Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

slbbooksmusicfilm 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 The script seems a little outdated for 2004, but I remember reading somewhere that there had been delays to the making of the film and so i wouldn't be surprised if the script was actually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.

crispin_13 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

Franco-LA 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.

ace-150 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.