Well-heeled family man, a loving husband and father of two, is forced into coming out of the closet after falling in lust with his college-age son's best friend, a budding artist and (somewhat timid) homosexual. Facetious drama ostensibly aimed at gay viewers, but one which fails to give its target audience anything substantial or upbeat to connect with. Everyone suffers with such relish, but where are the bracing highs of finally bonding with someone who shares the same feelings? The dialogue is fairly worthless throughout (Child: "Mommy, what were those two men doing in the bushes?" Mother: "Probably looking for a lost ball."),which may be the reason why the movie is carpeted from one end to the next with generic 'romantic' music worthy of a daytime soap (it often substitutes for dialogue which, in this case, isn't such a bad thing). The film's weakest link is the casting: Dan Payne (as the dad) and Charlie David (as his young house guest) are both attractive actors, but Payne is too young for his role and David (looking about 30) too old for his. It's a step in the right direction that no character here perishes in an accident or commits suicide--but queer cinema still has an awfully long way to go. Cutting down on the guilt and the shame are the next obstacles to conquer. ** from ****

I like the film but maybe not for the good reasons. I like it because it is both sentimental and at the same time tense and dramatic. I like it because in the end they all manage to accept the real facts, the gayness of Chase and the gayness of the father forced to be straight for 20 years and revealing itself during the vacation with wife and children as witnesses. To be gay is hard, we all know that, especially for someone who has not been able to experience that kind of love for twenty years in spite of what he felt and knew he was feeling.

I like this situation and the way it is dealt with by all the protagonists. The first one to go big bang is the mother but she negotiates the obstacle rather fast. The son will come second but he will find it hard to accept it and make up with his best friend after all. The father has it hard because a door opened and he could not even control what was happening. He is the one who did not think one single minute. He fell in love and ga-douche-bag down it went. He needs some time to try to find out sex is sex and love is love and that there is an enormous chasm between the two because they are not even the same thing, not even close cousins. The mind and the heart on love's side and the endocrine hormonal glands on the other side. It is sad but understandable for a forced straight monk till the ripe age of 38.

I like that piece of dialogue that reveals how hard it is in our society to just accept love is a passion of the mind and the heart and not of some other appended organs.Tyler is the son and Chase is his best friend, who is gay though Tyler does not know it yet.

Tyler Davidson: I love you man, like a brother... just... Chase Rousseau: I know, no sword fights. Tyler Davidson: Maybe we can find a more macho way of saying it... Chase Rousseau: ...Go Steelers? Tyler Davidson: Yeah, Go Steelers, I like that. Go Steelers. Wow I never said I love you to a guy before. Chase Rousseau: Me either. Tyler Davidson: Good talk.

But that's the reasons why I like the film but they are false reasons indeed. And the real reasons I should consider may make me dislike the film.

The first one is that the older man falls in love with a younger man, his own son's best friend, at once, without hardly one moment of hesitation, without courting the younger man, having some value or quality time with him, exchanging ideas, feelings, emotions, literature or whatever that has nothing to do with sex but everything to do with knowing the other and letting the other know who you are. Within five minutes on the screen, without any exchange of anything but a few looks, the older man starts undressing the younger man. Things may happen like that but it does look and sound like rape or at least hygienic hormonal milking. Sorry but I am a romantic somewhere and when two people meet, even if they fall in love at first sight, they have to spend some energy and time finding about each other, and they generally do. It is too much like: "I am… I know. Hug, First kiss. Second kiss. Older man undresses younger man." At least the older man does not seem to be shy, for a closet gay man for ever since his birth, he is catching up on the fast track.

The second one, and this is a pattern in many films, is that the mother explodes first and then she is the first one to come to terms with the situation. She may pretend she knew the unexpressed sexual orientation of her husband, it does not explain the violence and then the acceptance. She should have been waiting for that moment of revelation, that epiphany all the time. I do not say she could have helped before it came all by itself, hence by accident, but she could not be surprised, not to mention angry and violent, even if only in words and packing a suitcase, because she knew it was going to come sooner or later in today's world of course. Twenty years ago things were different, but she lives in this here modern world with our TV and the Internet.

The third one is the superficial acceptance of gayness, as long as it is abstract, by everyone, even the son who is told by Chase himself and in private that he is gay. As soon as it becomes real they all lose their footing. And this time again it is the mother who completely scatters her marbles with her younger daughter when on the beach the girl is looking at the penis that a friend of hers her age is showing her. Then she scatters them again because the girl is fond of her tennis instructor, a woman, after the first lesson. She is afraid of the word lesbian. And her defense is so weak: I have nothing against it but I do not want my daughter to be like that. And it is this mother who accepts after all rather easily her husband's gayness. Unbelievable. I am afraid that tolerant surface is there only to teach the audience a few lessons about the subject. It is pure ideological wrapping.

But the film is quite entertaining, though we know from the very start who is who and who is going to go with whom.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

I watched the first 50 minutes of this, then I gave up. It was by and large unbearable. I have no problems with the basic premise, i.e. the son of a well-off family returns home for his summer holiday, brings a friend, the friend turns out to be gay, this causes the father of the family to confront his own feelings and his latent homosexuality. I buy it.

The biggest problem with this film, as I see it, is that even though (most of the time) I understand what it is that the filmmaker aim for - it's just very poorly executed. There isn't enough flesh on the bones for things to make sense. It's as if whoever wrote the script knows WHAT the characters need to do, but not WHY. For example, in one of the early scenes, the son of the family makes a big song and dance about how his friend should cover up when he's drying off after a swim. A few scenes later (after the friend has come out to him),the son questions why the friend is covering up (after a shower) when he's normally not shy. Rather than saying, "Because you told me to in no uncertain terms," it turns into an argument about whether the friend's coming out has changed things between them. And this is exactly my problem with this film: even though I understand why they argue and I think the question of what changes when someone comes out is valid, it's as if the filmmaker had to rush to explicitly make that point rather than allowing the audience to see for itself.

In this respect, the film is shallow. I don't see that whoever wrote it actually understands what the characters go through and why they act the way they do.

If you're not bothered about what motivates characters, then you might still get some enjoyment out of this film.