I typically do not like the "traditional" gay cliché genre where all relationships have to end in tragedy. But I COULD have made an exception here had the writer/filmmaker decided to go in the direction of a ghost story...which was alluded to about mid-way. Meaning, there were many elements of horror/psychological thriller, beginning with the character of Nathan's family life. Then, we see the tension between Nathan and one of Roy's "alpha male" friends, foreshadowing some negative story line. But all in all, this is just too linear and has a very "made for TV" feel (the sound-track gets very annoying). And the ending seems to make this just too "cutesy" and negates the entire horror/ghost story direction (it's almost as if the writer got stuck and didn't know where to go and wanted to end on some "feel good" note...just lazy). Also, there were several instances where either the writer or the director didn't seem to understand the setting they were portraying (Baptists in the South would NEVER have a crucifix on the wall...let alone in a church...that's Catholicism). In other words, a) do your research b) pick your "mood" and where you want to go and c) be consistent. The acting was in fact superb and I think the best thing about this...so I wish all involved an excellent career.

As far as gay themed movies go, for the most part this is a beautiful and endearing love story handled with tenderness and all together quite amazingly done. The two leads are fantastic, the pacing, script, music and photography is outstanding. It has a rather American Beauty feel about it. About half way through it is obvious Nathan is hiding a torrid secret which could have been explored further, tackling a great social issue. This movie could have could have taken this theme and launched into being one of the best gay films of the decade. BUT, then it takes a predictable, boring and lazy path which made me VERY angry. I guess you see it coming but why oh why do so many American gay themed films have to kill off the innocent gay kid in a traumatic and horrid way. Is this some kind of recompense to get the film made? Financed? Some kind of self loathing from a writer director who needs to justify making a gay themed filmed? I am so bloody angry that this has once again occurred when blind Freddy could have taken the last 20 minutes and helped Nathan out of his shitty life and into love and light. But no, he has to be raped and beaten to death. What does this achieve for gods sake? I am very bloody angry about this.

I liked this movie. It wasn't exactly a masterpiece, having some issues, but it's unexpectedly warm and tender moments,the acting (especially Max Roeg) and the soundtrack (why so many people find it annoying is beyond me..) made it worth watching. I think it's major issue was the ending and most of the movies second part. I read the novel (I loved it and it's definitely better than the movie), so I tend to compare the movie to it. The novel's ending was more ambiguous, interpretable, bittersweet, very moody indeed, while in the movie's case it was way too abrupt, not exactly faithful to the book (while the rest of the movie was, mostly)and rather undecided. First, we are given the fact that Nathan is dead, and the next moment we see him walking up to Roy and then sitting on the bus, the way he used to..It's not that I didn't get it-it was an attempt to recreate the novel's ambivalent final, but it just didn't work. While in the book, there was a subtle mix between reality and dream, the movie failed at this point, giving us just something confusing instead of something dreamlike. The horror tale part didn't fit in the movie either- Jim Grimsley managed to masterfully create a truly eerie and terrifying atmosphere in the second part of the novel, but in the movie version, the part about the haunted house looked like it was taken from an average teen movie. The rest of the the movie was very well crafted, managing to depict the fragile love of the two boys, that seems almost unreal. I loved the fact that teenage love was depicted (both in the novel and the movie) exactly the way it is: clumsy, awkward but of incredible depth and intensity. The love scenes are reserved, but they were one of the most romantic ones I have seen so far. Although there are some (love) scenes in the novel which weren't included in the movie (and they would have added so much to it!)they were able to portray the aching tenderness and profound love that the boys developed for each other. It was heartwarming to see that love scenes can be made without graphic nudity, picturing just two lovers cuddling and caressing each other. The only objection I have regarding the love scenes is that maybe Nathan's character could have been a bit less shy-there were moments when it looked like Nathan was rather obeying the infatuated Roy and not reciprocating his feelings.Both actors did a good job, although it was Max Roeg that I liked the most. He really shined in his role, and even without much dialog he managed to portray his character's confusion and sentimental turmoil marvelously. He made the character look very real, a handsome and popular farm boy leading a normal life,whose world is suddenly turned upside down by the feelings he has for his shy schoolmate,feelings he cannot identify at first.All in all, it's a movie that worth a watch,not as good as the book though. It's complex and subtle, but lacks the eeriness and dreamlike atmosphere of the novel, the mix between a touching love story and a Gothic horror tale. I definitely recommend both the movie and Jim Grimsley's novel - it's a haunting story of first love, that will definitely haunt you for a while.

Dream Boy (2008) Rural dynamics can be tough… especially for those who have a hard time adapting to it. That's what happens with newcomer Nathan. And in the process or readjusting to this new environment he finds out there is one boy he can trust: Roy.Is Nathan just a harmless and defenseless kid that seeks out protection? Or is he a very troubled boy, haunted by traumatic events that he never dares to share? Two elements are made obvious in the movie. One: the devastating effects of father on son incest. Two: the even more catastrophic consequences of excessive passivity. Nathan, just like his mother, is of a very submissive nature.Some of the most classic psychoanalytic theories associate submissive-passive behavior with the figure of the abject. Abject is understood as the vilest and lowest position conceivable. It is of course imputed to male on male homosexual intercourse. What remains of interest about this theory, though, is that the abject works in terms of passivity. The male who allows himself to be penetrated is then the vilest and lowest; penetration is understood as the worst of the worst. But even these theories, in all their mighty psychological mumble jumble, seem to confuse the active position with the heterosexual identity. As a result, the straight guy who happens to "top" a gay guy can still brag about it, something he could never even disclose publicly if he had chosen to be the one in the passive position. This, of course, goes to all lengths, it can create hierarchies (for example, who penetrates who in jail), it can serve as an excuse for gay intercourse while maintaining a heterosexual façade, etc.Throughout the film problems are avoided as long as Roy remains in his active position. Roy is the leader of a group of boys and he messes around with a girl, up until this point he could still claim he is straight despite his sexual encounters with Nathan. But when he assumes a more passive position regarding Nathan everything crumbles to pieces and tragedy ensues. When his friends catch him off guard practicing oral sex to Nathan he loses all power and authority. And because of that, his friends are now enabled to partake in abuses they might have not considered before. Consequently, one of Roy's friends will feel encouraged to rape Nathan and then to attack him violently and brutally.There is also an important approach to Jacques Lacan's concept of symbolic death. There is an in-between place. There is an impasse between symbolic death and actual (real) death. Perhaps James Bolton correlates passivity with death. Or perhaps the film simply imbricates the repercussions of real death versus the significance and emotional strength involved in symbolic death."Dream Boy" has a very sad and touching end. It does give conclusion to the premises established since the opening shots. And moreover, it makes the viewer realize how deeply human and fragile the protagonists are. Bolton's bold narrative surpasses the novel's qualities and delivers a stunningly beautiful film.