buygay.com

Shane Hoskins wrote on 09/02/2006:

Yet again-- another bad porn in hiding as a "movie". Tis true-- if you want endless nudity and sex, this is one for you. If you thought the term "erotic" fell into categories like Basic Instinct, Unfaithful, Fatal Attraction-- you were wrong. Apparently "erotic" these days means close up crotch shots badly edited together to take your focus away from the lack of production value and story. What a waste. If you want porn-- rent REAL porn... not this ripoff!!!

M.N. wrote on 05/14/2006:

It always strikes me as odd how many people review these films like they are expecting another Brokeback Mountain rather than a skin flick. The film makes no bones about what it is, but it still comes across on the weak side. The film is a little too dark for its own good. The central character of the first film, Clayton (actually well played by Joseph Dain) becomes paranoid that his boyfriend is cheating on him. The first fantasy skin scene with the business card starts out OK, but goes on forever. A scene where Clayton verbally confronts a woman comes out of left field. The fantasy scene in the park has the same weakness as the first in that it goes on forever. A scene where Clayton follows a blond guy home and spies on him fondling himself in the bath is highly erotic, but the film is near over by that point. Dain is cute, but keeps his clothes on. Other than blond bathtub guy, the remainder of the cast fails to live up to the hotness of the original cast. In particular, Jeremy Gordon as the boyfriend is so adequate looking (and does not provide nudity until the closing moments) that it strains credibility that Clayton would believe all of these people are lusting after him. Film as a whole is an OK guilty pleasure and I commend the Smyth/Yarbrough teaming for filling a niche in male erotica that is all but extinct anymore. I will continue to support their efforts, but they may want to aspire to a hotter cast and a lighter tone next time. Perhaps in the future Clayton could start initiating or partaking of the action rather than only fantasizing about it?

deadserious wrote on 12/28/2004:

Daydream Obsession 2: Infidelities is a drugery to sit through. Mindless, childish, and an insult to one's intelligence. The fantasy or voyeuristic masturbation scenes drag on endlessly--what a great way to use up footage that should be cut out. Pathetic way to use a business card. If curiosity has you interested--rent this disaster--don't waste your money.