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.

The idea of the "perfect" older son dying and leaving the parents and friends with the supposedly less than perfect second son, is hardly original … Stand by Me, for example, and the sibling rivalries in various James Dean movies. Having the second son burdened with a genuine disability is probably not that common. Having the younger disabled son cope with the posthumous outing of the older son as gay is, I'm pretty certain, a unique approach to the often told tale of a teenager coming out. The story concept is the best thing about White Frog and the result has failed to capitalize on the potential.The attempt to link the tale of the Vietnamese coconut frog to the character(s) in this movie seems a bit of a stretch … possibly a (failed) attempt to introduce an intellectual flavor of the inscrutable, exotic Orient to a movie that is really about a bunch of upper middle class Americans. Since none of the cast looks especially Vietnamese, the connection is even more tenuous. Maybe to some eyes "they" all look alike.Booboo and especially the actors who played the friends and secret lover of Chaz were sufficiently charming to make the movie enjoyable … the rest of the characters, not so much. Through most of the movie the parents were annoying and heavy handed caricatures of parents behaving badly. The therapist who talked to Nick seemed to have modeled her character after a nagging Jewish or Asian grandmother who practices no-nonsense tough love. It didn't come across very well.The occasional setting and final scenes in a community center run by a lesbian, funded at start-up in part by the deceased Chaz and whose members are oddly supportive for Nick, who they couldn't have known very well, was a little too much like something out of an old Judy Garland. Mickey Rooney movie … or even worse, an episode of Glee.There were PC messages aplenty, the main one being that everyone should accept himself and others as they are, something that most young people are portrayed as being better at than the anal-retentive older generation ... although given the amount of catastrophic bullying in schools, that seems a myth. As an Afterschool Special it probably needed to be fairly blunt in making its points. There's a lot to be said, however, for subtlety in plot and performance, largely missing in this movie.Of course people want to be kind when dealing with kids coping with handicaps and sexual identity crises and rites of passage, and I suppose there were a few moments when tears could have been shed. The subject matter sympathy vote aside, this movie was enjoyable due mainly to some of the actors involved but, despite all that it had going for it, it was still a disappointing result.

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.

Nick Yung has a brother whom he adores, and he has Aspbergers. He comes from a seemingly perfect American/Oriental family, but perfection's not all it's cracked up to be.On the death of his brother, life starts to unravel and he slowly uncovers the truth that lies just beneath the perfect veneer of his life.Nick conquers his differences and goes on a journey to discover that not only do people keep secrets, but that uncovering those secrets can set you free and make you whole.The acting in this film is terrific, especially from the young man who played Nick so well. It's a lovely little film that made me smile and cry in all the right places.Well worth a viewing.