Poster Boy (2004) User Reviews

Creative but Tecnically Flawed

[markj-64 · 6/10 · 11 March 2008]

So, the hand cam got on my nerves rather quickly.

Spent the first part of the movie trying to figure out what kind of film I was watching. The film is obviously set up to be a "worlds collide" situation. Perhaps I was expecting that those 2 worlds, or their separateness, would have been better defined from the beginning.

The whole project comes off like an amateur attempt judging by the lack of polish. The lighting is crap. The camera work is distracting. The casting is good. The dialogue is effective but the plot jumped around too much for me to follow. Makes me feel like I have A.D.D.

The technical flaws kept me out of the film and I was left with an overpowering sense of watching a film rather than experiencing it.

DARK Art-House Film - The "Ordinary People" for 2006

[christopher-208 · 7/10 · 10 November 2006]

This is on of the darkest gay-themed films released in America I have seen. Most reviews have not been favorable, so I'll do my best to tell you what I liked, and what I didn't like. This is not a bad film, a 1 or 2 star rating seems quite unfair, but reviews are subjective. It doesn't hold a candle to other gay films I have enjoyed, but the subject is very different.

Why I Gave It 7 Stars: It was a solid 6, leaning towards 8 in the beginning, and towards the end, so I compromised. A solid B- film you might say.

The Story: It centers around Henry (played by Matt Newton). Henry is the son of a ultra conservative Senator from the south. Think of "The Birdcage", minus anything to laugh at. Henry is also gay. The film, told in "flashback style" as Henry tells his story to a reporter unfolds over the course of 6 months. Basically, Henry comes out, and family chaos follows. But not for long, as we're almost to the end of the film.

What I Liked: Personally, I liked the edge. This was almost more of a docu-drama, albeit a fictitious one, which could easily be based on truth. The actors were good to very good, the overall production was good as well.

What I Did Not Like: I was nearly half-way through the film, starting to get concerned where it was going, before all the character/story sub-plots were connected. The second half of the movie was strongest.

The Rest of the Characters: Besides our lead, Henry, we also focus on his stereo-typical bigot Republican Father/Senator, and his "senator's wife" Mother. And to the mix, a straight girl Izzi, and her gay male friend Anthony, whose relationship was unusual at best. Anthony and Henry meet under some unusual circumstances at a college party.

The Ending: I never give away specifics, but let's just say it's not a "Brady Bunch" wrap-up. If the ending was all tidied up for viewers, I would have knocked this down to a 5 or 6. Everything about the film was somewhat gritty, dark, "off". It's not the type of film that usually comes out of the USA. We usually have to watch films like this with sub-titles, so kudos to Here! films and those involved for producing the film.

Final Thoughts: This is not a laugh-out-loud sex romp. No, not at all. It's a good story trying to make a point about politics, sexuality and family values. It does all of those well.

Unrelated Chatter: Jack Noseworthy, the actor who played Anthony also starred in "The Brady Bunch Movie" and in his early years, "Cats" in the theater. Matt Newton (Henry) has appeared on the "Gilmore Girls" and "Judging Amy".

Negative campaigning

[majikstl · 5/10 · 25 October 2006]

The drama POSTER BOY begins with such a solid premise, the screenplay could have practically written itself. Perhaps it would have been better if it had. Though certainly well acted by some of the cast and directed by first-timer Zak Tucker with a degree of skill, the film is bogged down by its script; written by Lecia Rosenthal and Ryan Shiraki, it is laden with preachy platitudes and simple-minded stereotypes. You can sense that the writers weren't satisfied with just hoping to pen a good story, they wanted to make it an "important" film, which is all well and good, unless you sacrifice the drama for the dogma.

Matt Newton plays Henry Kray, the college boy son of Jack Kray, an outspoken conservative senator facing a re-election vote. The son is gay and very much in the closet -- though apparently quite sexually active; while the father is a "family values" candidate with a history of particularly harsh and homophobic stands on various issues. The clueless Jack bullies Henry into being active in his re-election campaign as a way of reaching out to younger voters.

This is a great start; especially if you add in a plot twist wherein Henry unknowingly has a one-night stand with Anthony, a gay rights activist who has a particularly strong dislike for Senator Jack, his politics and his political party. Henry finds himself caught between a father who wishes to exploit his son's youthful and apparently straight-arrow image and a lover who hopes to out him in a cheap attempt at embarrassing the father. This is a nice set up for a potentially complex drama, maybe even an intriguing thriller.

Making an admirable effort to establish an Altmanesque feel to the film, director Tucker finds his attempts at realism at odds with the script that seems contrived and phony as the screenwriters fumble the material in infuriatingly inept ways. For one thing, as played with a perpetual snarl by Michael Lerner, Sen. Jack Kray isn't just a conservative, the story goes out of its way to make sure we know that he is (and by extension, all conservatives are) controlling and hypocritical and poor at parenting to boot. He isn't just a conservative, he is "the Nazi of North Carolina" whose campaign seemingly is financed by the tobacco industry. Gay issues aside, it is not surprising that Henry has great animosity toward his dad. And that is the problem: The film quells part of its strongest source of drama from scene one by obliterating even the slightest suggestion of there being a genuine loving bond between father and son. Indeed, the entire film is told via flashbacks as Henry spills his guts to a reporter in what seems to be a spiteful attempt to get back at his father.

The film would be much more powerful had Henry been torn between two loves; one, his familial love of his father, and the other, his sexual attraction to his lover. The film would be so much more compelling (and believable) if Senator Kray were to be basically a good man with extreme beliefs or if Henry were to be a true believer in his father's politics, who had to face how it conflicts with the reality of his own sexuality. Or what if Sen. Kray were a liberal whose politically correct rhetoric masks a homophobic mind? And though Anthony and his fellow activists aren't shown in a particularly flattering light either, the story overly stacks the deck to the left by making Senator Kray an oh-so obvious right-wing villain in a tired attempt to make clear the film's already obvious left-leaning bias. The result is weak propaganda and even weaker drama.

Worse, all the cheap political shots detract from the film's strongest relationship, between Newton's Henry and Jack Noseworthy's Anthony. Both actors give fine performances, helped considerably by the fact they are given the most realistic characters to play. Newton captures the anxiety of Henry, a guy who just wants to live his life out of the public eye, but finds the comfort that comes from living in the closet comes at a high price. Noseworthy makes credible a character who can't quite separate his sexuality from his politics, which, ironically, is the problem with the film itself. The film's most potent message would have been in exploring this love story rather than in focusing on all the yammering political noise that surrounds these two men.

An above average film marred by a couple bad decisions

[BrandtSponseller · 6/10 · 28 July 2007]

A technical quibble first: my hearing is less than perfect, and Poster Boy has a lot of mumbled dialogue with no subtitles on the DVD. New films without subtitles are just inexcusable in my opinion--what is someone who is deaf supposed to do? Just not watch that film?

The best aspect of the film is the acting. The core cast are all fantastic. What didn't work so well for me was the cinematography, editing and the general low budget approach. The cinematography is mostly (or maybe all) hand-held, with a lot of shaky cam shots and a lot of blurriness. The film is loaded with overexposed shots and a dominance of white. While that may have been so for metaphorical reasons, it's not the most pleasant thing to watch aesthetically if it's relentless--and that's also not the best way to get the metaphorical aspects across. The editing is frequently frenetic. In combination with the locations, sets and general lack of music, Poster Boy has the feel of a 100-thousand dollar art house drama made by a director who is way too obsessed with The Blair Witch Project.

Fortunately, the story is better than that would suggest, although it's not perfect. This would have been far more on-target and controversial 15 years ago (given our present knowledge and overall lack of reaction to the sexuality of some political offspring), but it's still engaging enough, especially given the performances, and at any rate, it deals with important issues that are still far from resolved in our culture.

Unfairly Maligned

[slbbooksmusicfilm · 15 July 2011]

This film seems to have come in for much criticism from the reviews on here, so I'm hoping to redress the balance here. As a film, it's OK, but compared to other gay indie films from America it sits near the top of the pile. The acting is generally good, the directing is competent. The script seems a little outdated for 2004, but I remember reading somewhere that there had been delays to the making of the film and so i wouldn't be surprised if the script was actually written in the late 1990s.

What makes this particularly interesting is that it is a far cry from other gay films out there. It isn't a love story, it doesn't try to woo in the punters by having stunningly handsome men who go full frontal or through strong sex scenes. That isn't what this is about. It has a message, though, and some of the scenes are a little clunky (especially the linking sections with the journalist), but that's a small price to pay for a good solid story that is well told.

The two young actors play the leads without making them into stereotypes and there isn't a screaming queen in sight. Thankfully. What makes the two protagonists most appealing is that neither of them are perfect human beings. The senator's son is cocky and arrogant at times, and the boy he meets has his own faults. The supporting cast is also very good, with some nicely drawn characters.

For a low budget gay effort, this is really good stuff.

Satisfying but laden with directorial 'auteur' moments

[ace-150 · 7/10 · 16 April 2007]

I started out disliking this, but ended up rather enjoying it. The cinema verite style was very hard for me to get past. It seems really contrived, particularly because several of the characters were absolute caricatures. The senator and his wife were cartoonishly unambiguous and the bitter friend seemed like unnecessary set dressing. Comedically evil right wing conservative and hand-held cam make for strange bedfellows. I came around during the Palm Springs hooker scene, just because it didn't go for the obvious gambit. That did cut the potential smarminess of the whole coming out agenda. The narrative convention of the reporter and protagonist is also absurdly contrived. Having said those things, Jack Noseworthy really puts the thing over. If he smiled at me, I'd probably throw my whole life away, too. Ultimately, the movie isn't really about gayness or politics. It's about grown children allowing, or not allowing, their parents to control them.

An engrossing story made into a boring documentary

[ninetyninedegrees · 4/10 · 6 February 2005]

I just saw this at the Outfar Film Festival in Phoenix, and I have to say I was disappointed. The plot had the making of a really engrossing story: The handsome college-age son of a Southern Right-wing Senator is a closeted gay, and is "outed" in an attempt to destroy the re-election of his father. Depending on how the story was scripted, I anticipated feeling sympathy for the son, anger toward those who invade his private life for political gain. Or, the could have scripted so that one feels the "closet-case" got what he deserved. Unfortunately, the way the film was scripted and filmed destroyed any chance of achieving an engrossing story or feeling anything for the characters involved.

The story is told in the form of a rather obnoxious reporter interviewing Henry, the senator's son. As he describes the events leading up to his outing, we fade in & out of the scenes. This format has been used successfully several times in the past. It doesn't work this time. By the end of the film I felt as thought I'd watched a bad documentary, just witnessing the events, feeling nothing for the people involved. The other problem is the main characters seem almost schizophrenic in their personalities. One moment Henry is throwing the suit & tie clad Young Republican into the pool; the next moment he's bonding with him and hiring him a hooker when he learns he's still a virgin. We first meet Anthony as an "out there" Act Up! activist; we next see him a sensitive best friend of an AIDS-stricken woman. Next he's telling her that he also had sex with her boyfriend that gave her AIDS; we next see him caring about Henry, whom he had vowed to "out".

By the time Henry is outed, I was looking at my watch and waiting for the ending credits. Too bad. Good plot done wrong in about every detail. Better luck next time.

Well done, well acted, not too great an ending

[melkubrick · 8/10 · 1 September 2006]

I just saw this movie yesterday and I for one, thought it was a terrific movie. I thought it's messages were great and I especially thought Matt Newton's performance was spectacular. I just felt that the one aspect of the ending didn't really work and that was the fact that Henry never made contact with Anthony again. You would think since he asked him to stay with him in the gym that they would've at lease kept in touch. But overall I thought this movie was very powerful and am still wondering why the critics have been so unkind to it. This includes Kevin Thomas of the L.A. Times who gives every gay movie a good review.

Editor! Editor!

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 19 November 2006]

POSTER BOY is a film with a lot of potential: the story premise is solid (though a bit tired), the cast of both young and experienced actors is quite fine, and there are some worthwhile statements about our political system, about tolerance and acceptance and family, and about being true to yourself. Despite all of these aspects that should have made a fine little film the whole thing bogs down with some of the worst editing and camera work on record. That, and the writers' (Lecia Rosenthal and Ryan Shiraki) need to place platitudes into normal conversation is most distracting. Zak Tucker as director just didn't seem to have control of this piece.

The story itself is rather simple. Through the gimmick of a confession to a reporter we meet handsome young Henry Kray (the talented Matt Newton), gay since early teens but electing to keep his private life a secret, who is the son of Senator Jack Kray (Michael Lerner) and his lovely but docile wife Eunice (the fine Karen Allen). It seems that six months prior to the time we are invited into the conversation Henry met Anthony (hunky Jack Noseworthy) whose roommate is HIV positive Izzie (Valerie Geffner). Henry and Anthony have a one-night stand the day before Jack Kray is to give a speech for re-election at Henry's college. The Senator accidentally hits Izzie with his car and Eunice insists Izzie stay with them in their suite where the two women bond. Meanwhile Henry's night with Anthony makes him late for the speech, but a talk to Henry from Jack before the speech telling him what to say (Jack is the best father, loves family values, etc) sticks in Henry's throat and soon after he obeys his father's wishes for the speech introduction, Henry turns to his table partner Anthony and the two kiss openly as the Senator is addressing the crowd - all caught by the media of course.

How this moment of honesty alters the lives of everyone around is the crux of the ending. Not a bad tale, but the camera work is so patchy and disconcertingly disconnected that it defies the viewer to keep the storyline straight. But if the viewer can keep up visually, the performances by the cast are well worth attention. There is some very fine talent on the screen of this B movie! Grady Harp

A really interesting movie!

[cool_as_ice14 · 10/10 · 31 March 2007]

Most reviews for this movie are quite negative, and I guess I am in the minority when I say this - but this movie was fantastic!!! It is not your traditional gay movie, actually it doesn't really have much of a gay focus which might annoy some people. It's more a coming of age story and is relate-able to everyone, no matter what your sexual orientation is. At first the plot of this movie might seem to move along too slowly, but that is simply to establish the characters and setting of the movie which is something that has to be done to fully appreciate this movie. When you look back on the movie, you do realize how everything fits in together perfectly, now that you know everything, although it might seem a little bit muddled halfway through the movie.

Some other users have commented on the movie not being multi dimensional, but I think that the way that the characters reacted are pretty realistic, and most people (generally) are multi dimensional but may only show one side of their selves for one reason or another, and don't forget that this movie is focused from the point of view of Henry Kray. It also has many plot twists, and though it has be commented upon that it is too predictable, I thought nothing of the sort. The characters are oddly unpredictable, and are like multi layered onions, many people might just look it and observe that is it just another gay movie, but it is not, it is so much more than that.

Virtually Unbearable

[mflutka-1 · 1/10 · 3 March 2008]

Talk about misrepresentation! This movie misses on so many marks that I honestly feel sorry for those involved. The acting, editing, cinematography, "costumes", etc. YIKES! What really got my goat was the thorough incoherence of the "story". The movie's called Poster Boy and the main character bitches and moans about how he's "not the perfect son" but his big problem is giving a single phoney speech! If the movie had been about his parents grooming him to be a politico and forcing various women on him it might've made sense. But when he's a nobody at some second-tier university an they're trying to hide him how is he a Poster Boy living a lie. He mentions on several occasions how he's invisible. Boo Hoo. And what's with the political implausibility? The devil from South Carolina who's in office and running for re-election in New York? I don't think so. Oh, and how about the fact every character smokes constantly in totally inappropriate locales. I suppose this was to make them "interesting". Bleh. Of all the bad acting Izzy has to be the worst. Is she doing an impression of Ally Sheedy in Breakfast Club or what? The two gay characters which were supposedly the selling point of this fiasco have about as much sizzle as a glass of water. All in all, another sad contribution to the canon of horrible gay films. I was bamboozled by another wretched NetFlix suggestion! The end.

When Your Reach Exceeds Your Grasp . . .

[Franco-LA · 3/10 · 18 April 2007]

It isn't necessarily a bad thing that a first time director is working from a script with first time writers; I've seen worse films where a first time director wrote the script. However, this film would have been better served by either some more experience (or polish) on the writing end and, probably, with a director who was willing to make the necessary changes.

For example, when the Noseworthy character admits to his "best friend" that he too, slept with her dead boyfriend, it seems pointless and isn't and doesn't go anywhere, not even to an "I'm sorry for hurting you, Izzy" comment from Noseworthy's Anthony character.

The beginning of the film, where the young man walks away from the Anthony character's bed exists purely to show the character would be petulant because guys walk out on him after sleeping with him -- so when the Henry Kray character does it, of course, he needs revenge by messing up the Henry's entire life.

These elements are just so predictable or undeveloped as to ruin the opportunity the film has to be something new or unique.

Even the basic story, since it's one that has been the plot of a few trashy trade paperback gay novels and even the plot of a few trashy 'JO' (since IMDb doesn't like the more precise verbiage) stories in gay male adult magazines, needed more development than it got. I actually felt Karen Allen's performance was good, although the accent was a bit jarring. Unfortunately, too much time was spent developing her character for too little pay off. If she was going to walk away from the Senator at the end and the Senator and his son haven't reconcile, what happened to her, especially if he won re-election? Too much time is also spent with the Izzy character, especially in context with the Senator's wife, since again, there is no pay-off.

And while getting drunk and having coffee is certainly the way for a relationship to begin, there was nothing on screen to justify Noseworthy doing this, especially since they don't end up together in the end.

If the director couldn't see the flaws in the script and fix them, he was the major problem. If the writers didn't realize these kinds of problems, they need a good editor. As it was, I gave the movie a better mark than I normally might for trying something different than you might normally see in a gay movie and for good performances by the leads, who were undermined by the script and clearly did the best they could with their dialog and situations, and didn't make them any worse. Hopefully, both will get better roles (or make better decisions about the roles they take) in the future.

A fresh look at a coming out story

[Havan_IronOak · 8/10 · 9 May 2004]

Henry Cray is a young gay man who's gone away to college and is enjoying the liberty of coming out, away from his family. Only problem is that the boy's father is a powerful, conservative U.S. Senator and around campus the son's homosexuality is a bit of an open secret.

Enter Anthony, a 28 but younger looking gay man, who's been a member of Act Up but who is now more interested in spending his time with affluent gal pal Izzie and perhaps getting into the pants of some college boy when they crash a campus party.

Despite being 28 Anthony can easily pass for a college guy and quickly meets several guys willing to show him a good time including Henry. Unaware of Henry's name Anthony hooks up with him and spends a fun evening on the floor of the school's darkened gymnasium. Only in the morning, after Henry has left him alone on the floor, does Anthony find out Henry's full identity.

Looking for any chance to take a shot at the conservative government that he detests Anthony decides to take this opportunity for political action. Only problem is that he finds himself beginning to care very deeply for Henry and he must decide if he can use someone he cares for in this way.

So.......Is it true what they say about sex & politics?.................

[arizona-philm-phan · 20 November 2006]

The overall theme of this film provides a passably good take on the Republican party's dislike of things gay and the damaging effects such causes and thinking can have on someone's emerging life and persona. Well, I should point out here that the preceding statement has "let a cat out of the bag" about this movie---despite DVD cover notes indicating people falling for one another, this is in no way a romantic movie. Sorry, no falling involved.

A newer, younger actor, Matt Newton (playing Henry Kray, a US Senator's damaged gay son), acts the socks off an 8 or 9 years more experienced Jack Noseworthy----who truth be told isn't given much to work with in the way of a script (a most inactive activist). Example: During Senator Kray's campus speech, when Henry unleashes the big G-Incendiary in the form of a K-Bomb, Noseworthy, as Anthony, just stands there open-mouthed (only figuratively, most certainly not literally). It's a mouth position that Noseworthy could have put to much better use in the more sexually oriented scenes of this movie---but didn't (and Noseworthy does have wonderfully sexy lips).

Speaking just a bit more on the topic of osculation, the best kiss in entire movie is one Noseworthy's character gives his fag-hag (which doesn't provide much enjoyment for gay movie-goers). And more specifically on the guy-to-guy bussing in this film, one is tempted to comment: how about opening your mouths some time........yer not kissing your grandmothers, for Pete's sake; ya probably won't give each other a disease.

And let me again highlight a specific acting performance in this film: If a possibly gay actor (Noseworthy) is gonna take on a gay role, you'd think he, of all of them, could do it realistically and give us gay sex scenes that actually come across as sex scenes (hey, Jack, take a tip from young newbie, Daniel Letterle, as **Ethan Green, will ya.....he doesn't stint at kissing and making out). You know, I'm beginning to think we get more realistic gay sex when straight men play the roles.

Some disjointed here + there thoughts:

Oh, if you're looking for even a little sex, you'll find more on the hetero-side than the homo-side.

What kind of scene shooting finds us guys laying around naked in the afterglow of sex......while actually in our boxer shorts. Yikes! Such a scene reminded me of the all too frequent hetero love scenes we see on prime-time TV, complete with the requisite undergarments and wraparound sheets.

Something really enjoyed--the further opening up and growth in Newton's acting skills. With a little directorial help, he could maybe play a truly believable gay character in some future project.

What sort of writer/director thinking is it that gives us lead character, Anthony, who chases his romantic(?) interest throughout the movie til he catches him........then sez: "Well, see ya." And what's with the fast-cut, extreme close-ups "over-liberally" sprinkled throughout this film.......this director must really like to highlight pores + blackheads.

---------------------------------------------The End---------------------------------

PS--So......have you by now found out whether what they say about sex & politics is true? No?!?!---well, then, just ask Mark Foley.

**"The Mostly Unfabulous Social Life of Ethan Green"

Wow.

[paulcreeden · 1/10 · 6 January 2007]

If you are looking for a patch of blue in a new gay cinema gone bad, do not watch this film. It is an equal-opportunity mess. Bad writing. Bad cinematography. Bad acting. Bad everything. It is notable for its total lack of any sympathetic characters. Remarkable. The most aggravating thing about the movie is its bumbling stupidity in dealing with very serious issues which effect millions, such as AIDS, homophobia, sexism, corrupt politics. The second most aggravating thing about the movie is Karen Allen's blue suit, which she wears in every scene. And it's a really ugly suit! It is one of the very few movies I have watched to its conclusion despite my deepest desire to stop the pain of watching it. I can't really say what that is about. Perhaps it was like watching a train wreck. Believe me, this film did indeed earn my vote of 1.

Meant to offend and it is brilliant

[jromanbaker · 10/10 · 11 October 2021]

A few years into this century and we get a fine Gay/Political film. And no spoilers but just to say a Senator's son is not exactly on his father's side. I will not say which side only it is a very ' moral ' one that dislikes women to have rights and is homophobic. And the son has to play poster boy for his upcoming re-election. It is a film that in essence has not aged, and it is all relevant to 2021. It is brilliantly acted by the whole cast and the script is right where it touches the nerves. It is also filmed in a way that is edgy, and nervous and each scene folds in to another seamlessly. Only one spoiler; the son falls in love with a Gay activist, and please anyone who gets their hands on this film watch it and learn. It burns.

Not Well Done At All

[vampireeat · 1/10 · 13 April 2008]

This was perhaps the first movie in a long time that I was truly disappointed in. The premise could have been interesting. However, no one really tried... the directing is sloppy, the writing is tired, and the acting is just horrible. Matt Lerner does not make a good leading man and you can definitely see it in the interview scenes. The movie doesn't really capture any sort of idea; the idea of being closeted, of being political, not getting along with your parents, etc. I could go on. None of the characters are relatable, save perhaps an amazing performance by Karen Allen (from 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' fame) who does an amazing job of being a republican senator's wife who basically hates everything about it, especially giving up her individuality. "Poster Boy" tries to hard to not be a gay movie; and when you take that away, it really isn't anything else. The first movie I got from Netflix that I probably would never watch again.

BadGayFilms.com Review of Poster Boy...

[BadGayFilms · 4/10 · 17 December 2006]

I wrote a review of Poster Boy on my website (www.BadGayFilms.com) and you'll be surprised that me big issues with this movie aren't found in the gay plot lines (it was pretty typical of most gay films.) Here is some of what I had to say, be sure to check out the website for my full review:

"...oddly enough my issues with this movie don't really come from the gay elements. For the most part the gay plot lines are pretty reasonable and believable though not very compelling. I'm only talking about the plot here mind you. The camera work will make you dizzy and the editing is sloppy. The actors do a decent job for the most part (Matt Newton as Henry Kray and Jack Noseworthy as Anthony) with some glaring exceptions (oddly enough Karen Allen as Eunice Kray and Ian Reed Kesler as Skip Franklin are pretty awful.)

My true problem with this film is the very basis for which it is based. The whole plot centers on a political campaign and while most movies that attempt to portray a campaign tend to stumble, this one falls flat on its face."

• BadGayFilms.com

Surfaces are all some people see...

[gayspiritwarrior · 9/10 · 13 December 2006]

Movies that are more about the inner lives, emotions and growth of the characters than they are about the situations depicted frequently have a hard time with critics and audiences. So it seems to be with this film, which is deeper than most of the reviewers seem able to see.

The one facet of this production that most reviewers complain about is the writing. Well, I'm here to say that the writing is intelligent and subtle and just this side of brilliant. The people in Poster Boy aren't the one-dimensional, good or bad, smart or silly, honest or conniving characters they might have been. They're multifaceted, exposed in greater detail as the film goes on, and they all take emotional journeys, becoming larger and different, if still humanly flawed, from who they were at the start. Even the politician/father is more complex than we think at first; although perhaps predictably, because of the career he's chosen, he moves the least of the major characters.

Henry Kray is embittered by the politicization of his life, yet we see him beginning to hope against his experience that the feelings Anthony shows him might possibly be real. Anthony, for his part, is in it at first for the political effect he can create by outing Henry, but he begins to see there's more to Henry than just the politician's son, and that the cause he was using Henry for is more complicated than he thought. The politician's wife shakes off her complacent acceptance of her role as scenic sidekick to the Senator. Izzie opens up more than she thought possible at first==Parker's knock at the gym door at the end, and Izzie's opening that door is the closest the movie comes to a conventional romance, but is just as much a metaphor for moving on after finally accepting what she's lost.

Some people have expressed surprise or disappointment that Henry and Anthony didn't end up together; but this isn't primarily a romance. It's a story of realistic, imperfect people who touch each other's lives and take what they've experienced into their futures.

This is one of the most intelligent movies of its kind this writer has ever seen, and sadly underestimated by most of its audience. 9 out of 10.

Obvious, badly acted, poorly done

[preppy-3 · 2/10 · 29 April 2010]

Republician senator Jack Kray (Michael Lerner) and his wife Eunice (Karen Allen) want to get their son to introduce him at a rally. The problem is that son Henry (Matt Newton) hates his father and is hiding the fact that he's gay. He falls in love with activist Anthony (Jack Noseworthy) and things come to a head.

PLOT SPOILERS!!! Pretty bad indie film. The plot is obvious and meandering and the film takes detours into various other plot lines that seem to have nothing to do with the main story (I'm still trying to figure out what Izzy is doing here). Also there's a guy on guy kiss at the end which IS necessary for the story--but it's so obvious that the guys AREN'T kissing on the lips (that guy is being kissed on the cheek) that its impact doesn't come across at all. I realize the actors probably aren't gay but that's no excuse. Kissing a guy on the lips is not going to destroy your career. It's also badly shot with lousy direction, horrendous editing and terrible lighting (everybody looks washed out). To make matters worse there's annoying "music" and sounds on the soundtrack that are more distracting than anything else. The final nail in the coffin was terrible acting. Allen and Lerner are OK but Noseworthy is bad and Newton is TERRIBLE! I don't care how good-looking he is--he can't act. He is obviously not gay and seems very uncomfortable in the role. As I said before he couldn't even kiss a guy on the lips. Aside from all that it's deadly dull. I dozed off 45 minutes into the film!

On the plus side some of the guys were cute and shown in their underwear (no nudity though) and the last 30 minutes are actually pretty good--but that's too little too late. A few good speeches at the end can't save this one. Slow, boring and condescending. Avoid. I give this a 2.

Bright beacon in a sea of bad gay films

[crispin_13 · 8/10 · 2 January 2009]

Too often in gay cinema, Films loose their way in two ways. Plots and characters get lost in a desperate and schlocky attempt to prove just how gay a film can be. A serious attempt at film making is often lost in a need to be gay and throws in unnecessary and explicit love scenes and nudity for no other reason than to remind the viewer that the characters are indeed homosexual. The other way (the worse of the two in my opinion) is that there seems to be this rule that many film makers have that you can not make a serious film about gay men without one of them dying of AIDS. I applaud Poster Boy for not falling into either of these traps. The lead male characters are unquestionably homosexual without being explicit yet without losing their sexuality and none of the gay men die of aids nor are they HIV positive. There is a character who is HIV positive whom we are told dies of AIDS but it is not pivotal to the plot and it is a straight woman. The film does not belittle the disease but it is not the agenda of the film. This film is about the relationship between a father and son and the worlds they live in. It is tightly directed with good character development on both sides. The acting is very good especially by Michael Lerner in a very different role for him. Karen Allen is always a joy to watch. The main characters are played by relatively unknowns which I think works well for the characters. Well done by all involved

good acting , poor writing

[garylife · 3/10 · 8 July 2007]

I felt the script for the movie was lacking a sense of reality most of the time. There were to many lines that were total Cliché's. For example, when the small group was planning a protest the one girl suggested. "why done we form a human chain around the auditorium and confront the senator with Poetry". There were 5 of them, and the suggestion was Laughable, and no one laughed in the scene. There's a lot of lines like that but not funny, just out of context.

The acting on the other hand was quite good. Even with the lines they were given.

I have to say i'm not a great fan of constant close ups which this had tons of. I it was hard to tell what was going on around the characters since there were so many close ups.

Making a Statement at the Expense of Telling a Story

[ascheland · 5/10 · 24 July 2012]

"Poster Boy" tries so hard to make a statement—so very, very hard—that I really wished it was better than it is. Henry Kray (Matt Newton), the closeted gay son of a conservative North Carolina senator (Michael Lerner), grudgingly agrees to introduce the senator at a rally held at the fictional New York college he attends, if only so his father will stop smacking him at the breakfast table. But then Henry attempts to escape the duty, high-tailing it to the family's house in Palm Springs. Alas, an eager-to-please young Republican (Ian Reed Kesler) is sent to retrieve Newton and drag his ass back to NYC, though not before Newton can drag him to a gay bar then rent Kesler a shapely call girl for the night. Meanwhile, Anthony (Jack Noseworthy), a former gay activist and recently fired fashion house go-fer, is looking for love but only finding one-night stands while his roommate, Izzy (Valerie Geffner, doing her best Ally Sheedy-in-"The Breakfast Club" impersonation), pops Prozac and snarls at anyone within spitting distance as she tries to cope with being HIV-positive. As is to be expected, all these characters' paths will cross and collide (at times literally) on the way to a Big Moment.

Heavy-handed though it is, the script actually has a few good points to make. If only screenwriters Ryan Shiraki and Lecia Rosenthal put as much thought into telling a story as making a statement, especially when they're preaching to the choir. As it is, the narrative is more like a series of contrivances meant to move the characters toward that Big Moment rather than plausible events arising from believable circumstances. Luckily, the movie is buoyed somewhat by fairly solid acting. Karen Allen is a welcome presence as the senator's chain-smoking, heavy drinking wife, even if her Southern accent is a tad bit overdone (conversely, Lerner's Southern accent is almost nonexistent). Director and co-editor Zak Tucker packs the movie with lots of style—from quick cuts to split screens to moody gels and filters—making his movie nearly unwatchable in the process.

"Poster Boy" also has continuity errors galore. Cigarettes are a particular problem, be it a reporter lighting a half-smoked cigarette in the opening scene, only to be shown seconds later with a fresh one dangling from his lips unlit; or Allen smoking a newly lit cigarette, then shown lighting it a quick cut later. There's also the extra so nice we have to see her passing Newton and Noseworthy twice in the same scene (made worse by the fact that Newton calls attention to her the first time around), and Lerner is shown getting into a limo with his hair a mousy brown when in the rest of the movie it's white. Other distractions: How do Noseworthy and Geffner—one unemployed, the other a bookstore clerk making $7 an hour—afford a chauffeured Town Car? And why the gratuitous female nudity in a movie that features gay men with hyperactive sex lives? Sadly, the two male leads are only fleetingly shown in their skivvies.

For all its problems, "Poster Boy" isn't awful, but it made its statements so loudly and so often that I found myself tuning them out, wondering instead whether anyone in wardrobe was going to rustle up something else for Ms. Allen to wear besides that lavender suit.

Poster Boy...my brother?

[camas9 · 10/10 · 23 November 2007]

I loved it! I appreciated the tapestry that led to the subtle and uplifting conclusion, probably because it seemed to resemble clarity. I felt no sense of "preaching", indeed it was the brevity of expressed points of view that lent it the sense of reality that one lives with every day. The portrayal of the characters on both sides of the issues were presented with a sensitivity that did not detract from the accuracy of their impact on the protagonist, the Poster Boy. Examples of extreme Right-Wing politicians and religious leaders who have parented gay and lesbian children are too numerous to include here, but one wonders about the true price of the horrendously internalized closet these personalities seem to be lost in. I would recommend it to any with an interest in such issues.

Good acting but that's about it

[tlutzy · 5/10 · 9 August 2012]

The good: very well acted all around and nice cinematography. The bad: one cliché after another from the over-weight, suspendered right-wing politician with the alcoholic wife to the on-again off-again "relationship" between Anthony and Henry, to the self-destructive HIV- positive roommate who is "saved" by true love.

The plot moves from one predictable moment to another, and that's what really ruins this film. The part involving the senator's limo and Izzy is totally unbelievable, especially what happens after. The premise of the story -- that Henry would tell his story to a reporter after it had been plastered throughout the news media -- is also unbelievable.

Other aspects are good, particularly the acting by all. Henry is appropriately arrogant, vulnerable and defiant. Karen Allen is great as the long-suffering mother.