tlavideo.com

Amos Lassen wrote on 02/12/2011:

“Daydream Obsession I”
Peeking
Amos Lassen
I am not exactly sure what genre of movie “Daydream Obsession I” fits into. It is not exactly soft porn but it is not exactly a movie with a plot either. We see a lot of men rubbing themselves in various state of undress. Photographed in slow motion and set to some rally bad music. There are lots of frontal nudity shots as well as rear end close ups but these do not make a movie. The plot is thin and is about a guy in his twenties that does not know who he is sexually. His roommates are straight men and he fantasizes about seeing them naked while he transcribes his feelings on video. And of course the movie and Clayton (the main character) do reach a climax, so to speak.
Basically this is a low budget cheesy look at sexuality. Everyone in the movie is on screen naked but that unfortunately is distracting. They are bodybuilders with underdeveloped sexual organs who seem incapable of sensible dialog. This is not a love story ad it does tend toward eroticism but manages to catch itself before it becomes classified as porn. There is no sex shown but it is interesting to watch the nude body doing normal things. Clayton is the one we want to see naked and do not get the option of doing so. As for the acting—there does not seem to be any. What bothers me is that the possibility of creating a good movie was there but somehow it became lost in deference to showing naked men. I understand that there is also “Daydream Obsession II”. I hope that it is better than this mish mash.

M.N. wrote on 09/28/2004:

I'm not sure what some of the earlier reviewers were expecting with this film, but for my money it delivered on what it promised. I am really weary of arty gay films, which recycle the same serious relationship story and then either won't stoop to offering nudity or provide blink and you'll miss it shots of the actors. In this film the emphasis is strictly on the guys and getting them naked. There is enough of a plot to string together the segments, and the performances from Joseph Dain (who only provides a rear shot in a shower scene) and Chris Michaels (a total Adonis who shows everything) are pretty good. All of the hot supporting cast bare all. While it can be argued some of the scenes run a tad long and there could have been some physical touching or a non-hardcore sex scene thrown in, the film is the perfect antidote for overserious, anti-skin gay entertainment. A near-perfect softcore treat which offers plenty of beautiful naked guys for your dollar.

JIMY8 wrote on 03/15/2004:

Had I noticed in the small print that Campfire Video was involved I would have skipped it. The few moments at the beginning of the film when lead, Joseph Dain, is talking to his video camera the movie shows promise. It is downhill after that. Like a bad porn film where the sex scenes go on and on and on and nothing happens and the music makes your skin crawl with its repeated percussion, the "skin" scenes take up most of the running time. The camera work is notable, especially the underwater stuff, but the models are
not especially attractive unless you are
into shaved beef. The actor who plays Brian is a hunk and handsome and can act. Perhaps he will get an interesting script some day. This isn't it. If you get all goose-bumpy at the sight of a limp dick, I guess you will enjoy this. There is a lot of it. But over 86 minutes I had hoped for a bit more story and some
eroticism. Now I wonder where I can find someone willing to buy or trade this.

mikey (michaelangelo0296@yahoo.com) wrote on 02/12/2004:

When I rented this film I imagined that it was going to be cutting edge, erotic queer cinema. What I viewed was nothing of the sort. If you want to "get off", rent porn. This film is a poor excuse for an arthouse indie. The plot is thin. The acting is atrocious. And, the majority of the film is consumed by cheesy porn music while the scenes are mere model shoot displays. For every minute of dialogue, there is another ten minutes of men undressing and essentially posing naked. Inches magazine is cheaper. You can buy cheap porn on ebay. Don't waste your money on this film. You can achieve the same affect(of viewing this film) even if you only have the slightest of imaginations.

ManwatcherLA wrote on 02/09/2004:

Just got my copy this weekend and I'm wondering why "Wet Nurse" is so bitter. For my dollar, this film showed ALL THE GUYS naked, and had some decent acting (especially Joseph Dain). The acting, plot, and naked men were worth more than any of the OLYMPIA series to me. Finally, soft-core that delivers sexy nudity, but isn't explicit hard-core. One regret...wanted to see some intimate sex scenes mixed in with the solo scenes. Overall, though, I'm completely satisfied and hope to see more erotica films like this!