This site was updated May 2006
 |
|
This section features reviews written by Joe Edkin as opposed to reviews of Joe Edkin's work.
Most of the movie reviews posted here refer to the DVD release of said movies and were written for either Amazon.com or Netflix. These sites have strict limits to the length of reviews, so the versions you see below are the complete, uncompressed drafts.
Joe will add new reviews spordically, depending on what has inspired or offended him. Be aware that Joe is a tough critic, often railing against illogic in screen plays. He is a self-described snob. Don't say you weren't warned!
Written by: Susan Gauthier & Bruce Graham and Bob Tzudiker
& Noni White
Eric Tuchman (animation adaptation)
Score by Lynn Aherns and Stephen Flaherty
Directed by: Don Bluth and Gary Goldman
Don Bluth is an incredibly gifted artist. His character designs and animation can be breathtaking. Unfortunately, he and frequent collaborator Gary Goldman can't tell a cohesive story to save their lives. Of all of their films I've seen, Anastasia is by far their best. Whether this is because of solid source material (although that didn't stop The Secret of NIMH from falling to pieces story-wise) or the incredible score by Lynn Aherns and Stephen Flaherty, Anastasia remains in my estimation Bluth and Goldman's most watchable movie.
Based loosely on a play by Marcelle Maurette and Guy Bolton as well as the 1956 film adaptation of the play by Arthur Laurents. Bluth's version turns the mystery of the disappearance of Anastasia, daughter of Czar Nicholas, into a fairy tale as she goes into hiding following the murder of her family. You have to ignore everything you know about history in order to accept the execution of the film--it plays loose with the Communist revolution and with Rasputin.
Dimitri (voiced with great charm by John Cusack, sung by John Dokuchitz) is a con artist living in St. Petersburg. Along with his friend Vladimir (the entertaining Kelsey Grammer), he is searching for a young girl who can play the role of the missing Romanoff heir in order to claim a reward from the dowager empress who has escaped to Paris. He meets Anya (voiced with much character by Meg Ryan, sung by the incredible Liz Callaway) and immediately sees in her the girl to carry out his plans. As he and Vladimir work with Anya to perfect her ruse, he comes to realize that she is the true Anastasia.
Then we add the elements that make it a Don Bluth movie--Anya has a cute dog and there is a magical villain in the (dead) body of Rasputin (played gleefully over the top by Christopher Lloyd and sung by Jim Cummings). And, of course, Rasputin has his cute animal sidekick in the form of an albino bat, Bartok (the always amusing Hank Azaria). Rasputin wants revenge on the Romanoffs for his undead state and sets off to kill the princess. It should also be noted that Bernadette Peters and Angele Lansbury round out the voice cast in excellent performances.
Okay, if you can put aside your feelings of misgivings regarding the animal sidekicks and revisionist history, there is much that is entertaining in this film. The score by Broadway veterans Aherns and Flaherty is probably one of the best ever composed for an animated movie (it rates right up there with Disney's version of The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The script does provide action, adventure, romance, and comedy. It's probably the most human script directed by Bluth and Goldman that I've seen. There is some spectacular animation, the runaway train scene stands out as truly exciting.
There are drawbacks. It is trying too hard to out-Disney Disney, from the opening number to the very structure of the story. The computer animation isn't always well integrated. The music box never looks like it exists in the same reality as the animated characters and the afore-mentioned train sequence is very obviously not trditional cel animation. But these drawback are relatively minor compared to the overblown climax of the movie. Still, flaws aside, it does entertain. I have watched it several times and have definitely gotten my money's worth of this DVD.
The DVD offers you the option of fullscreen and letterbox presentation, a short featurette about the making of the movie, and a pair of sing-along sequences.
All in all, I recommend this movie to people who enjoy animated musicals. If you like this, you may also like Disney's Beauty and the Beast and The Hunchback of Notre Dame (on of my all-time favorite animated movies), My Neighbor Totoro, Frank Oz's musical version of Little Shop of Horrors, The Iron Giant, James and the Giant Peach, and The Nightmare before Christmas.
Written and Directed by Tom Hunsinger and Neil Hunter
This film is about gay relationships, but refreshingly, it's not about being gay. A group of friends gather at a remote house in the English countryside for the weekend to celebrate Paul's birthday. Paul (James Dreyfus) and Ben (Mark Sands) have been together for five years, but Matt has become bored with Ben and this couple is on the verge of breaking up. Owen (Andrew Ableson) has been dating Matt (Michael Urwin) for three months and thinks he's finally found Mr. Right. Owen brings Matt to the party to introduce him to his friends. Will (David Coffey), the oldest and most alienated member of the group of friends brings along a one night stand, Adam (Darren Petrucci), the youngest of the party attendees. Along the way, each of them must confront themselves, each other, and what they want from relationships.
In terms of content, there isn't anything that breaks new ground here, but the cast and the script are appealing enough to hold one's attention. The movie does suffer from British sound (something I remember Richard Carpenter, creator of Robin of Sherwood that ran on Showtime in the U.S. in the mid-80s, complaining about in terms of British TV and film production) where things become difficult to hear at times. People unfamiliar with British accents and slang may be at a double disadvantage trying to understand that which they can not hear.
I've watched the DVD a few times and I still enjoy it. It has a non-exploitative approach to its characters and their sex lives. And fortunately, we are saved from the "I hate to be gay, why am I like this?" that characterizes too many gay films prior to the mid-90s.
As an additional feature, the DVD also includes an animated version of the story of Achilles. This short film is shot in beautifully rendered stop motion animation and narrated by Derek Jacobi.
As a whole, I think this is a decent addition to any collection of gay DVDs. People who enjoy this movie are also likely to enjoy Like It Is, My Beautiful Laundrette, Queer As Folk (BBC--Series One), Get Real, Lilies, and The Broken Hearts Club.
Written and Directed by Victor Mignatti
This makes a great date movie for gay couples, although it is flawed by an ending that doesn't quite work in the context of the story that is being told. The problem is, it is the ending I suspect the majority of the audience will want the story to have, but everything in terms of script and performance leads to a completely different conclusion. It's too bad. With a little tweaking and maybe five more minutes, writer/director Victor Mignatti might have made his ending work.
This is definitely a New York City love story (much in the same vain of the much-better "Trick"). Marc (Michael Lucas) is an actor waiting for his big break. His best friend is Robert (Hugh Panaro), an aspiring Broadway composer. Robert has a crush on Marc, Marc has a crush on David (Hugh Panaro)--a musician with a secret. As Marc is drawn deeper into a relationship with David, Robert tries to find someone who will love him. Meanwhile, Marc's roommate and friend to Marc and Robert, Cynthia (Mara Hobel in a delightful performance), deals with having to learn to live on her own. Her instability and eventual breakdown causes the three friends to re-examine who they are and what they want and need out of life.
It's hard to fault the performances or the heart of the script. There are marvelous touches throughout and for 98% of the movie, the characters all ring true. It's in the final minutes of the final act where the characters are forced to act in ways contrary to what has been established in order for the author to move the plot into an ending that the audience wants. I have watched the movie several times, hoping to find hints that will make the ending believable, but I have yet to find them. However, there is enough to like about the movie that I do keep watching it.
I wish that the DVD had director's commentary or deleted scenes that might help explain how we get the ending. Oh well.
If you like this, then chances are very good that you will enjoy Trick, Just One Time, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, and The Opposite of Sex.
Written by: Barry L. Levy and Matthew Jason Walsh
Directed by: David DeCoteau
I've read that producer/director David DeCoteau is trying to create a new genre of movie, and this is part of that new genre. I'm not sure what the genre is. The Brotherhood has elements of a horror movie, yet is not scary; it has elements of suspense, but does not raise any tension; it has elements of humor, but I wouldn't call it a comedy; it has elements of homoeroticism, but the one sexual scene is pretty darn straight (or bi, at best, featuring two guys and one girl, although the guys are focused on the girl and not each other). The genre seems to be built around young man in various states of undress (but never seen completely undressed) and is being marketed to gay audiences. Feh. Gay men would be better served by renting or buying any number of softcore movies out there from the likes of Bel Ami than pay for this lame bait and switch.
The plot is your relatively standard T&A (in this case, P&A--and I'm thinking pecs, thank you very much) horror movie, but without the sex or any significant amounts of blood. It takes place at a college where one frat is considered far better than any other. What is it about the frat and its members that make it so special? I will decline to answer that question because I don't want to poil the plot, such as it is. The college seems to exist in a time and place of its own with no real town nearby.
Into this setting come two freshmen roommates, Chris (Nathan Watkins) and Dan (Josh Hammond). Chris is your standard issue jock and Dan is your standard issue geek. If you've seen any horror movies from the 80s or 90s, you know the pair. There is an air of sexual tension in the filmmaking, but the movie takes great care to establish that the boys are straight and both interested (kinda) in Megan (Elizabeth Bruderman), one of the few girls on campus. Dan desperately wants to belong to the in crowd (or any crowd, for that matter), Chris is not a joiner. Chris becomes seduced by Devon, the charismatic president of the top frat. (I base the assessment of the character solely on the mechanics of the plot and not on Bradley Stryker's self-conscious acting.) It is up to Dan to save his friend/roommate. It's a by-the-numbers affair with nothing to make to stand out.
Nathan Watkins is attractive (DeCoteau's camera lingers on his scantily-clad body many times) and his acting is adequate. Josh Hammond gives an animated performance, perhaps too lively. His eyes dart about constantly and his head always seems to be in motion. At least he looks alive, which is more than can be said of some of the other performers. Of the lot, his is the most appealing and interesting performance. He could have a solid future in sitcoms and light comedies if he keeps working.
The script is perfunctory at best. The filmmaking matches the script step-for-step. (That's not a compliment.) There were many cases where I wanted DeCoteau to pull his camera back. He seems to favor close ups, not giving his actor much room within the frame to move. It becomes very claustrophobic, and when combined with some choppy editing, there are times when it becomes very difficult to follow the action.
The DVD offers no extras and the film is presented in 1.33:1 screen aspect ratio. As this was probably shot for direct-to-video, I don't know if there was a version with a wider screen aspect ratio.
All-in-all, if you are considering purchasing this DVD because you are looking for a thriller with gay elements or a cheesy guilty pleasure, look elsewhere. The gay audience should put there money into movies with true gay content rather than settle for this weak tease.
Okay, we all know that sequels tend to be lame. This one is no exception. Unfortunately, it's a lame sequel to a lame movie. Talk about the law of diminishing returns.
Producer/director David DeCoteau and screenwriter Matthew Jason Walsh reunite for the second installment of their Brotherhood series. However, other than recycled sets and recycled themes, there is nothing to connect this movie to The Brotherhood--except actor Forrest Cochran who is theoretically playing the same character, but as I don't remember the character at all in the first movie, it's hard to call it a true connection.
The
Brotherhood II: Young Warlocks
Story by: David DeCoteau, Dave Parker, and Matthew Jason Walsh
Screenplay: Matthew Jason Walsh
Directed by: David DeCoteau
As with the first, it is a thrill-less thriller and about as "straight" a piece of homoeroticism as you're likely to encounter.
Actually, to be fair, the underlying premise of this installment is slightly stronger than the first, even if it isn't related, and the plot is a little more interesting. However, the execution is weaker. The acting is adequate, with only Sean Ferris exhibiting any real charisma. This is unfortunate, as the whole point of the character Luc is supposed to be his incredible charisma, and Forrest Cochran doesn't have the presence to pull it off.
This time, the story takes place at a private high/prep school, although it appeared to me to be the same location on which the original was shot. The student body is keep in a perpetual state of anxiety by a quartet of shirtless bullies. Three outsiders are the primary focus of the bullies. New student Luc arrives and offers the outsiders a way to get even which involves swimming in their boxer briefs and sitting in a satanic circle while wearing boxer briefs.
The quotient of screen time of guys in boxer briefs is higher than the first, and there are two female quasi-leads, doubling the number from the previous installment. The camera work and the editing is slightly better than the first, but there are still times when DeCoteau would better serve his audience by pulling the camera back and using more fluid editing.
It's weak, but what truly appalled me was the amorality of the ending. As a reviewer, I don't think it's fair for me to give away the ending, and I won't, but I have to admit that it really angered me. Screenwriter Walsh hasn't thought through the ramifications of his characters' actions, and this left me quite annoyed.
Another place where Young Worlocks matches its predecessor is in the lack of any bonus material on the DVD. The movie is presented in 1.33:1 screen aspect ratio. As this was probably shot for direct-to-video, I don't know if there was a version with a wider screen aspect ratio.
As I said when I wrapped up my review of The Brotherhood, if you are considering purchasing this DVD because you are looking for a thriller with gay elements or a cheesy guilty pleasure, look elsewhere. The gay audience should put its money into movies with true gay content rather than settle for this weak tease. If you want thrillers with gay characters and gay themes, check out In the Flesh or the far better, and far more interesting Rites of Passage. Neither of them have the occult overtones of the Brotherhood movies, nor is the (partial) nudity quotient quite as high, but they are far more interesting movies. If you want to look at young guys in their underwear, I'm sure there are much better options.
Written by: Mike White
Directed by: Miguel Artega
I don't know how or why this movie keeps being classified as a comedy on various websites. Other than a few humorous lines, I don't find it particularly funny. I don't find it particularly enjoyable either.
The plot centers around Chuck (Chris Weitz), a man in his late 20s who has never really grown up. He responds to the world like a 12 year old might. I don't think he's intended to be mentally challenged. It's played more as a case of arrested development. When his mother dies, he reaches out to the one other person in the world to whom he can relate, his best friend Buck (scriptwriter Mike White). Chuck and Buck were inseparable as kids, but since high school, Buck has moved on. He now works for a recording agency in L.A. Chuck (who seems to have money, but I'm not sure where or how. He doesn't appear to have a job. His mother was sick for years, so she wasn't working. So where the money came from, I don't know) moves to L.A. to be closer to Buck and to resume their friendship. He pretty much becomes a stalker. It's not funny.
Okay, so when they were kids, Chuck and Buck had a sexual relationship at Buck's instigation. The movie is not clear as to whether or not this is the root of Chuck's arrested development. Chuck has never gotten over that relationship. Buck is engaged to be married to a woman, the relationship with Chuck having been nothing more than kids' stuff in his mind. There is terrific material for a moving and powerful movie here, but Mike White as a writer doesn't rise to the occasion. He seems to go out of his way to avoid dealing with the issue of Buck's possible responsibility for the man Chuck has become (or never became).
And that is the root of my problem with this movie. There is no authorial or directorial point of view on these characters. I have no idea what the creators want us to think or feel about them. Personally, I find myself not liking any of them. It's not necessary to like any or all of the characters in a movie in order to enjoy it (think Citizen Kane), but there has to be some connection made between the characters and the audience. I found myself curious about the ramifications of Buck and Chuck's childhood relationship, but as the creators never deal with it, there was nothing to hold the movie together in my mind. Stuff happens and then it ends--there's no real story in the traditional sense.
The movie was shot with digital cameras and looks it. The lighting changes from shot to shot and because of the use of real locations, there are many sequences that look incredibly claustrophobic because there was little room on the location for the actors, camera, and crew. The DVD is not letterboxed. The commentary from Mike White and director Miguel Artega does not offer any insight into what they were trying to say or accomplish with the characters. There are plenty of other extras on the DVD, but I have not explored them as the movie (after three viewings) has failed to inspire me enough to dig any deeper. This is a DVD that I have every intention of culling from my collection.
A movie of similar interest (and impact): Ghost World
Written by Stephane Bouquet and Sebastien Lifshitz
Directed by Sebastien Lifshitz
At the risk of sound ethnocentric, Come Undone is a truly French French movie. It belongs to one of their favorite genres, the "coming of age" story. It is beautifully shot with an appealing cast, but given its non-linear structure, the story and character relationships become very difficult to follow. The plot is spread out over three indistinct time periods which are not presented in a linear fashion. There is the present where 20 year old Matthieu (Jeremie Elkaïm) returns to the seaside village where he and his family spend their summer vacations. There is the period two years previously when 18 year old Matthieu meets and falls in love with Cedric (Stéphane Rideau, co-star of Wild Reeds) during a summer vacation at that beach. Then there is a period somewhere between the two periods where Matthieu recovers from a depression in a mental hospital.
The story is about the coming of age of Matthieu. Unfortunately for me, I had trouble keeping track of the different time periods that the movie cuts between, thereby making it difficult to follow the mechanics of the plot. I eventually realized that it was winter in the present and Matthieu had slightly longer hair than in the summer sequences with his family at the seashore. If Matthieu was a patient in the hospital (as opposed to a visitor), then it was the middle period. If I make it sound confusing, it was because I was confused.
I'm not sure that re-editing the movie into a linear form would make some of the events any clearer. There are some elements that are never made completely clear to the audience. Whether this is a failure of the subtitles or of the actual filmmaking, I can not judge. For example, Matthieu spends the summer of his 18th year at the seaside with his sick mother (who has been depressed for several years following the death of her baby), his mercurial sister, and the mysterious Annick. I refer to Annick as mysterious as I never quite figured out who she was. She was always around to look after the mother, but was she a nurse? A relative? Although it wasn't germane to the story, I found myself wanted to know what her relationship was to the other characters.
We're never explicitly told how or why Matthieu came to be in the mental hospital. I didn't even realize it was a mental hospital right away as I thought he was undergoing tests for asthma or some other malady. At this point in the film, we haven't been told about his mother's depression as the root of her illness, so I wondered if they both had cancer. Eventually I realized that Matthieu had attempted suicide and was battling depression, but we never see the attempt or distinctly what led up to it. We can assume that depression ran deeply through his family given the ways his mother and his sister act, but I wanted things spelled out a little more clearly.
In many ways, I see the family and the depression as the core of the film, but it's rarely directly addressed. What we see primarily is the romance between Matthieu and Cedric. Actors Jeremie and Stéphane are both appealing in their scenes, but we miss key moments in the relationship's development. Up until Matthieu met Cedric, he assumed himself straight. While we see him feel awkward about telling his family about his relationship with Cedric, that appears to pass. There is no moment of transition that we witness between awkwardness and acceptance. They move into a sexual relationship off screen, so we never see that transition either. (Although there is one very steamy sexual scene late in the film, but from the context, it certainly wasn't their first sexual experience together.)
The ending of the film also leaves much unanswered and unresolved. We never find out what happens to the relationship between Cedric and Matthieu. We know that Cedric found Matthieu and took him to the hospital. This is something we're told about but don't get to see. And I think that sums up my problems with the film. There is so much we don't get to see that I found it ultimately unfulfilling. However, perhaps with time and a second viewing, I'll reconsider my feelings toward it as I did Head On.
Films of similar interest include: Wild Reeds, Head On, Coming Out, and Like It Is.
Written and directed by: John Keitel
Defying Gravity is an earnest, heart-felt movie. While its edges are rough, both in terms of the performances and the filmmaking, it's these rough edges that actually make the movie feel more real in a way that polished Hollywood acting and production values would undermine. One could complain that it is yet another coming out story, and in many ways it is, but it's an effective one.
Griff (Daniel Chilson) is a college student who lives in a frat house with your typical college guys. Everyone is assumed to be straight, and the majority of brothers are. Griff wants to belong, but as a young gay man, he feels a certain amount of isolation. Because he wants to fit in, he remains in the closet despite the efforts of his boyfriend Pete (Don Handfield) to help him come to terms with his sexual identity. Finally, a crisis forces Griff to take a stand for himself and for Pete. Yes, anyone who has seen more than a few gay-themed movies or TV shows will have seen this plot. But it is handled in such an honest and affecting way that you will forgive it.
What sets this movie apart are the character relationships. Griff's interesting relationships with best friend Todd (Niklaus Lange), with Todd's girlfriend Heather (Leslie Tesh), with fellow student Denetra (Linna Carter), and with Pete's father (sorry, I don't recall the actor's name) are what helps us to forgive the clichéd elements of the plot. Of particular note are the relationships with Todd and with Pete's father. Their reactions to Griff's relationship with Pete are not what you have come to expect from coming out films. It makes for a refreshing change of pace, and writer/director John Keitel deserves credit for putting new spins on these stock characters.
The acting never really rises above college drama student level, but that works for a movie about college students. Chilson, Lange, Tesh, and Carter all act earnestly and come across as believable college kids in ways that technically-trained performers might not.
I do wish that the DVD had more to offer. The film is in 1.33:1 ratio. I don't know if it has been panned and scanned, a matte removed, or originally shot for a TV screen. There is no commentary track. I would like to hear Keitel talk about the choices he made as writer and director. There is a "pictorial" soundtrack, meaning that the song's from the film can be accessed and played like a CD while images from the movie are shown on your TV screen. As there were a couple songs that I particularly liked, I appreciated this feature and found myself wishing other films did the same thing.
Overall, it's a solid film and one that I have found myself watching several times.
Written by: Mark Burt
Directed by: Aisling Walsh
SPOLIER WARNING: In order to give a critical assessment of this movie, I must discuss it's ending. If you don't want to know how it ends, skip this review.
I really enjoyed this movie right up until the last fifteen minutes when it fell apart and turned exceedingly nasty, ugly, and senselessly violent.
For the first 75 minutes, this is an engaging film. It deals with two lifelong friends, plasterer David (Steve John Shepherd) and Theo (John Simm). David is gay, but has admitted this to no one, especially Theo, whom he loves. Their friendship is tested when Theo falls in love with the attractive, but insecure, Hannah (Laura Fraser). David and Hannah see in each other a threat to their own relationships with David, and they each take steps to undermine the other. It's petty, it's painful, but it's human. The performances by the three leads are realistic and heartfelt. The script by Mark Burt and the direction by Aisling Walsh are solid when they deal with the three leads. (I am less convinced by the writing of, direction of, and acting by David's coworkers.)
However, the movie falls completely apart in the last fifteen minutes. The climax takes place on the set of a fictional TV show called "Forgive and Forget" where one guest admits a transgression while the sinned against listens and declares whether he or she can forgive and forget. After David does something that drives a wedge between Theo and Hannah, he arranges an appearance on the show for him and Theo. I assumed that it would be to admit what he'd done that hurt Theo's relationship with Hannah. That would have made for good storytelling.
Instead, writer Burt wrenches the story in a completely different direction, and one that has caused other reviewers here to call the film homophobic. It's hard not to agree with that assessment. Burt has David ask forgiveness from Theo for being gay, as if this is something that must be forgiven! As offensive as that is, the final scene where the two confront each other after the show is even more heinous and completely undermines the rest of the movie. Theo beats the *ahem* out of David. It is ugly, it is violent, and the last image of Theo walking away from David implies that writer Burt and director Walsh endorse the actions taken by the character Theo. To my mind, it's thoroughly repulsive.
I can not, in good conscience, recommend this to anybody.
I have not listened to the commentary track, although there is one. I'm not sure I want to listen to Mark Burt and Aisling Walsh trying to justify their work. (Edited to add: I did finally listen to the commentary track. Burt and Walsh do not raise the subject of the violence at all.)
I would suggest giving this a skip and go directly to the British Queer as Folk (series one), Get Real, My Beautiful Laundrette, Maurice, or Boyfriends.
Written and directeed by: Ben Taylor
In my mind, In the Flesh belongs to the second wave of queer cinema. The first wave centered on "the problem of homosexuality" where the purpose of the characters and themes was to explore what it means to be gay. In the second wave, the gay characters exist not solely to be gay, but on an equal playing field where their homosexuality is simply part of who they are in the context of a larger story. In this case, the story is a murder mystery. As refreshing as it is to have a story with gay characters where the story isn't about being gay and as reasonably entertaining as the movie is on many levels, it's not a very good murder mystery.
Oliver (Dane Ritter) is a hustler in Atlanta and thankfully writer/director Ben Taylor doesn't make him into the two stereotypes you often find in movies about prostitutes--he is neither the whore with the heart of gold, nor is he a strung-out junkie hustling just to get his next fix. Philip (Ed Corbin) is a cop assigned to investigate drug dealing happening at the Blue Boy, a bar where gay hustlers meet their johns. Philip and Oliver get to talking and connect on some levels. Philip hires Oliver, they have sex, and Philip tries to make their connection more than economic. Oliver resists. When one of Oliver's regular johns is murdered, Philip intervenes in the investigation, providing Oliver with an alibi and walking away from his job. The scandal causes Oliver to lose his apartment, Philip invites him to move in, and the two become enmeshed in the murder mystery with Oliver and Philip in danger.
I'm sure I just made it sound more logical than it actually is. Unfortunately, the relationship that is supposed to drive all of the action, that between Oliver and Philip doesn't work. Part of this is writer/director Taylor's fault. In the commentary track, he admits the relationship moves too quickly and that he had to cut a scene that explained how it developed. He says that the cut scene is on the DVD. Unfortunately, it's not, so we'll never know if the scene would have explained everything or not.
Regardless, actor Ed Corbin has to take some of the blame as well. He never projects any real warmth, so it's hard to believe that Philip has fallen in love with Oliver. Dane Ritter's performance is stronger than Corbin's, but I don't sense any romantic or sexual heat from him either. Because of this, it's hard to believe that Philip would risk his career to help Oliver. If you don't believe that, then the rest of the movie becomes difficult to accept.
On top of that, there is a secret from Oliver's past that is revealed in the course of the movie that both defies logic and police procedure. I don't want to give the specifics away here, but it doesn't work for me. If you know anything about police procedure (Law & Order and C.S.I. fans beware!), the secret won't work for you because it is built on a lie that defies police procedure. The strange thing is, Taylor says in his commentary that the scene is based on actual events, although they took place in South Africa (if I recall correctly) so that may explain the difference in crime scene investigation. Unfortunately, the movie's version doesn't, so it's hard to believe that American police investigators didn't see through this lie. I simply don't believe the events could have happened the way they are described and shown. And, in revealing this truth, Philip has to accept something that he, as an officer of the law, should not be so quick to dismiss.
If you can overlook those flaws (and I do, up to a point), this is an enjoyable enough film with a reversal at the end that I appreciated. Some of Taylor's commentary track is truly interesting, although I think he tells us much more about his personal life than he needs to.
My suggestion is that you rent the film before you invest in it. If you like this, then I highly suggest you check out Rites of Passage. You might also like Skin & Bone (which I don't care for personally) and the French film Criminal Lovers (another that I don't care for, but at least find more interesting than Skin & Bone).
Written by: Robert Gray
Directed by: Paul Oremland
Like It Is is an entertaining movie. While it is yet another coming out story, the performances and characters help make it more interesting than the average coming out story.
The story starts in Blackpool, England, moves to London, and returns to Blackpool for a dramatic and fulfilling finale. The main character is Craig (very appealingly played by newcomer Steve Bell), a bare knuckle fighter in Blackpool who takes on whatever jobs he can to make a living. He is gay, but isn't ready to do anything about it until he meets record company promoter Matt (Ian Rose) outside a gay bar in Blackpool where Londoner Matt was supporting one of the label's artists, Paula (Dani Behr), who is also his best friend and roommate. Craig invites Matt back to his house and asks Matt to f*ck him. However, not having had anal sex before, Craig freaks out at the pain and throws Matt out. Matt tries to offer comfort, but Craig isn't ready to accept it. Matt leaves, leaving behind his card.
Neither of the men can forget the other, and Craig finally decides he has to deal with himself and his sexuality, so he follows Matt to London. Matt takes Craig in and they begin a relationship. Craig has trouble fitting into London's gay scene and Paula feels jealousy towards Craig for taking her best friend's attention away from her. Added to the mix is Matt's boss Kelvin (the immensely entertaining Roger Daltry) who is very much attracted to rough trade like Craig.
This is a very appealing film with interesting characters and strong performances all around. It does fall into the general category of the "coming out" story, but the settings and the characterization keep it fresh and interesting. The script by Robert Gray and the direction by Paul Oremland are sharp. I do wish that the DVD had a director's/writer's commentary track because I would like to know more about the choices they made and why they made them.
All in all, I would recommend this film to people who enjoy Get Real, My Beautiful Laundrette (a particularly favorite movie of mine), Maurice, Boyfriends, and the British Queer as Folk (series one).
Written by: Wendy Wasserstein
(based on the novel by Stephen McCauley
Directed by: Nicholas Hytner
I have to admit that this is a favorite movie of mine. It's hardly challenging. It's not overtly political. There's nothing outstanding about the filmmaking technique. It's simply a pleasant, well-executed diversion, and as such, I enjoy it a great deal. And while it goes out of its way not to offend anyone, it did break some new ground in terms of the way gay character were portrayed mainstream Hollywood movies.
The story centers around the friendship of a gay schoolteacher, George (Paul Rudd), and Nina Borowski (Jennifer Anniston), a straight social worker. When George is dumped by his boyfriend and needs a place to stay, Nina offers him her spare room. Over time, their friendship deepens. George offers Nina support and love in ways that her boyfriend, Stephen (Bradley White), does not. Nina, who is not happy in her relationship with Stephen, begins to fall in love with George and when she discovers she's pregnant, she asks George to be the baby's father, an offer he gladly accepts. Things become complicated when George meets Paul (Amo Gulinello) and begins to fall in love. Nina becomes jealous and has to make a decision about who her baby's father will be.
It's a charming movie, with terrific performances throughout. Rudd and Anniston share terrific chemistry. White is appropriately sleazy. Allison Janney and Alan Alda as Nina's sister and brother-in-law offer hilarious support. And Nigel Hawthorne as Paul's mentor, provides the movie with heart and soul. Pulitzer-prize winning playwright Wendy Wasserstein adapts Stephen McCauley's novel, and the script is solid. Nicholas Hytner's direction is assured, reuniting him with Hawthorne following their terrific work together on The Madness of King George. The movie is filled with laughs and genuine emotion. The scene in the gym where Nina confronts Stephen packs incredible power.
Some have complained that George is too perfect and too nice--that the filmmakers were so concerned about having the mainstream audience accept and root him that they went out of his way to make him bland and inoffensive. There might be a little truth in that, but I think Rudd's performance makes the character feel genuine at all times. There's no denying that gay men sometimes do treat women better than straight men, and that some straight women do fall in love with their gay male friends because of it.
However, the one thing that really pleases me about this movie is that it was the first mainstream Hollywood movie that allowed its gay character to be gay. (I exclude Torch Song Trilogy from this analysis as TST was about gay relationships.) Up to this point, gay characters were everybody's best friend or a problem--window dressing to offer witty banter or to show us how liberal our heterosexual leads were. The gay characters were only gay because we were told they were--they were never allowed to have a romance of their own. Their love lives were always non-existent or kept safely off-screen. The fact that George not only meets another guy and dates him, but they have a genuine romantic and sexual relationship, is a breakthrough. It's something that most mainstream Hollywood movies rarely address with their gay male characters even today (Will and Grace anyone?).
If you like this movie, then I strongly recommend: Trick, The Broken Hearts Club, Broadway Damage, Just One Time, Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss, Torch Song Trilogy, 9 to 5 (no gay content, but a very funny comedy written and directed by a gay man), and (begrudgingly as it is not nearly as good as the other movies on this list as it is very coy about the homosexuality of its characters), In & Out.
The
Return of Captain Invincible
Written by: Steven E. de Souza, Andrew Gaty
Additional Dialog: Peter Smalley
Directed by: Philippe Mora
My good pal Kevin Colden and I once tried to picture the meeting where this film was sold. I can't imagine what studio thought The Return of Captain Invincible was a great idea. Think about how writer/producer Andrew Gaty and his co-writer Stephen de Souza must have pitched it: "It's a movie about a superhero, but he's not a superhero any more. You see, his career was ruined by the McCarthy Communist witch hunts so he becomes a drunk and winds up in Australia. But it's a comedy because NO ONE takes superheroes seriously. And it stars Alan Arkin as the drunk superhero and Christopher Lee as the villain. AND it's a musical! With three songs by Richard O'Brien and Richard Hartley who wrote The Rocky Horror Show."
Who in their right mind would think this was a great idea?
This movie, along with The Pirate Movie, goes a long way to convincing me that Australians shouldn't make musicals.
Having said all that, and with the understood proviso that this is NOT A GOOD MOVIE by any means, this is an ENTERTAINING movie (under the right circumstances). It's the kind of movie that you want to show your friends to watch their reactions--especially if you don't tell them anything about it before hand and you removed all sharp objects from the vicinity. For example, the first song, with the stirring thirty second refrain of "Bullsh*t" that starts it, comes twenty minutes into the movie. Talk about surreal. If you had no prior clue that there was singing and dancing in the movie, you'd think that you were just watching a movie trying to be a campy superhero comedy. The song just knocks you for a loop. But the highlights have to be the VERY VERY strange musical numbers featuring Christopher Lee. On DVD, you can isolate these moments and share them with your friends without having to endure the movie that surrounds them.
I saw the movie first in its original VHS release. I can't say that I liked it, but it was memorable. I bought the DVD because of my memories of the Christopher Lee songs. They don't get much weirder than the climactic "Name Your Poison" number. The DVD pressing has no extra features and the screen aspect ratio is wrong. Even though the movie has been letterboxed and the transfer overseen by director Philippe Mora (Howlings II and III), the images are cut off to the left and the right. The end credits can not be read as they are chopped in half on the left hand side of the screen. It looks like the film was shot in 70mm but given a 35mm transfer. This causes some of Mora's compositions to suffer as he did put performers on opposite sides of the frame and in several cases, they are completely offscreen or cut in half in this transfer (although this might possibly be my monitor. The amount of cropping appears to change from TV to TV...).
The script was co-written by Stephen de Souza (Die Hards 1 and 2, 48 Hours, The Spirit tv movie) tries to be funny. It misses the mark most of the time. It's hard to make camp work. You either have to be extremely outrageous (a la Airplane!) or play it so seriously that the absudity becomes funny (the Batman TV show of the 60s). de Souza, who has admitted that he doesn't think people can take superheroes seriously, fails in making it work on either level. (Strangely enough, I kinda liked his script for The Spirit. It was flawed, but seemed to have more affection for the material than his Captain Invincible screenplay.) The other writer was the film's producer, Andrew Gaty.
The songs are a mixed bag. The three by O'Brien and Hartley show some genuine wit (which should come as no surprise) and seem to have more in common in terms of style and tone with their score for Shock Treatment than Rocky Horror. The other songs are mostly forgettable. I've seent he movie twice in the past week and I can't recall any of the music outside of the riotously absurd "Name Your Poison" number. The only other song to make an impact is Alan Arkin's heroes and villains number. I liked the lyrics, but the music (a country twang number) doesn't stick with me.
Each time I watched the movie, I couldn't help thinking "What a strange movie" every few minutes. It just gets weirder and weirder as it goes along. It's full of odd ideas and visuals, but most of them don't add up to anything. Just what is Julius (Mr. Midnight's sidekick)? If you think to hard about all the dangling elements and unanswered questions, you'll get a headache!
Bottom line: this is a great movie to watch with friends if you're looking for something to laugh at and be appalled by. Put this on a menu with "Buckaroo Banzai" and "Killer Klowns from Outer Space" for good mindless fun.
This movie is a visual treat, but be warned--it is not a spiritual sequel to the classic MGM version of The Wizard of Oz. This movie is much more in keeping with the tone of L. Frank Baum's original novels than the beloved Judy Garland movie and may be too disturbing for young children.
The story takes place after the twister devastated the Gale house. Dorothy (Fairuza Balk) is depressed, and no one wants to believe her stories about her trip to Oz. Finally, in hopes of curing her of her delusions, Auntie Em (Piper Laurie) takes Dorothy to see a psychiatrist in the big city. The psychiatrist convinces Auntie Em that all Dorothy needs is a bit of shock treatment to make her better.
Auntie Em leaves Dorothy in the Doctor's care, but before he can give her the treatment, a fierce electrical storm cuts off power to the hospital. Dorothy escapes with the help of a mysterious girl and gets swept down a raging river. She winds up back in Oz where she is befriended by a talking hen, Jack Pumpkinhead, and the robotic Tick Tock. Oz has fallen on bad times, overrun by the Gnome King (Nicol Williamson, happily chewing the scenery) and his ally, the evil Princess Moombi (Jean Marsh, who gives a fun performance). It is up to Dorothy and her friends to restore Oz to what once it was.
The real stars of this movie are the design and the puppetry. The movie is a visual feast. However, it is also slow going. I can't imagine kids sitting through it easily. It's hard enough for adults. The pacing is awkward and Fairuza Balk (in her screen debut) doesn't have the charaisma to sufficiently hold the viewer's interest in the slow parts.
It's hard to strongly recommend this movie to casual viewers, but those who enjoy beautiful set design, effective camera work, excellent special effects, and superb animation may be sufficiently entertained.
The DVD allows you to choose between letterbox and fullscreen presentation. It also includes an introduction by Fairuza Balk (she doesn't have anything terribly interesting to say, unfortunately) and an interview featurette. I suspect that people who enjoy the movie for its technical achievements will be disappointed by the featurette, especially if they are seeking more insight into the work that went into making the movie.
If you enjoy this movie, you may also like James and the Giant Peach, The Iron Giant, The Nightmare before Christmas, and The Wizard of Speed and Time.
Written and directed by: Victor Salva
I really, really liked this movie the first time I saw it. I still liked it a lot the second time, but I had to admit that the lead character, Campbell (Jason Behr), had to be exceptionally stupid (or, if I'm being generous, naïve) for this plot to work. However, as I was able to justify that stupidity (naïveté) in the context of his character, I can pretty much forgive it.
I don't want to give away too much about the plot in my review as the movie works best the less you know about it going in. The basic premise is a father and two sons for the first time in years are reunited at a remote cabin in the woods. As a lifetime of wrongs and hurts are confronted, two escaped convicts arrive at the door. Why are they there? What is their connection to the younger son? That's all I want to say about the plot.
This is a truly suspenseful thriller. Writer/director Victor Salva uses the remote location to maximum advantage in order to keep the tension high. But what really makes this movie stand out are the family relationships that drive all the characters. Secrets upon secrets are revealed at an exciting pace, and just when you think you know it all, something else is revealed. This is one severely dysfunctional family, indeed.
The performances are all solid, and standing out are Dean Stockwell as the father (he is also one of the producers of the movie) and Jason Behr (whom you might recognize from Roswell) as Campbell, the younger son.
If I have one misgiving about the film, it's that Campbell does come across as incredibly naïve/stupid (have I mentioned this sticking point before?). However, if you look at his character as being in search of a father figure, you can almost forgive his stupidity.
The DVD is in letterbox format and does have an interesting commentary track by Behr & Salva.
If you like this, you might also like the terrific Argentinian film Apartment Zero (directed by Martin Donovan), John Greyson's intriguingly experimental Lilies, the less appealing but still interesting French film Criminal Lovers, and/or the flawed but entertaining In the Flesh.
Written and directed by: Roger Avery
Never have I enjoyed watching a movie I didn't enjoy more. What do I mean by that? The filmmaking techniques in The Rules of Attraction employed by director Roger Avary, cinematographer Robert Brinkman, editor Sharon Rutter, and the slew of digital effects technicians and all the rest behind the scenes is splendid. This is a movie that people who appreciate the art of shooting and editing a movie can be thrilled by. The sheer visual joy of filmmaking is evident in almost every shot. It's too bad all this technical prowess and creativity is wasted on a whole bunch of characters that are shallow and unpleasant. It's the story and the performances that I didn't enjoy.
The Rules of Attraction centers around a group of reprehensible students at a small liberal arts college whose lives revolve around getting stoned/drunk and getting laid. Sure, that description can be applied to almost any teen "coming of age" comedy or drama. But the problem is that none of the characters in this movie had any redeeming qualities. There was no reason to root for any of them, no reason to care enough to become invested in the directions their lives would take them. On top of that, the script is a collection of disjointed scenes. These disjointed scenes allow for cameos by notable actors like Faye Dunaway, Swoosie Kurtz, Fred Savage, Paul Williams, Theresa Wayman, and not-so-notable Russell Sams, but none of their appearances really serve the story. In fact, you could take their scenes out of the movie, and nothing--absolutely nothing as far as the plot/story goes--would be lost. So, what was the point? In fact, the only one on that list whose character is an important plot point, a motivating factor for much of the lead character's actions, is removed from the story at the two thirds mark, but because of the disjointed nature of the script, the removal doesn't have any transformational effect on the lead character as it could or should.
As for the stars, from my understanding, Jason Van Der Beek chose this script because he wanted to break away from his Dawson's Creek image. Well, okay. The lead character Sean Bateman is a much different note than Dawson Leery. The problem is, it's only one note. Part of the blame must be laid on scriptwrite/director Roger Avary, because there isn't much in the way of development for the character (or any of the other characters) in word or direction, but Van Der Beek doesn't imbue the character with any depth of his own creation. Much of Van Der Beek's performance is made up of tilting his head down and looking up with his eyes to communicate menace, lust, puzzlement, being drunk/stoned, annoyance, fear, and an orgasm (mind you, not all at the same time). It's an extremely limited pallet, and it gets monotonous. The other two leads, Shannyn Sossamon and Ian Somerhalder (who have equally difficult names to spell), fare a little better as the script gives them both marginally more to do in terms of range and because they are able to inject small bits of humanity into their performances.
Ultimately, I watched the movie until the end and I'm glad I did. Not because I was transported by the story--that just annoyed me--but because I enjoyed the filmmaking technique. I just wish it could have been brought to material I appreciated more.
Note: The DVD contains an episode of Sundance Channel's Anatomy of a Shot that looks at the making of an incredibly effective scene conveyed in split screen. The scene is breathtaking in the movie and it was interesting to see how it was made.
Written and directed by: Everett Lewis
This is a movie that is completely undone by its ending.
Skin & Bone falls into the "hustler life" subcategory of queer movies. The central character is Harry (B. Wyatt), an aspiring actor who hustles for a living, treating each job as a chance to hone his acting abilities. He works for Ghislaine (Nicole Dillenberg) and is assigned the task of helping train the newest member of her stable, Dean (Alan Boyce). Harry and Dean turn tricks with both women and men. It's all a matter of economics for them, although Dean is still new enough to the business that he still gets off getting off with his female clients.
Writer/director Everett Lewis uses unconventional structure and technique to tell his story, and the filmmaking itself is interesting. When the script is focusing on the dehumanizing elements of their lives and the profession of selling their bodies, it is interesting and the acting is professional, if not terribly exciting. Unfortunately, Lewis's script takes a turn into the melodramatic (a common element in the "hustler life" genre), and the last act of the movie fails because of it. I found the ending, intended to be tragic, to be completely unbelievable--relying on a character to be such a complete idiot that he didn't realize what was happening.
I would strongly suggest that you rent this movie before you consider buying it. If the "hustler life" genre appeals to you, then you might want to check out johns and much more interesting (if for location and culture alone) Mandragora, although I don't strongly recommend either. L.I.E. is signifcantly better than these three titles (and has a great commentary track on the DVD) and a movie that genuinely improves on repeated viewings. If you want to see a really taut thriller about life on the streets, although not a queer film, then I would definitely recommend Where the Day Takes You.
And just to give credit where credit is due, I did enjoy Lewis's next movie Luster.
Written by: David Reitz and John Shear
Directed by: John Shear
Urbania is one of the more interesting independent films I've purchased. As a writer, I am fascinated with urban legends. As a filmmaker, I enjoy movies that challenge traditional structure while still delivering a coherent story. On the second level, this movie really delivers. On the first, it's a little muddled, but still affecting.
The story centers around Charlie (Dan Futterman) who is coming to terms with the end of a relationship. He is a lonely writer who wants to give his life meaning--to turn his lifeinto the stuff of urban legend. He becomes obsessed with a man he sees on the street whom he believes can relieve him of the despair he feels. It would be unfair to say anything more than that as I don't want to spoil the intricate plot.
The performances are all excellent, with Dan Futterman and Alan Cumming give standout performances. The script serves them well as does the direction. This is a movie that improves on subsequent viewing as subtle pieces of the puzzle that you may have missed the first time(s) become more noticeable.
Given the virtuosity of the filmmaking, I found it difficult to believe that the script was based on the play Urban Folk Tales by David Reitz. Reitz shares screenwriting credit with director John Shear. It would intrigue me to see the stage version, as I can't imagine how the play could work as powerfully as the film version. The way director Shear movies his camera (and the audience) through time and space is so integral to the storytelling that I have trouble conceptualizing how it would play out on stage.
I strongly recommend this movie to anyone who saw and enjoyed Memento and Green Plaid Shirt. (The reverse is also true, if you've seen Urbania, but not Memento or Green Plaid Shirt, then do so.) I also find it interesting to compare Urbania to "Candyman" in its use of urban legends.
Page
design
and content
©2006 Joe Edkin.