Daydream Obsession (2003 Video) User Reviews

Like porn without the sex

[otterman47 · 2/10 · 23 October 2004]

From the description of the DVD box I thought this would be an interesting movie to watch: closeted young man falls in love with one of his roommates(on the cover there's a photo of the roommate tied to a chair and blindfolded).

It's starts off with the roommate "Brian" tied to the chair and after a couple of minutes goes back 2 weeks with the main character "Clayton" making an entry into his video diary about how he think he might be gay and how he has intense feelings for Brian.

Next, Clayton goes to brush his teeth in the bathroom where one of his other roommates is taking a shower (in a clear glass shower stall so nothing is left to the imagination). This is where the movie turns to softcore pornville as the camera makes love to the guy in the shower for about 5 minutes while cheesy electronic music plays in the background. These sort of interludes happen a few more times as his spies on his other roommates while they're naked. They're nice to look at but after a while it get kind of tedious. At one point he orders up a hustler (for $300.00!!) to come over; he does a strip tease but Clayton has him leave through the window when he roommates come home. Not too much happens. The ending is sort of ho hum (and there's an alternate ending on the DVD that just like the original except for some fancy footware).

So if you like looking at naked men rent porn and just pass on the odd hybrid.

I don't know what to say but I'll try

[xxray_77 · 2/10 · 23 March 2008]

Why do we stand for this kind of thing? Why don't people who pay good money to buy a movie rise up in spontaneous rebellion when they find they've been swindled? It's one of those mysteries of modern life. This is certainly the case of Daydream Obessions.

The film did not aspire to be much. Just a soft core gay romp going from one sex scene to another. This film even failed to make that uninteresting This is particularly sad because the film has better production value then a lot of the these low budget films. But not since Paul Vorhoevens Showgirls has so much sex been so boring.

I must say that I'm a big fan of this type of low budget gay fare but even in this genera there are really good films and really bad ones. I usually have nothing to say about the bad ones, I figured I wasted my time watching it why spend another moment writing about it. I felt the need to unload on this one because this film had potential that all went to waste. I give this a generous 2 stars only for the overall look of the production. Warning. Even if you're just looking for cheap thrills. Look elsewhere.

Could've been so much better..

[kbc167 · 20 February 2005]

This was obviously meant to be softcore porn? The problem was that it wasn't even "good" porn. If they wanted to make a gay porn movie, they should've actually had some sex! On the flip side, they could've easily made a really decent independent movie. The main character I thought did a great acting stint during his little video monologues. There's one right before the climax of the movie that I especially enjoyed ... perhaps that alone is worth the price of admission... Overall, though, this movie is probably a pass. It could've been much more, but they went the softcore route instead. I can't stand to see good possibilities get squandered. If you're bored, though (and you'd probably need to either be gay or have an appreciation for the male form), the movie will keep you awake for 90 minutes. I guess that's something??

Boring, revolting

[sreed99342 · 1/10 · 11 July 2006]

This movie has the thinnest of plots and is really just an excuse for a bunch of musclebound, plucked-and-shaved, supplement-enhanced bodybuilder types to pose. There are extended scenes panning up and down their unattractive bodies while cheesy techno music plays in the background. We're supposed to believe that the main character finds all these guys incredibly attractive, and hey, to each his own -- but I'm not seeing it. Also, the characters behave in unbelievable ways. The lead is supposed to be in love with his roommate, yet he deals with this by becoming unhinged and drugging the roommate, tying him up, pretending that he killed the roommate's girlfriend, and pleading his love?? And the roommate responds with compassion?? Come on! In the end, the whole enterprise is just insulting.

5 minutes of dialog

[amheba · 1/10 · 1 September 2021]

I found it really funny. In this movie there's about 5 minutes of dialog. The rest is just scenes of guys naked very badly done, with no taste and don't even feel erotic. The funny thing is that the 5 minutes of dialogue are performed by actually quite decent actors who can perform!!

Great effort for fans of male skin

[mnpollio · 8/10 · 26 May 2010]

It tickles me to see people review this gay/softcore entry as though they were analyzing Jude Law in Hamlet and were astonished by what they ended up seeing. The film delivers exactly what it promises and helps fill a sadly diminished niche. Joe Dain is the central character. A closet case in a house full of hot guys who especially has the hots for his straight best friend Christopher Michaels and it is starting to really unhinge him. As with most softcore films/late night cable epics, the plot really needs to only function as a device on which to hang conspired scenes of nudity. The plot here more than fulfills that need. The animosity towards this film seems to stem less over quality - particularly since it mirrors in quality the best of those Shannon Tweed efforts from Cinemax - as it does that its target audience is distinctly gay men who unapologetically want to ogle hot guys in various states of undress, and reviewers seem determined to discourage such unbridled pursuits. Call it shallow or vapid, but the film never aspires to anything beyond meeting those expectations and it does so perfectly. Other than the two leads, the remainder of the cast is basically on-hand to (1) look incredibly hot, (2) lose all of their clothes in some way, and (3) to have their full frontal glory be ogled by the main character in some way to psychologically torture him. Of the supporting cast, Danny Dallas' extended shower scene and Julian Coca's strip tease are memorable. There is also an African-American actor who is a highlight in a scene in his bedroom while Dain's voyeur spies from the hallway. The leads are actually better than the material. Eye-popping Christopher Michaels is natural enough on screen and makes one understand why Dain's Clayton would be entranced by his charms. Meanwhile, Dain is actually fairly talented. He imbues Clayton with a nerdy charm and appeal, while making his sweaty angst over his environment and mounting frustration relatively convincing and oddly sympathetic. Cynically, you can tell he is the lead and had some influence as such because although he gets his own shower scene, he is the only male cast member to not deliver full frontal nudity. Also interesting, is that while the film refreshingly eschews ending on a dark note given Clayton's mounting tension and stunted libido, it also does not provide a completely satisfactory conclusion for its focal character. To summarize, if you are looking for Shakespeare or the next Brokeback Mountain, feast your eyes somewhere else. If you are looking for a gay interest feast for the eyes of male nudity coupled with an adequate story and better-than-expected leads, then you cannot do much better than this guilty pleasure.