Self-important, over-dramatic, uninspired.

Sadly Over-hyped

A Masterpiece!

I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

I saw this on Netflix, which offered only the very briefest of descriptions, so I had no idea what to expect. But since Netflix had it listed in the LGBT category, I did at least expect a gay-ish theme. But the repeated and somewhat heavy-handed references early in the film to evangelical Christianity (citing of Biblical verses, the prayer at the funeral, the lyrics of the overtly evangelical hymn in the sound track) left me very confused. I am left with the impression of a screenwriter who is gay but also a devout evangelical Christian, a juxtaposition that I personally find troubling. Still, I tried to give the film some benefit of doubt. I was not successful. The writing was uneven and at times very unrealistic, especially in the way Nick's social abilities ... as a person with Asperger's ... vacillated across a wide range. It was as though he suddenly stopped having Asperger's when the writer/director needed him to be able to emote "normally."And the characters seemed too contrived. Wealthy family with domineering and controlling father, submissive pill-popping mother, "perfect" elder son, challenged younger son. It was all too transparent. But the composition of the boys' poker group! One wealthy white with a prestige car, one probable Latino with a mother who worked as a maid, one black guy who looked like he was channeling Pharrell, and one South Asian. It was like a little United Nations! And it seemed totally artificial. The acting was not great, either. I love both BD Wong and Joan Chen, but neither performance impressed me. But this may be due to the limitations of the material with which they had to work. The boys (Poker Group plus Nick) were very unevenly matched, from Justin Martin's downright bad acting to Gregg Sulkin's roller-coaster of scene-by-scene good-to-bad-to-good-again. Call me crazy, but this entire film might have worked better if a) the overt references to evangelical Christianity were removed and b) the setting were shifted from the wealthy suburbs of LA to a working class neighborhood in middle America.

Directed by Quentin Lee with heavy handedness, "White Frog" is a complete dud with an intriguing title. Unfortunately the title is where anything interesting ends. The dialog has no subtlety, and the direction is a failure. Scenes are over or under acted with regularity, and the dichotomy of greed and giving is sickeningly simplified and black-and- white. The preaching screams out in scene-after-scene - community service, money, friends, parents. In one scene we are supposed to believe a professional psychologist would actually floss during a session. The complete dysfunction, spectacle and melodrama is putrid, especially from the parents. Who sponsors this Crud? Booboo Stewart's acting was cringe-worthy. Like watching a bad high school film project. 3/10 If you're interested in a better movie about Asberger, check out "Adam". Much better acted and directed.

I enjoyed this film. Not an ounce of me regrets seeing this film (perhaps a small ounce, because it's 2 AM and my sleeping schedule is pretty horrific), and it certainly is going to stay with me, because the message behind it is pretty strong and it's a gem on Netflix's Gay & Lesbian section compared to some of the garbage offered there.The performances are great, and I especially was impressed with Tyler Posey, who came off as ridiculously realistic and hardly seemed like he was "acting". All the actors seemed pretty good to me. Performances were no problem here.The story itself is quite charming and worth sticking through: a boy with Aspergers idolizes his older brother, who is tragically killed in a car accident (don't consider this a spoiler, as it happens about ten minutes into the film and the entire plot revolves around this), leaving him with parents who have little idea as to how to connect with him. He begins to take comfort in his brother's friends, who take him under his wing as he learns more about his brother than he expected as he searches for answers and closure. I enjoyed the film - honestly, I did - yet it has flaws that hold it back from being a "good" movie to being a "great" film. Simplistic things first: editing was not as fine tuned as it should have been, the sound editing and effects weren't particularly impressive, and the cinematography felt uninspired unless it was attempting for the "Indie" style.Things holding it back: - The screenplay. It's not a bad screenplay, but the film lacks development of the friends of his brother (who are pretty central to the film) and often adds in characters and plots that don't seem to flow and may be tacked on. Scenes aren't developed - there's some sections of the film that can be used for incredibly strong character development, but the scenes seem to be cut short and nothing really adds up. It gave it some realism, but a strong in-depth look at the characters seem to missing. - Direction: again, nothing stands out. The actors are fine, but they all seem to be lacking instruction, physicality, line delivery, etc. This really held it back. For a first time feature it was passable, but in the future, get the actors to do more than "act". They need to flow and become the characters. Some actors have skill at this (i.e. Posey) and others need direction. Give it to them. - Certain things in general: because of the pacing and lack of development, there is no sense of connection or understanding what the characters are going through. I fell in love with these characters, but I should have been bawling when it ended. I felt a strange sense of sadness, but that was it. I appreciated the focus an Asian-American family without having their race be part of who they are. How many times in movies are the Asians either villains, humorous, or "traditional parents with Americanized children"? I applaud the filmmakers for this alone, because there simply has to be more of this. It's a great watch, but it screams to be let out of it's cages and be free. It begs to be on the level of Perks of Being a Wallflower in terms of impact and coming-of-age, but it doesn't hit the marks. It's ambitious yet leaves me wanting more from everything. Why are the characters the way they are? What makes them certain ways? How does their environment affect them? I wanted the friends to be more impacted by their friend's death (considering, you know, he's one of their best friends - especially a CERTAIN FRIEND) and have that be explored, but it never was. Had this film been made years in the future when the filmmakers were more advanced and skilled, it'd be perfect. We have to settle for it being good, not great.7/10

6.9 of 10. Classic indies have solid, sometimes great, stories that are carried out with a very low budget, but with a couple half-stars to keep it from complete obscurity and extended periods with actors who can't handle their characters. In this case, it's as if it was filmed, directed, and acted by an after-school special crew. Fortunately, there's a great story to integrate it all and seem natural.Despite a rough, choppy start with abbreviated plot development, the film is highly watchable by half-way through, mixing humor and drama well. Only a few inconsistent performances and story elements to keep it from keeping you totally immersed.