The Casting...

...I don't agree. In the book, it's obvious that from a purely physical POV, Nathan's attracted to both Roy and Burke, they both seem to be athletic and have the build to match. It's the difference in their behaviour that makes it clear to Nathan why he's more interested in and attracted to Roy at the end of the day, not Burke's looks being repulsive in any way.

However, the book is very specific about Roy having black curls and for whatever reason, him not looking that way in the movie bothered me quite a bit. Probably because I usually don't "see" people when I read books, but that description was so specific that I did see Roy in my mind's eye that way and the actor didn't only not match the description, his hair seemed to be generally too pretty to be Roy's.

"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"

It's such a wonderful and terrible (as in, unbelievably heart-wrenching) book. I met Jim Grimsley at a writer's conference in Atlanta and told him I wanted to punch him and hug him for writing it :P I thought it was weird he didn't mention anything about the movie, though-- I guess he assumed I knew, but I didn't find out until a week or two later.

I agree.

I was glad to see that Stephan Bender was playing Nathan at first because the only time I had seen him was as young Clark Kent in Superman and in 2-year-old photos on his website. I thought he was more baby-faced and thus perfect for the role. The kicker came when he posted new pics from behind the scenes of the movie.

I was mad.

He was taller than "Roy" and he looked OLDER than "Roy". He had grown a LARGE cleft and a defined jaw-line that no freshman or sophomore in any highschool would have. I now look at him with a slight disgust. His face looks like it hurts...

I was not mad at the movie's choice for Burke because in Bender's behind the scenes pics Bender looked like there was something sinister behind his eyes.

You'd have to go to stephen bender's site to see, but Burke kina scares me.

I always pictured Roy as being WAY bigger than Nathan, but I haven't seen the movie so I don't know how things will play out on screen.

"Tarted up for Hollywood"?

The Director, James Bolton is hardly a Hollywood "A-List" Director, and the budget of $1.2 mil. is one of Bolton's biggest budgeted movies yet, but there are probably Superbowl 60 second commercials with bigger budgets.

I agree at face value some of the casting decisions appear odd choices, but then it is acting, and several of the actors very likely sought and/or accepted the roles for the opportunity of a break through performance that is an abrupt chance of pace from their previous roles. Just saying let's have a little more faith in Bolton and hope to be pleasantly surprised.

while I was glad that the movie was being made and I repect the daring of the director to pour his own past into the making of this film, I couldn't help but think that the casting errors were birthed from the repressed sexual tension of the movie's director.

I wouldn't put it far from myself to have two hot actors steam up the screen together if I had the chance.

Personally, I'm glad I didn't read the book, because I don't have any preconceived notions for what these characters should or shouldn't look like. Which means that I was able to enjoy the performances of all the actors instead of judging how "appropriate" they were for the roles they were cast in.

I think you people need to chill out. This is a movie, and the reality of gay cinema is that it takes hot guys to get a lot of gay people to the theater. Is that the filmmaker's fault, or is that a problem inherent in gay culture? I think it's the latter. But if the truth about our community is that we are callously shallow (and I believe we are), then the filmmaker is simply doing what he must to get people to actually see his movie. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes. The problem is not his; it's ours.

This is hardly a "Hollywood movie," as you indicate. The budget was minimal (just over $1 million, as someone else pointed out), and the only thing that has really been changed from the book is the appearance of some of the characters. But here's the thing: All of the actors do great jobs with their roles, and Stephen Bender and Max Roeg are particularly effective as the two lead characters. Despite their difference in size, they very realistically create realities for their roles. And Roy is definitely every inch a farm boy. That comes across in the movie very well.

By the way, Rickie Lee Jones isn't the waspy Cali girl you think she is. I didn't even recognize her in the movie.

I would recommend reserving your judgment until you've actually seen the movie. And don't be so attached to what it looks like. This is not YOUR novel, nor is it your story. The novelist himself is a fan of the movie, so let go of your preconceived notions and just enjoy the film as its own creation. Otherwise you're just going to pick it apart, and seriously, where's the fun in that?

Thanks, Ambrosia, for the information. Did they have any info as when the film will get a wider theatrical release and/or availability on DVD?

No, Roy wasn't black.

Well, if you could refrain from spewing your bile long enough to, I dunno, look at Jim's website?

http://web.mac.com/grimjim/Jim_Grimsley/Constant_Curmudgeon/Entries/2008/2/19_Seeing_The_Movie.html

Apparently he's more than satisfied with Mr. Bolton's vision of the story.