Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Stellead Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Lachlan Coulson This is a gorgeous movie made by a gorgeous spirit.

moturn This is a great story about, on the one hand, newly found love and friendship, but on the other hand, it's sadly about betrayal of friendship, damaging secrets and, let's face it, adultery, and the break up of a long-standing and seemingly happy marriage. With all this going on, perhaps it was better for the director to focus on Nathan (Dan Payne), Chase (Charlie David) and the Davidsons, and less on what as a subplot was happening between Chase and his new buddy Jarod (Anthony Joseph). Out-takes that I saw on YouTube, if restored to the film would clarify the "mateship" between Chase & Jarod, which was not wholly chaste. The director Chip Hale has stated that in the end, he chose to make Jarod straight, so a few scenes were taken out. Amongst them, was the scene where Chase & Jarod are tossing a football around at the barbecue. Before the cut, Jarod tackles Chase to the grass where he ends up on top of Chase kissing him, and a girl who went to get a drink for herself and Chase quietly stumbles upon them. Another outdoor scene showed Jarod pawing Chase who was torn now between his feelings for Jarod and Nathan, so Chase backs away from Jarod saying he "needs time" to sort things out.Yet in my mind, Jarod was queer from the beginning. Didn't you believe so? If one listens carefully, watches what happens when Jarod's around and reads between the lines of what's left in Mr. Hale's cut, there are enough hints that Jarod fancies Chase, and when the dust settles, he drives away with him.

showtrmp "Mulligans" is a pleasant enough example of a genre I have a certain weakness for--the gay/rural movie. While the more common urban gay movie tends to be about neurosis, overdramatics, and "witty" banter, the gay rural is generally less pushy and more disarming, with guarantees of pretty scenery and pretty male semi-nudity (often cued by nighttime swimming). The danger, of course, is that the director will get lost in the prettiness and forget to tell a story. "Mulligans" barely avoids this trap, although the story it tells is a lot less daring than the writer/star Charlie David apparently imagines. The movie is never actually painful to sit through, but we're all very familiar with the beats of the coming-out drama by now; the twist here is that the "torment" of the two men in question (Dan Payne as Nathan, a middle-aged, closeted golf enthusiast, and David as his college-age son's best friend Chase) is pushed to the sidelines--which is probably for the best, as the astonishingly beautiful David is a hopeless nonactor. (The only moment we feel sympathy for him comes at the beach scene near the end, when he tries to force tears and is clearly in agony from the effort). The reactions of Payne's wife, Stacey (Thea Gill) and son Tyler (David James) take over, simply because they're more unexpected. Baynham starts out giving a flawless impersonation of a slightly spoiled and entitled frat boy (like the ones in 80s movies and their latter-day imitators, such as "American Pie"). Then David, trying to sound casual, comes out to him, and Baynham--shaken, but trying his best to be broadminded--brings something unexpected out of the stereotype. It's a well-written scene, which seems to come from observation and probably reflects the experiences of many gays in the audience. The movies have rarely touched upon the relationships between gay men and their straight friends, which can be more solid and enduring than similar friendships with other gay men--the usual method is to pour on the wisecracks or play "is he or isn't he really straight" games.The actual transgressive act between Nathan and Chase (don't those names scream Harlequin romance novel?) is awfully tame, even by gay rural standards. It's not just the brief vanilla sex scenes themselves--it's that there doesn't seem to be any new physical awareness or tension between the two characters afterwards--nothing breaks loose. Payne just carries on acting stoic and sensitive, in a 1950s soap-opera way, and David carries on posing and reflecting light, while we wait for the contrived scene revealing their affair. It comes even more awkwardly than expected, but at least the film's meditative rhythm gets stirred up, largely due to the exquisite Thea Gill's performance as Stacey, the only character who truly "arcs". Gill initially plays Stacey as a determinedly perky helicopter mom, full of nervous energy. Most of the humor and pace of the first half of the movie comes from her. When someone makes a conversational detour she doesn't care for, she says, brightly, "Okay then" and steers the talk firmly away, like a slightly hysterical cruise director determined to keep everyone happy and active. (It becomes a mini-routine). Once her world crashes down, though, it really crashes--she retreats into herself, and it's a little scary to see what that artifice was hiding. Gill brings a poetic intensity to her stunned silence--she'll really never be the same woman again.

Filmy2020 I had actually never heard of this movie until it was shown on Movie Central. I started watching the show blind of what the premise was, but found it entertaining enough to keep watching.The subject matter was not what I expected, as I figured it would be a stereotypical film about a gay man who falls in love with his best friend. However, the writing is not clever enough to disguise the true direction of the film for very long. Its somewhat predictable, but the ending played out quite well. I was surprised with the cavalier attitudes to the situation by some of the characters, but the acting was well done, especially Thea Gill who can really turn a performance. I found it odd that I don't recall seeing Dan Payne in any of his other work before, as he came across as a solid actor. I would say the only character that could have been played better by someone else was the role of Chase. He seemed incapable of honest emotion through a lot of the movie with the exception of the beach scene where he tries to talk to his best friend.The cinematography was beautiful and well done, and definitely does not look like a low budget film.All in all definitely worth seeing.

arizona-philm-phan ........no, wait.......actually it was more of an admonishment to Charlie----arising from having read / viewed teasers and trailers of this already released film and my concerns over how the "final outcome" for older male character, 'Nathan,' would be handled (can read my comments about this, and a comment to Charlie, on the appropriate boards here at IMDb.com).To continue, I am most happy to report the above expressed concerns were baseless, and Charlie's writing fulfilled every hope I had for the handling of 'Nathan's' future life. He was, after all, to have his second chance. Read on now to learn other of my impressions of this film.As to the overall theme / tenor of this production, it is NOT a romance film......or love story. Instead it is a "lesson" film.....a finding one's self film.....a coming to accept one's self film. More, it is as much about young friendship lost and regained as it is about finding / admitting who you are.....but with the latter subject being particularly well-handled (in fact David's writing approach could serve as a model of its kind). Continuing, here are some points of the film which strike me:Charlie's 'Chase', was the precipitator, the enabler.....the cause of Nathan's "disinterment," if you will. Yes, Chase was the driving force behind Nathan's new journey of discovery and the older man's way-out-of-the-closet. Yet at no time did Chase ever come across as being "in love."Lotsa likes + 1 DISlike: My only fast-forward when watching this DVD is a too long / distracting party scene (like 100s in other movies/TV), taking time that could be better spent on the 'Chase - Nathan' relationship (sadly, only a mere 14 of the 92 minutes in this film has them in one-on-one scenes). If any of we romantics out here are disappointed over film's end handling of the "Chase / Nathan relationship," perhaps we only need realize that, truth be told, 'Nathan' does not need another son (think age of these parties). Instead, what we can hope is that his new journey will find him a loving someone who is both sure and settled in as to who he is---in other words, an "experienced" guide for our 'Nathan.' And I think that Charlie's film-end writing, which shows us 'Nathan' venturing out alone in his car, beginning his further search for himself, is all the indication we need, not just of this story's end, but its beginnings).As far as this movie lover's overall impression of individual acting performances, just let me say:Charlie David (sexy as hell): Although having played in film for a time now, for some reason he comes across as being something of a "newbie".....leaving me a sense of his not being able to completely settle into a role (thought I saw the same thing in "Dante's Cove" series). Maybe there are too many expectations to be faced when writing and acting in one's own movie. On the other hand, I must acknowledge he may have adopted this approach to put across the obvious discomfort we'd expect he might be experiencing when thrown into the unfamiliar and seemingly tight and loving Davidson family scene. I do think he has a lot of growth potential.Dan Payne: All I can say is Wow!! What a moving performance from someone put into the most difficult of storyline situations----yet with what perfect ease he delivers to us. He makes 'Nathan' come vividly alive in the most heartrending and confused manner. As a viewer you want to comfort him in your arms. And, oh, those eyes (NO one else in the bizness has THOSE dark, liquid eyes). I'm drowning.....I'm drown..... DOn't save me.....don't sav..... Now, snapping myself back into awareness, I'll simply have to admit that I'm unduly influenced by this beautiful man's appearance and exciting sexuality. He's got "it".....and without even having to resort to a "Charlie David shower scene." Thea Gill: Interesting to me that this particular actress was chosen to play a wife finding herself in this type situation. Because of her many past gay-friendly works, would she be able to effectively display the expected reactions of someone forced into her position of discovery? In your opinion, did she? Oh, and what appeared to me to be her initial over the top reactions to things "gay," I later came to realize was her character being set up for what lay ahead. So in the end, she surprises the heck out of us by the acceptance she brings herself to be able to express (and dare I even mention that "big bomb" of awareness she holds in her head about a certain someone's lifelong feelings---a bomb she unexpectedly unleashes on us----whoa!).Derek Baynham (Tyler) & Grace Vukovic (Birdy): One a lot of fun and one cute as a button. No, actually two a lot of fun and two cute as a button. Tyler's big brother to little sister, Birdy, was about the only "fun part" of this otherwise serious movie. But when the two of them, separately or together, got it going, they really made us feel better, didn't they? It's easy to see that Mr. Baynham (a little bit wild and bit of a riot) can be expected to show up more in future. And as far as what lies ahead for Gracey, all I can say is: move over, Abigail Breslin ("Definitely, Maybe" / "Nim's Island"), somebody else is ready to step in.PS--As a lover of DVD Bonus Feature, voice-over Commentaries, I was disappointed at more time joking around (Baynham, particularly), less on plot point explanations and emotional difficulties arising in shooting various scenes (more control, Mr. Director). ****