the latter half of the film was believable. I wanted to see the wife kick her husband out, drink herself into oblivion, maybe attempt a suicide, and, after a long montage, finally gain a smidgen of acceptance for what happened. The wife's complete turnaround in what appeared to be one day was just incredible.Personally, I am quite sensitive to this issue because I have friends who have been deceived in this way. I also know men and women who are living the situation of the husband in the film. Personally, I think these scenarios make a great case for augmenting public respect for and learning of homosexuality. Repression of sexuality leads to people getting deeply emotionally hurt, often scarred. I feel these kinds of stories are a good way to educate the public at large, mainly because it shows the greater harm to society as opposed to the harm that is endured exclusively by the homosexual person. But unfortunately, this film did not serve that purpose.My second gripe with this film was the bad story telling. As I said earlier, I had difficulty believing the wife's short turnaround. But also, I took issue with the lack of build-up in this film. There was relatively little interaction between the son's friend and the father. None of the interaction was really significant enough to truly warrant the turn of events that came about. It felt as if the father was actually a heterosexual, but decided he wanted to "try it out" a bit on a whim instead of finally being able to experience what he's been missing out on for years.Lastly, the script for the film was wretched. There was no subtlety or nuance that helped create the characters. Characteristics of each character was blatantly shoved in the viewers' faces and demonstrated awkwardly. The example that I found most obnoxious was the writer's wish to convey the wife as an uptight conservative. They first developed that quality through a tacky scene involving a exhibitionist young boy and his skeezey mother, and then followed that with her participation in a predictable, hackneyed dinner conversation regarding homosexuality. While I don't think the actress that portrayed the wife was particularly good in this role, I can't really blame her given that her character was so clumisily developed. This was also true of the son's character as well. The script really suffered from a very rushed development, which unfortunately probably had to do with budget concerns. While I don't fault them for that, one other review mentioned several slow-moving, overly-lengthy scenes, the house party in particular. That thing just dragged on for close to fifteen minutes, and really didn't introduce us to any new or interesting qualities in the relevant characters. It was used mostly for comedic effect. That's fine, but the film really isn't a happy, light-hearted comedy; indeed the ending is particularly tragic. It didn't fit and it took away time from scenes that should have been more fully developed, particularly the growing interest between the friend and father, and the wife's emotional trauma. All in all, it case across as something written by a beginning film student.So yes, while I think the message is important and worthwhile, this film bungled it and really did a bad treatment of the material. None of the characters' situations were believable, nor did the script allow the actors to truly develop their characters. One good thing about the film was the cinematography. There were some really beautiful shots and settings, the lake in particular. The scene with the wife sobbing at a patio table towards the end was quite breath-takingly beautiful. But none of these positives made watching the film worth it. There are better films out there that address this issue and I would suggest looking to those. Thanks!

sandover "Maybe one of them lost his ball, dear." says mom to her little girl, after having witnessed her husband kissing in the woods her son's best gay friend. This comes unfortunately as a lame joke, bad wordplay. For if the film remains deliberately strained - and I mean that as a point the film makes - between what is said and what is meant, namely in the last lines of it, where the two, er, friends, bid their adieus, the straight guy says in a straight way a "straight phrase" as he says and prefers instead of 'I love you'. I don't remember the phrase, and I don't remember most of the names in the film; my attention span fails miserably when the events depicted are guilt-smitten with an hey, man understanding dressing. Only the last line portrays succinctly the fear, the love, the limits of one's own, the end of a friendship, the incapability of saying I love you face to face, instead of giving a repressed, condescending fetish. For this is what happens in the end; and I wouldn't want it otherwise, because the fact that the gay guy who waits at the bench, is well, waiting, and goes nowhere, instead of the father, who drives and drives and leaves it all behind for better tomorrows, is well deserved, and we can draw a lesson from it, as he evidently could not (except for the family portrait he leaves at their home, which comes in really bad, and I mean ethically, taste); the lesson being how character development can turn good in a sour way - or is it the other way around? Is not that, in that kind of film, we begin by sympathizing the victim in the closet, who as soon as he comes out of it, the effect unleashed, like a gush of wind, mixes the scenario towards schematic character development. And I say this because there are some good elements in this film that - well, don't live up to the moment. I mean look how the son begins like a cardboard college jerk and ends up, if not a sympathetic character, someone a bit more likable than in the first place.Enough for analysis. I hope the film was a bit better. The soundtrack is not in the least for an effort; the first, three times in a row "music" intervenes, it is exactly the same bunch of menopause chords in our ears, and the rest of it is one more instance of growling voice-and-guitar sympathy, and the lessons of life.Please, writers, directors, musicians and actors, do not indulge in guilt!

westphillyberger Imagine "GUESS WHO'S COMING TO DINNER," but with sexuality instead of skin color as the inciting element...Both movies force their socially progressive characters to prove just how tolerant they really are, while putting the characters' unconditional love for each other to the test. "MULLIGANS" differs in that it also involves cheating and deception, thus muddying the moral waters... In the end, this heart warming story manages to successfully tackle some pretty tough issues of family, friendship, fidelity, identity, and of course... SEX!

evelyncrows 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.