Try some books without pictures for a little bit.

A 'right of passage' story is a fairly good, broad description of the film, and the comparison to the Dreamers is on target.

Jon Foster was a bit white-bread and boring, I though, but this is more than compensated for by Miller, Sarsgaard and Suvari (as well as Nick Nolte as Foster's gangster father).

Agree that the drama in the Book Barn with Suvari was hysterical. A mini fatal attraction story where a summer fuck-buddy becomes a clingy, vengeful psycho. But before things go awry, there are some hot scenes with Mena (yes, actual nudity!). So bonus there.

The love triangle, I thought, was a bit forced. At least the gay affair between the two male leads. There is a scene in here to rival the tent bit in Brokeback Mountain, and again it seemed out of place to me. To me that section came out of nowhere as there was little prior to that, either through action or the narration, to suggest a major gay attraction was developing there. That subplot didn't have a major impact on the film, though, either positive or negative for me.

I think if you are invested in Sarsgaard's character (a likeable, charismatic, but deeply troubled guy) the movie works.

On the use of Pittsburg in the film: I honestly think this film could have been shot in any midwest city. I didn't really see any 'classic' Pittsburg landmarks in the film, and the cinematography certainly doesn't focus on the town as a 'character' per se. It basically looked like Anytown, USA, which may bother some and please others, depending on their 'Burg bias.