meaninglessbark Watercolors would probably be most enjoyed by by queer guys in their young teens, they might find it meaningful. But for grownups and people who like good film Watercolors is a predictable young queer romance tragedy with acting that's slightly better than the average porn film.Watercolors looks nice, is well shot and edited, and has decent music choices. And there are some naked bits that are pleasing to see. But the story line is as subtle as being run down by a train that you're actually walking towards. Here's what happens: Sensitive not surprisingly gay artist kid meets swimmer/sidewalk surfer dude, unbelievable queer flirtation happens, believable pathetic falling in love with a dolt happens, expected queer bashing happens, extremely obvious tragic ending occurs. (And just in case you didn't suspect there'd be a tragic ending there are clues along the way that are delivered with the coyness of a hammer blow to the head.) For good measure there is a heavy sprinkling of clichés thrown in...The free-spirited art teacher who can see the amazing talent the sensitive queer kid has, the hard edged English teacher who teaches Shakespeare with FORCE, the crippled and pudgy female best friend of the queer kid who is also the photographer for the school paper, alcoholic single parents, intolerant jocks, and an angry school principal.For WTF? weirdness the story of Watercolors is book-ended between some scenes from the sensitive queer kid's adult life which are absolutely ridiculous, add nothing to the story, and are the sort of dialog and acting that should only be followed by hardcore gay sex.If you're not 15 and queer Watercolors is really best just for gawking at the cute nerdy sensitive kid and the Spicoli-esque swimmer guy who takes his clothes off a lot.

RitchCS I haven't seen this movie, but the DVD is due to arrive in the mail tomorrow. I logged onto IMDb to see what other viewers had to say. Don't EVER question why there are very few gay movies made. Every old queen and every too young adventurer always become superior critics. This is a gay movie. It does not star Meryl Streep, Robert DeNiro, or Sean Penn. Gays movies cannot accumulate large budgets and do the best they can with the material and cast they can find to work for free or pennies. I remember the first big studio gay movie, "Making Love" with Harry Hamlin, Michael Ontkean, and Kate Jackson, directed by Arthur Hiller. This movie was blasted bigger than Nagasaki. It all but ended Hamlin's and Ontkean's careers. It took a quarter of a century to get the venomous taste out of the critics mouths before "Brokeback Mountain" was finally accepted. BUT, how many major gay films have been made since? The most popular gay novel in the world, "The Front Runner" has been sitting on some studios shelf for nearly half a century. Everyone is afraid of either making it or starring in it. Hats off to the producer of "Watercolors" for putting forth the effort. It did win two major LBGT film festival awards. BUT as another reviewer stated, the cast was excellent except for the coach. MAN! He's the reason I'm seeing the movie. Greg Louganis, not only an Olympic Champion, but a drama major. Why was his acting singled out? Couldn't that sentence have been omitted? Why must we as gays, destroy our own culture...music, theatre, movies??? Can't we EVER find words of praise to encourage MORE gay entertainment? Remember the old adage, "If you can't find something good to say...". I'm really looking forward to enjoying this movie tomorrow. ______________________________ addendum: I finally saw the movie this afternoon and it's haunted me the rest of the evening. One of the two leads has practically no experience at all, yet he sustained his character as a professional. I really found nothing to criticize...only words of praise and hope that this will be the first of many features by the director. The entire cast was superb. Music was expertly used. I don't watch gay porn, but I do collect gay films with good stories...THIS is one of the best. It ranks high with "Latter Days" and "Shelter". Ten Stars!

sandover Why 'Watercolors' since the artist uses them in the film only in one occasion? Namely, at the end, gratuitously painting his lover's body, courtesy of Nipples&Close-up. If this was intended as an homage to body-painting, or the redeeming power of art I would not dare guess, but my bid is that is nausea-inducing to viewers that want something more than indulge into (their) two-dimensional melodramatic situations.Please name one sufficient reason you feel involved by the opening-night mini-drama. Do you get it with dramatically plausible foregrounding? I for one think that if this is not pulled through, in any film, it will not recover from its flaws. And this one does not.Tye Olson makes a decent effort, although he is dragged here and there by the melodrama of the situation. Yet, he seems alone in an unfortunate way: his 'lover' never shines through as an existing, separate character, he is a bunch of nervous reactions and frustration.No chemistry, either. At the point where one should see, if one had, the boys' love-making, one gets a gloriously shot ass, a semi-fantastic scene that suffers and is weighed down to earth from a sentimental piano. This is not two adolescents discovering the thrill of sexuality, it is menopause shining.The little dialogue between mother and son is perhaps the only point that really shines in the film, though it seems as a fragment from another one; and the casting of the younger and the elder artist is accurate, in terms of physiognomy."All bad poetry is sincere." Oscar WildeAn unfortunately sincere film.

JetBoy "Watercolors" played at San Diego's FilmOut today. I have to say, when we read the synopsis in the FilmOut guide, and watched the trailer, we both thought this was going to be just dreadful. We weren't sure we wanted to even sit through it. I'm so glad we did -- it would be a mistake to miss -- to our amazement, this is a terrific film! First-rate acting all around, with special note to the dad's demonic smoking, the art teacher's facial expressions, the mother's nuanced looks. The writing, while melodramatic, is well-done. Nice cinematography, with cool underwater shots of the swimmers, long shots of outdoor scenes, and so forth. The casting, for the most part, fit nicely, especially Tye as Danny. It was fun seeing Greg Louganis as the coach, although I think it would be have been terrific to cast him as the anti-swimming father.I especially liked the relationship between Danny and his mother. Very funny, touching, warm. The dad character could use more depth, but the mannerisms were nicely done. Tye as Danny looked so small and vulnerable (he's taller in real life, as we saw during the cast Q&A) and had such a perfect geek haircut.This really didn't feel like a "film festival film", although it could do with a bit more editing to tighten up some of the scenes and cut the running time by 10 or 30 minutes.