Dream Boy (2008)

Fantastic!

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

If you like to be scared, if you like to laugh, and if you like to learn a thing or two at the movies, this absolutely cannot be missed.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

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.

I thought I would like this film based on the first half. Then the story goes downhill like a runaway pickup truck. I can't help but think of "The Mudge Boy" (and "Fishbelly White") which also starts out with a lot of potential but the writer puts in a story arch that ruins the tale and turns what could be a good experience into a downer.The two lead actors were very good in their roles and the photography is lovely. The music was often annoying. This may have made a better short than a feature-length film with a rewrite of the turn of events. If it's a tender love story you want, don't watch the second half of this film. And the title "Dream Boy" is completely misleading. The film is based on a novel which I haven't read but if the stories are the same, neither should be called "Dream Boy."

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...

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.