Eban and Charley (2000) User Reviews

Refreshing alternative to "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss"

[ssuspence · 7/10 · 17 January 2002]

This is a small quiet film that never sensationalizes the subject matter - pedophilia?? It has some sound problems that are glaring at times but that didn't stop me from enjoying the movie. Although it was slow, I felt that it was quite sweet, a little creepy, and even suspenseful at times. It was shot digitally like many great movies of it's kind are (i.e. Chuck and Buck) but I assume it was never transferred to film since I saw a not so great video projection in the east village.

I would recommend this low budget dv flick to anyone who hates big happy gay hollywood movies that never deal with anything touchy or interesting. There's not a lot of movement, locations, or characters to be mesmerized by - but minimalist nature of the story really works if you let it. I believe it was a bold and conscious move on the director's part and I truly respect him for that. I wouldn't mind seeing it again.

Good acting in clumsy movie

[imdb-jeroen · 7/10 · 20 July 2005]

For courage, and for the two main characters, I rated this movie a 7. A film that seems a bit clumsily but sincerely made. Bad sound, sometimes a rather silly script, unlikely moves in the plot, but what fascinating actors! All the other characters seem to be picked from the local gay club, but what a convincing and strong pair of main characters! Eban to me has just the right naive, or even childish slowness that makes him convince me as an adult who wants to hang about with adolescents (and doesn't feel at ease with grown- ups), and Charley has this unworldly dreaminess, and a profound mystery, that makes it probable he doesn't match boys of his own age. These actors deserve better movies!

Important story very poorly told

[Havan_IronOak · 5/10 · 2 July 2002]

29-year-old Eban comes home to a small town in the Pacific Northwest at Christmastime. He's been living and working for a time in Seattle, where, among other things, he coached youth-league soccer.

Eban meets and is attracted to Charley, a 15-year-old who has problems of his own. Charley's been raised abroad but is now living with his dad after his mother was killed in a traffic accident.

This movie has an earnestness that should be applauded but has very little else going for it. The dialogue is poorly crafted and the storyline seems badly in need of a rewrite. Characters actions at many points are so unmotivated as to seem bizarre. Some of Eban's dialogue is so poor that I kept wondering if his character was meant to seem slightly retarded. I found it hard to believe that anyone could knowingly write dialogue that badly.

I generally want to endorse movies that deal with gay issues. I applaud the filmmaker for dealing with a topic such as pedophilia in an unsensational manner, but I cannot recommend a movie that is so poorly crafted.

Life For A Nonconformist

[Lechuguilla · 15 May 2009]

Some of the negative reaction this film induces can be attributed to the subject matter. In other words, any film ... regardless of the script, the direction, the casting, the acting, or any other technical element ... would be greeted with hostility by large numbers of people, simply because they disapprove that the subject is even being addressed. In this case, the subject is the relationship between a 29-year-old man and a 15-year-old boy.

For open minded viewers, this is a well made film, especially given that it is low budget. Eban is not some lecherous old man, the stereotyped image conjured up in the befuddled minds of moralistic puritans. Eban is caring and sensitive. He's not the least bit predatory. In fact, it's Charley, the boy, who advances the physical relationship as soon as he senses Eban's interest. And the film's plot is so bereft of sexual activity that it seems downright prudish. The only abominable behavior comes from the two guys' fathers, both of whom exude a pathological hatred toward their sons.

That said, a relationship involving a teenage boy must be examined skeptically. And I am doubtful that a long term relationship that benefits both Eban and Charley would actually work out. Still, Charley asks a valid question: "What about my rights?"

Overall acting is highly naturalistic. Characters pause before speaking, as would be expected of people communicating thoughtfully and seriously. Both lead actors act largely with their eyes. There's a lot of silence. Dialogue is sparse. The overall tone of the film is serious and very low-key. The story's ending is appropriate, given the plot circumstances.

"For nonconformity, the world whips you with its displeasure", said Ralph Waldo Emerson over a hundred years ago. I applaud the film's producer and director for having the courage to make a film that addresses an unpopular topic.

What is Mr. Bean doing in your room?

[Pettyhead · 2/10 · 2 March 2006]

Realistically, it is not exactly uncommon for adults (especially males) to be physically attracted to someone who is young, even below the age of consent. Someone who has just come into full physical development, someone who is fresh, lean, and taut, can be pretty exciting eye candy for more people than government and cultural leaders would like to admit -- and it's also a far cry from pedophilia (key term being "full physical development"). But with this uncomfortable reality check should come another -- if you actually have a conversation with a 15-year-old for more than three minutes, you should realize why it's completely inappropriate to date one.

This film seems to be nothing more than a justification for such a relationship. And within this justification is one embarrassing scenario after another. The 29-year-old Eban character is completely infatuated with 15-year-old Charley, and Eban woos in a variety of ways that could only be construed as awkward and downright creepy (this is not helped by the amateur dialogue pauses and the poor acting performance of Brent Fellows). Even the writing and presentation of many of the scenes intended to move the film's audiences are incredibly juvenile, something an adolescent might take seriously beyond an idle daydream.

...which brings me to another point. The controversial message of the film has one especially glaring contradiction. If the film is trying to open the minds of its audiences, to break down the seemingly arbitrary barriers of age in the name of love, it actually ends up underscoring the inappropriateness of a relationship involving an adolescent and an adult. Maybe this was all intended by writer/director James Bolton, which would add an interesting dimension to the film, but judging by the places he takes us, I somehow doubt it. At one point in the film Eban declares, "I like younger people" -- it is made clear that his attractions are exclusive to adolescent males. If Eban discovers the spirit that love come before all else, in the face of all adversity, and that this is a good thing, one can't help but wonder what happens to the magical relationship when Charlie passes into adulthood. And this is how the futility and inappropriateness of the relationship is inadvertently revealed. Most importantly, one should remember, as physically developed as a 15-year-old may be (i.e. "grass on the field"), there is no 15-year-old, no matter how bright and on what level of natural genius, that has reached an acceptably sane degree of emotional development. But it is also clear that the population of adult men and women who do not see this in their pursuits of adolescents have severe emotional blocks of their own.

All that said, my one extra star is meant to applaud the acting performances of both Giovanni Andrade, playing Charlie (whose natural talent was miles ahead of Brent Fellows (Eban)), and Ron Upton, who despite a lack of appearances played Eban's father with an acting professionalism and skill not to be seen elsewhere in the film.

One of the worst films I've ever seen

[lloydbowman · 1/10 · 13 December 2001]

I saw this movie at the 2000 Philadelphia International Gay & Lesbian Film Festival (PIGLFF). It was a great disappointment. The "film" is actually shot on tape. The quality of the cinematography and sound is very poor and amateurish. The writing and the pacing are poor. By mid-way through the piece at least one-third of the audience had walked out. I endured the whole thing to the end.

The film supposedly delves into the tricky area of older man-younger man relationships when, in fact, the younger man is in his mid-teens and the "older man" is in his early to mid-twenties. The older, main character in question is clearly not just attracted to one given young man but, apparently, exclusively to adolescents in general. (As backstory is revealed during the film we learn this has caused problems already.)

I'm open to seeing and learning from films that treat teenagers with respect and explore their interests and abilities to negotiate relationships with adults. A gay "Lolita" or "The Graduate" this is not.

I would not recommend you wasting your time or money on this. I'm sorry I did.

Terrible

[Scott-6 · 2/10 · 25 December 2001]

I gave this film a 2, only because there was an effort made to make a film and because it seems that the actor that played Eban, has some talent.

The film was terrible. The script seemed to be written by a teenager who was in love with a guy in his twenties. It was extremely predictable, slow, boring and unoriginal. It looked like a home movie shot on video with the neighbors as actors. It seems like the simplistic fantasies of a teenager filled with cliche.

There are many other films which deal with this subject matter and worlds apart in quality. Start with "For a lost soldier".

My apologies to the filmmaker(s) for such a harsh review. My advice if they are interested: get audience feedback once you've got a starting cut of a film, then go to work and make it better before you send it out for the world to condemn it.

It's time to criticize;

[RitchCS · 8/10 · 29 October 2007]

Wow! I get to be a movie critic or so most people think who write on this message board. Horrors! It was shot on tape using a digicam! Is that bad? It didn't have LucasFilm Surround Sound...which automatically makes it a bad picture. And OHHH, those actors. Not a one of them ever won an Oscar...no talent whatsoever! The subject matter is shocking and poorly developed through a weak script. Sorry, no Pulitzer this time! Why are these matters taken into account and must be criticized. The people had little or no money. Probably no member of the cast or crew were paid a dime...but they MADE their film in spite of all their professional needs and MY HAT'S Off TO THEM. One thing I've learned in my long lifespan is that people don't walk around with their ages tattooed on their foreheads. Love comes from the heart, the mind, the emotions, fun, laughter, wanting to be with that certain 'someone'. If the friendship leads to sex, if they're both willing...it's THEIR choice not society's. People can't be satisfied living their own lives, they have to involve themselves in other people's lives and set the rule and the moral limits for others when it's really none of their business. It's the same in most society standards. I don't drink or smoke and I don't want you to have the right to drink or smoke because it's against my rules/ I'm not gay so it's wrong for anyone else to be gay and I'll vote to make sure that MY rules are enforced (even though it doesn't affect me or my family or friends...I just don't want YOU to be gay. Getting back to the movie...Eban is 29 and Charley is 15...but they talk and feel on the same plane. What one feels, so does the other. Neither if forcing the other to do anything he doesn't like. Stay in your own domain and don't set your rules for others. They could set a few of theirs toward your not minding your own business!

Painful

[M_INC_KW · 4/10 · 13 March 2004]

I must admit that I rented this movie on the premise that I thought it was an independent film. It may very well be independent, but it also is independent of talent in the writing, production value, and acting. I couldn't last more than probably 1/3 of the way through it before I shut it off and went on to my next DVD.

The subject matter was interesting, but, was lost on the production quality. Eban came across as creepy and a pedophile. He's a good moper--I'll give him that. Charley was devoid of emotion and basically played the "Lolita" character with all the aplomb of a third rate community theatre actor. The actors playing these roles were way out of their league.

*possible spoilers*

Some plot questions to ponder: Upon seeing Charley for the first time in the empty coffee shop, Eban goes over to Charley's table and asks if he can sit there. When Charley says it's OK, he sits, but, says nothing...not even and introduction. How realistic is that? Why would Charley have a guitar if he had no clue how to play it? If Charley's father is such a hard ass, how would he ever find the nerve to bring Eban into his bedroom? Having never been to Eban's home prior, when Charley is kicked out--albeit briefly--how did he know where to run? Better yet, which window to go to? And then, after they take a bike ride, go BACK to his house he had just been kicked out of, and return to the bedroom with Eban?

I'm sure there are other "plot holes" in this drivel, but, my sanity couldn't allow me to hang out to find them. To call this entire movie hack film making would be an insult to hack film makers everywhere. It was like bad porn with no porn. I happen to be gay, but, refuse to enjoy something simply because its subject matter contains characters that also happen to be gay. If you want to see a great movie you may not have heard of with gay subject matter, might I suggest "White Lilies."

On the Whole, a Very Engaging Film

[rsmolin · 8/10 · 18 October 2002]

I was surprised by the excellent production values in this film, even though it is shot in digital video. The cinematography was superb. Several reviewers speak about the very slow pace of the film, but I think that this gives it a remarkable life-like feel. The reticence of Eban works well with his confusion. The two male leads work very well together, and the tender scenes between them are quite effective. You can sense that they are quite comfortable with one another, and the young teen, Charley, seems ecstatic. The only problem I have with the script and the acting centers around Charley's father, who comes off so over the top, without real motivation for his belligerent attitude towards his son, that it takes away from what could have been a top-notch film. As for the subject matter, pedophilia usually occurs between a teen and a much older person; but the film asks the simple question: why should other people tell teenagers whom to love? It seems to be a very personal matter, and not up to society or the state to dictate the terms of love. But I suppose there is an emotional line to be drawn that protects young people who are clearly not in control of their sexual longings. The ending of the film is hopeful, and thus breaks a trend away from depressing endings. All in all, a very good film that young people should watch and discuss.

Very offensive

[-88 · 1/10 · 25 October 2002]

This film takes the position that society has no legitimate interest in "interfering" in a romance between a fifteen- and a twenty-nine-year-old; I disagree, but more than that I was offended by the portrayal in the film of those who share my concern: bigots, drinkers, military disciplinarians. The film presents a repellent point of view: that those who advocate relationships with minors -- and the minors themselves -- are victims of society's intolerance; to make their point more profoundly, the filmmakers make their couple victims in many other ways: Charley's mother and best friend are deaf, his mother was killed by a drunk driver while he watched, his father is senselessly cruel, while Eban has been fired from his job (a boys' athletic coach) and is hounded by his ruthlessly "concerned" parents. At one point, a propos of nothing, Charley's friend Sunshine (whose parents kick her out of the house for dating a non-white) asks Charley if he's heard about a young man in Seattle who was beaten "just for being a gay kid." Where does the bravery in the face of injustice end? The film's composition and tone are spare; I was reminded of a Belle and Sebastian cd cover, and then lo and behold, the band was thanked in the end credits. For inspiration, I wonder? 1/10

Well-made indie

[Ripshin · 1 May 2006]

Frankly, I ended up appreciating this film far more than I expected, due mainly to the natural performances of the non-actor leads. I think each performer fits his role quite well.

Granted, I almost gave up a few minutes into the film, somewhat put off by the use of video, and the ridiculous initial scene with Eban's parents. However, once the script put the two guys together, it grabbed, and kept, my attention till the end.

The performance traits that many posters have criticized here, are actually the very aspects that make the two actors mesh with their roles. Eban's awkwardness, and Charley's naiveté, are important aspects of their characters, whether by craft, or accident.

The script doesn't judge, or really excuse, Eban's feelings toward the boy. Yes, he is somewhat predatory, and obviously has personal preferences. This film presents a situation that exists, and while the conclusion is fanciful, I found the treatment realistic.

My only questions would be.....where is Charley's father most of the time? Did the two cross into Canada at the end, to make their way to Europe? Are we to believe that Charley's father wouldn't have called the police before the two lovers could get out of the country? Would there be no extradition once they were found? Unnecessary questions, true, but the finale did bug me a bit.

Surprisingly Effective and Well-Acted

[Kevinduran · 9/10 · 10 September 2002]

From the opening minutes, I thought "Uh-oh... we're in for a questionable evening of entertainment"- the movie looks to be shot on digital video, but actually, that detail didn't wind up detracting from the subject matter at all. It's a touchy subject that many will be revolted by, and I'm not sure I agree with the happy ending... but the movie was well-acted by its two leads. The story is told concisely, never wanders far from its focus, and is edited precisely. I've watched it twice now and didn't get bored at all. All in all, a better than average entry into the world of gay cinema.

A surprisingly subtle work worthy of a second look.

[Scodiar · 9/10 · 26 July 2002]

The film suffers on the big screen, due in part to the tech limitations of the digicam process and the somewhat hard-to-catch inflections of actor Giovanni Andrade (teenage Charley). The first half is slow, moody, and unwilling to tip its hand: one feels ambivalence toward the Brent Fellows character (Eban, age 29). Publicity shots show Fellows to be an acceptably handsome actor; but when we first see Eban, he is pale, stooped, unshaven, and the picture of a shattered soul. Those who leave at the midpoint--and I was tempted--will miss Eban's agonizingly slow growth, his gradual reawakening to warmth and human contact. They will also miss getting to know Charley, brought to life in Andrade's astonishingly detailed and sensitive portrayal through characteristic, near-dancelike movements and a slow, hesitant manner of speaking that rings absolutely true. If the parental figures are saddled with trite dialogue and minimal characterizations, I am more than willing to believe that this is fully intended by director James Bolton in service to his vision. I have now viewed the film three times, the last on DVD, and found more to admire each time around. (The DVD brings warmth to the faces of the principles not evident on the big screen.) In all, this is an admirable, subtle, and sensitive work that asks a lot of the audience, but gives a lot in return.

The film promotes thought

[ahairyrice · 3 February 2002]

The filmmaker's indication that Eban's behavior is part of a pattern are proposing that it is compulsive and unhealthy. Charley is portrayed as emotionally needy because of the tragic circumstances in his life. Society's strong condemnation of their relationship is presented by the boy's fathers. However, one cannot walk away from this sensitive film without compassion for Eban and Charley, perhaps even a wish that society would leave them alone if their relationship satisfies their needs. A sub-plot involving straight teenagers suggests that the film is meant to consider the feelings of human beings rather than to react automatically. The film promotes thought.

A portrait of a sexually sick country

[pgtc · 10/10 · 4 July 2011]

To start with, the completely distorted definition of the word pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a legal term. It is not defined by what the age of consent laws are in a given country or state. Pedophilia is a medical term, and its meaning does not change according to laws. Quoting one of the most respected works in psychiatry, the Comprehensive Textbook Of Psychiatry, vol.1, by Harold I. Kaplan, MD, and Benjamin J. Sadock, MD: "Diagnostic criteria for pedophilia: Pedophilia involves preferential sexual activity with children, either in fantasy or actuality. Adult sexual activities or fantasies involving prepubertal children, the essential behavior in pedophilia, may be exclusively homosexual or heterosexual, or a mixture of both, and may occur within the family, among acquaintance groups, or between strangers." This is not the case in this film, as it isn't the case in most relationships incorrectly classified as pedophilia in sexually sick America. The British puritan heritage certainly plays a role here, but I've always wondered why and how the hysteria about intergenerational relationships got so bad in the USA. And that's the greatest achievement of this film. The characters are real and humane for a change. The director and the screenwriter just went and told a honest, true to life love story, one like hundreds of thousands that happen everyday, everywhere. It's a slap in the face of the hypocrite American society, a wake-up call.

Recommended readings: "Harmful To Minors - The Perils Of Protecting Children Against Sex", by Judith Levine (winner of the Book Of The Year award of the Los Angeles Times in 2000).

"Sexual Panic - America's New Era Of Witch-Hunting", by Jerry Steinbach.

"Adolescent Sexual Health in Europe and the US" - www.advocatesforyouth.org/publications/419

Giovanni Andrade gives a wonderful debut performance

[salmineo · 10/10 · 20 May 2003]

This is a wonderful movie. The acting is just amazing, most notable the debut of actor Giovanni Andrade. Giovanni gives a tenderness and realistic performance that just melted my heart. The subject matter of a 29 year old man and a 15 year old teen will no doubt offend and shock many. But somehow, this film makes it seem different..That the two really loved each other, despite the drastic age difference. But what really gives the film it's heart is Giovanni Andrade. There is something very special about this young actor. He has the ability to tap into the soul of his character and really moves the audience. I really hope to see more of him in film. I own the official website of the late gay actor/icon, Sal Mineo, and Giovanni Andrade's tender performance in this film moved me enough to want to post this review. A+++ actor all the way!

Symbolic castration and fatherly figures in an intergenerational love story

[atlantis2006 · 20 July 2010]

Eban and Charley (2000) Although at first glance one might consider this a gay romance spiced with the controversy of age difference, James Bolton's film is mainly a reinterpretation of parental issues that pertain to any gay or straight dynamic.

Eban is a 29 year old man, unemployed, uncertain of his future and with no other choice but to live with his parents. Parents who not so delicately ask him to respect his curfew, to go to bed early, etc. Charley is just a 15 year old kid who has a somewhat precarious relationship with his father. As soon as they meet, one could reason that they must first resolve their parental issues before trying to consolidate their passionate relationship.

The characters, however, are not entirely aware of the importance of fatherly figures in their lives. That's up for the viewer to discern and interpret, a task that is much easier in Bolton's recent film "Dream Boy".

Both characters are longing for freedom. But in order to reach freedom a sacrifice must be made. It has been discussed in psychoanalytic theory the importance of independency. Every young man, at some point in his life, craves for freedom. In many cases getting a job can secure financial independency and thus leaving home for good becomes a real possibility. But there is no such thing as being free as the wind. A new shackle replaces the old one. The young man must thrive at the cost of his own hard work, money after all doesn't grow in trees. He is free from his parents but he's now in a new type of confinement. How he deals and resolves this apparent paradox will help him to achieve adulthood.

Sacrifice can also be understood as leaving something behind. Something deemed precious or essential. That is why traditional psychoanalytic theory associates sacrifice with castration. It's all about leaving something behind. In some cases, in some cultures, this takes upon a most literal meaning: what is circumcision after all? Isn't it a symbolic castration? Isn't it leaving something behind, leaving part of the penis behind, the same penis that Freud appointed as phallus? Lacan however renounces this Freudian interpretation. For Lacan castration is never a negative process, it's the only way in which the individual can be successfully inserted in the symbolic order. If castration does not take place then the individual turns psychotic. Castration for Lacan means to enter into the symbolic order, and that means to enter into language. Human language is the required castration before any individual can become a part of society.

Nonetheless, what can be said about sacrifice and castration regarding Eban and Charley? Well, there are at least two things I feel confident enough to explain. "Laws are stupid" says Charley when confronted with the possibility of Eban being accused of pedophilia. Laws are stupid. Laws are castrating indeed. When Charley says "I don't think age should matter if you love someone" he inadvertently relies on an Aristotelian conception of the Supreme Good. According to Aristotle, to obey the law means to feel good (doing the right thing makes you feel good); this a Greek paradigm that Socrates upholds even when it means his own demise (in Plato's dialog about the laws Socrates explains why he must face the death penalty instead of running away, because to obey the law is the only way to preserve the polis, and thus to reinforce the Greek culture). Kant, on the other hand, affirms that obeying the law is painful and it must be so. To obey the law, according to Kant, means to experience a narcissistic diminishment. By obeying the law I understand that I'm just one man, that I'm not the center of the universe, that there are things I must obey although I don't agree with them.

Of course, we no longer live in Classic Greece. We live in a post-Kantian world. Now the only alternative is to follow Charley's reasoning: age shouldn't be a concern because it's no longer required to support a law which neither of them can respect. What fascinates me about Bolton's film is how he handles pedophilia, probably one of the most controversial subjects, and how he turns this relationship into a metaphor of sacrifice, castrating parents and conceptions of Aristotelian and Kantian law.

A beautiful and sensitive movie about a dangerous tryst!

[crazy_momza69 · 9/10 · 6 July 2005]

I am not of the school that 15 year old boys can be a victim of statutory rape. Nor does this movie depict any scene of explicit sexual contact. Charlie was shown to be mature beyond his years, having to endure his mother's death, and his father's misguided authoritarian behavior. Eban, on the other hand, was depicted as a sensitive and fragile person, who is aware of society's taboos. Never did Eban demonstrate any predatory behavior: he did not "groom" his "victim" ala Michael Jackson. In fact, it was Charlie who initiated any intimate contact beyond gently kissing Eban (and dry humping this bed in the process). When I was 15 year old, I had my first experience with another man. He was 26 at the time, and I can assure you that if anything, I was "raping" him! This movie brought me back to all those lost feelings that I had at that time. I remember tenderness, truthfulness, and joy. To the Bible thumpers of this nation, this movie may be obscene. But intergenerational love affairs, be it gay or heterosexual, is much more common than one would expect. It goes on all the time, and is a natural part of growing up. To all those who are not involved, the message is "bud out"! This is not your affair. Is it because of jealousy, that you are so upset? Because you missed out on a beautiful experience in life?

A feel-good gay movie!

[bobbikinsreyes · 10/10 · 17 August 2002]

I like the story - light but very humane! A gay movie does not have to be burdensome. The film is recommendable to those who wish to see light romance about gays, and this is it! Giovanni Andrade and Brent Fellows are promising to be a good actors in the future. Both direction and cinematography are great. The story focuses mainly on Eban and Charley, and the characters are not screaming fags.

A Beautiful Gay Romance

[EnglishGayBloke · 10/10 · 21 March 2015]

I think this is an excellent gay love story.

I started off watching this film with caution. With a very open mind about true love.

Two gay guys meet together and fall in love. Society judges them.

Eban has to be stronger because of society but in the end Charley is stronger. At the end of the film, Eban fell apart but Charley kept strong. Charley is stronger than Eban. I was really hoping for a happy ending to Eban and Charley and I got it.

This was a very nice film. I just spent 23 quid to import this film from Canada and I'm very glad I did. One of my favourite ever films.

I really love this film. Two gay guys fall in love. Society will really judge them cos one guy is under age whereas the other guy is overage.

I think Brent Fellows and Gio Black Peter did a brilliant acting job. I think all the actors in this film did fine.

Charley doesn't have a mum any more. All he has for love is a total ass hole father who makes it very clear he doesn't care for, accept or love Charley.

It all depends on the circumstances. This is like real life. Life is not black or white. Life is 50 shades of grey.

In this film, Eban is pretty childish and naive himself. Charley is obviously gay, very deep-thinking and mature and looking for more affection in his life. I didn't feel at all that Eban was grooming Charley or some kind of predatory paedophile.

I was nail-biting by the end.

Both families found out what was going on and Eban was going to go to prison. Charley was more grown-up and stronger than Eban.

I was totally gripped by the end of the film and urging Eban to MAN UP and take RESPONSIBILITY for what he had started.

I loved the ending. Thank God Eban manned up and went for true love.

I know some people will judge this film and say its paedophile justification.

I also know its two blokes meet and fall in love and have to fight for their right to be together.

Like Charley says, who else should have the right to tell him who he can or cannot love? What about Charley's human rights?

What more can I say? Lovely beautiful gay film about two guys falling in love. With a happy ending. What more could a true romantic gay guy want?

Great low budget queer film that tackles provocative subject matter

[rettercritical · 8/10 · 20 October 2015]

I first saw Dream Boy from the director James Bolton and was interested to see what else he had made. Dream Boy was quite a highly produced, sweet but ultimately conventional film. Yet its muse on things was a curious thread that lingered.

Eban and Charley is a raw and underground-feeling interpretation of ill-faited love. It tip-toes through a provocative realtionship involving underage sex. The performers are fantastically cast and captured. They were pulled-back nicely for the documentary style photography. An effective melancholic music theme returns a couple of times, a bit like a wound-up childhood toy. Overall, this is just as good as his bigger-budget follow-up, it may be a shade better for its rawness.

If this is a genre you like to search through - this is a must watch.

Good Subject To Review About True Love!

[javierubio · 9/10 · 1 June 2020]

This movie had good points because the story was good in the way that brings the subject what is right and what is wrong in terms of loving a minor! Unfortunately, this is the case where true love is present and where age does not matter even when it comes to an under age of 15 which is a good age to love but the system will not allow that! The acting was good , the set up and even some edited scenes did not bring all the quality I think mostly in general was a good movie!

half and half

[ninjasremindmeoftravis · 8/10 · 9 July 2004]

I'm torn. Half of the time I hated this movie, and half the time I loved it. Its true that some of the acting is really poor. sometimes the plot seemed a little stretched, and sometimes the cinematography is bad. But the rest of the time it seems simply honest, raw, and real. This movie is like the dorky kid in high school who is sincerely into Dungeons and Dragons, and everyone thinks that he's pathetic, but he doesn't know why, because he's just doing what he thinks is fun.

The movie does seem to take the standpoint that a relationship between a fifteen year old, and a twenty nine year old is wrong. It does indeed look on a drastic age difference in a relationship in a favorable light. But to me it was just an honest, almost voyeuristic look at two boys in love.

It takes an open-mind to enjoy this movie, not only about relationships between two people of a drastically different age, but also about filmic technique, and story telling.

A very serious subject for people over 12

[Dr_Coulardeau · 9/10 · 10 July 2011]

That's a small little fascinating film even if it is too slow in many ways and with too many close-ups instead of action and dialogue. Yet it is an important film because of its subject.

Can a 15 year old boy fall in love with a man twice his age, hence 29 years old? The answer is of course and the distance between the two is nothing really since it will proportionally become smaller and smaller with time.

Can a 15 year old boy know for life who he wants to live with, to sleep with, to cry with, to laugh with, etc.? The answer again is yes. No one would object if it were a girl? A little bit young maybe but that's all and anyway the parents would either refuse that love, which I doubt, or more probably accept it and keep it in store for a while waiting for a wedding. That's what engagement is all about. What is shocking some in this situation is that it is a boy. Hence they are homophobes.

The question though is what can and must society do to avoid what is in a way a perversion, pedophilia. But there is a fair difference between a man under 30 falling in love with a boy over 15, and an older man having a relation with a boy or a girl under puberty. The line is difficult to define and in this particular case a court with a jury would probably without thinking too much send the man to prison.

But is it sane? We all know that some young people between 15 and 20 can fall in love desperately, without any alternative, mad with their love for the object of that love, for the person their love has decided to target. That's where this film could have been stronger.

Of course a 15 year old person cannot go to a foreign country without his/her own passport, so eloping to Denmark or The Netherlands is out of the question. But the film should have gone a lot farther than just running away to some other state within the US.

The two people, the boy and the adult, should go to a judge of some kind, or to a court for a judge to decide not on a crime but on a particular case. We could even think of the adult voluntarily and with the consent of the teenager taking the risk of going to prison by making the relation public and if love is what it is the teenager would have waited and suffered from his environment till his man-friend came back.

It requires a lawyer. Sure. But this treatment of the subject would have been pedagogical for the public: two people of marrying age have the right to fall in love and have a relation. Society is supposed to set a certain age over which intimate relations are an accepted right, no matter what kind of relation or how deep and sentimental. Marriage is possible before 18, and marriage is not a nunnery. The sexes of the partners are only a side-kick for voyeurs.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU