Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

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

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

arizona-philm-phan ........."Finding The One Who Helps You Find Yourself".So, Folks......we could play a little game of "second-guess the Director?" Just kidding; after all, trying to do the "Monday morning quarterback-ing" thing is too easy a way out.......especially if we're honest and admit that David Lewis did do the biggest, most important-est thing right. What is that, you may ask? Well, in the case of a gay romance, be it a comedy or otherwise, doing the right thing is finding and bringing together two male leads who've got "C-H-E-M-I-S-T-R-Y" with one another. And in the case of Sean Hoagland and Owen Alabado, it's undeniably there---it's "cutely" there, I might add (a term which fittingly describes them and what we increasingly see them come across as). While some leads grab you from the very beginning.......others grow on you. These two are of the latter persuasion, but along the way they do hook you nevertheless. Honestly, in the initial scenes I was thinking: these two guys can't act, (particularly Sean's way of expressing himself---though it grows on you), but before long they were reeling me in. So, maybe this pair didn't have the acting "chops" to give us what a Cyrille Thouvenin and Stephan Guerin-Tillie ("Just A Question Of Love") gave us, or even what a Trevor Wright and Brad Rowe ("Shelter") happily bestowed upon us, but what they did give us was real enough. Thanks, Boys.Not to let Director Lewis off the hook completely, while others have already complained of over-numerous surfside and coastline "nature" scenes, as well as the big misstep of thinking he could effectively/believably act the minister role, I won't have to echo those thoughts. BUT.......I do feel I have to add this: in a religious community in which someone like "Brady's mother" would find herself comfortably at home, no way would I expect to find such a gay-understanding, "servant of the lord" as Reverend Brown. On the other hand, I also wouldn't expect to find in that "little white-steepled church" community a character such as Katheryn Hecht's "out-there" mother (Angie) either.To me, much of this film pits religious indoctrination (read: interpretation of the bible) vs. learning to be---and accepting---oneself. Brady, finally, epiphanies (please let me make that a verb) that he can be who he is.......and still have his religion. As he, in a closing scene, says to his mother: "I just want you to love me".......then forgives her after she replies she can't change either.Lastly, for myself and others of you who are observant and find positive meanings in such things, I'd like to ask that you remember the place to which Brady finds his way in the film's final scene is that very same beach-side location at which he first encountered Clifford. We are now sure with whom his thoughts remain. Plus, this realization then reminds me most tellingly of a bit of conversation occurring the morning following their night of love making. Laying in Clifford's embrace, Brady is asked by him: "How're you feeling?" Very significantly, Brady's answer simply is: "Safe." (Can any of you think of a more meaningful response to one's lover in this situation?). PS--Oh, yeah, and who's to say that there isn't a good prospect of a "reunion" between a more accepting, "reborn" Brady and a Clifford---whose mother, after all, will still be needing visits at her Rock Haven home?***This film is becoming "Addictive." Other such habit formers: "Brokeback Mountain" / "Boy Culture" / "All Over The Guy" / "Second Skin" / "The Man I Love" / "Latter Days"****

pogostiks I gave this film a 5 - but really don't know WHAT to give it. I think the problem is with the director/writer, in that I don't think he ever really knew what he wanted to do here. The opening lines were so trite I found myself talking back to the screen... Then the two boys meet and I began to wonder if it was just bad acting/directing, or whether somewhere between the lines the director was hoping for parody... at times it was so embarrassing that I thought he HAD to be attempting comedy. The overlong pauses made me wonder if it was bad acting - or bad editing - or both. The lead character , Brady, played by Sean Hoagland, was filmed almost always in close-up - where he seemed to think that he had to project at least three different emotions all at the same time... He seemed to be twitching through his role too much of the time. And his mother seemed to be channeling some very uptight drag queen...All of this was my first impression.Somewhere about halfway through though, I actually found myself enjoying the film - mainly, I think, because, despite a certain amateurish quality to the acting, the two boys really did have a sweetness to them that was almost impossible not to like. And they both have charm - so it made it easier to let myself get drawn into it. Although most of the script seemed ineffective, there were a few lines that did ring true and make some sense. Oh, and Owen Alabado, who plays Clifford, is definitely worth watching - he has a screen presence and a hot quality to him that is very promising. In fact, under the right director, I think both of these boys could end up making waves.But then, near the end, suddenly it all came apart. First of all, two lines from the Bible are not enough to find a solution to such existential questions as those presented by the situation; Second - the priest - played by the director - reintroduced a fuzzy unfocused dissonance to the proceedings - which is why I think most of the blame for what doesn't work in this film comes directly from him. As the priest - he comes across as a very possible gay priest who can barely control his desire for his young charge, and can't seem to keep his paws off him, caressing his shoulder as if he were touching Christ himself. His performance (if you can call it that) adds an entire subtext to the film that never gets resolved, and only manages to complicate things without adding anything worthwhile. And it doesn't really make sense that if the priest was that positive and tolerant towards the boy, how come he didn't take any time to try and help the mother?The only part of the movie that truly worked well for me was the scene where they make love for the first (and only) time. They both seemed mesmerized, so lost in each other's eyes that as they strip off they don't even take a moment to appreciate each other's bodies (but the audience does, I'm sure!) Someone will certainly write that it wasn't necessary to show full-frontal nudity, but I think this was the most honest thing in the film; the two boys were finally letting down all the barriers between them and offering themselves up to each other without the slightest artifice. There is an innocence to this scene that makes it truly beautiful... and the nudity only underlines the sincerity that the two boys bring to it. So there it is - a mishmash of a film which shouldn't be totally dismissed, even though there are many things that could have been done better. Worth seeing, nevertheless, for the moments of un-jaded sincerity and sweetness.

ldnhlj i don't even know how to start this, but Rock Haven is one of the greatest films i've seen for a long time. i give all my praise to this brilliantly made film. wonderful acting, tenderly edited and every line in the script is worth tasting over and over again. full talent of the writer/director. Great storyline about Christianity and homosexuality, love and acceptance. i will certainly watch this film again, and will for sure love it all the same. this is one of those films that you can watch over and over again.Alan

scootmandutoo Right til the end, I thought, in the more melodramatic moments, like the scenes with 5 times more awkward silence than one might normally expect in a film, is this going to be an offbeat, yet ultimately insightful flick? And then after the end I decided, nah, just incredibly trite.That awkwardness wasn't planned or staged, it was the result of exquisitely bad writing and ham-handed direction.The scene when Brady is reminiscing about the good times, and we get a series of clichéd poses of the 2. It was like watching a parody on Mad TV.Ultimately, what totally ruined the flick for me, and why I gave it a 3, was the equivilance it gave to the reality of being gay, versus the reality of being a homophobe, as if both were immutable traits.Oh really? Since when is homophobia something that can't be changed? And how offensive to compare one's bigotry to one's sexual orientation.One last thing, the character of the Reverend bordered on satire. He opened his mouth and I wanted to scream, "Please Mary!" Wouldn't you know it was played by the writer/editor/director.That should tell you all you need to know.