The poster for this made it out to be a feel-good coming of age movie but the graphic violence at the beginning was enough to nearly walk us out the door. I kept thinking 'there must be some redeeming feature', and by the end I realized there was, though I'm not sure everyone would see it like that. For me it was like a karass in Vonnegut's The Cat's Cradle, defined on google as: "the Bokononist term for a group of people brought together to do God's work-though the purpose of that work is not something they can ever be fully aware of." I thought that was what this movie was about, and Addie was the person who somehow brought it all together. It did have a happy ending of sorts, sort of like The Black Phone. It's not as if Balli's journey from nearly sub-human to happy kid just happened, and it wasn't some cinematic bit of gift wrapping. I guess one might think that it came out of the blue... if one didn't understand the movie at all. The movie also reminded me so much of some Almodóvar films, especially "Habla con ella".(which also had some weird dream sequences) There were miracles in both.
Reviews
16 Reviews
End of the Century
(2019)
Missed connedtion
17 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that I was getting annoyed when nothing happened for the first ten minutes of this movie but decided to withhold judgment until the end. It turned out, to my mind at least, that it was integral to the plot. Nothing happened.
It's difficult to write about this movie without spoilers, mostly because perhaps nothing is as it seems, though that is not particularly apparent for most of the movie. Looking back, how strange is it that a man should come back to a city where he had a one night drunken adventure and then run into the same guy twenty years later wearing a tee shirt he had bought at the time. And why did he come back to that city, that place.
It got me to thinking about some guys I could have hooked up with and then didn't. Perhaps you go back, thinking that they might be there in the same place, on the next day and of course they almost never are. But then I found myself thinking about the relationship that clicked for me (fifty years ago) and how different my life would be if I had made one stupid move and let him get away.
So I think this a movie, not about the connections that seem to be made in the present but actually about the connection that was missed twenty years ago.
It's difficult to write about this movie without spoilers, mostly because perhaps nothing is as it seems, though that is not particularly apparent for most of the movie. Looking back, how strange is it that a man should come back to a city where he had a one night drunken adventure and then run into the same guy twenty years later wearing a tee shirt he had bought at the time. And why did he come back to that city, that place.
It got me to thinking about some guys I could have hooked up with and then didn't. Perhaps you go back, thinking that they might be there in the same place, on the next day and of course they almost never are. But then I found myself thinking about the relationship that clicked for me (fifty years ago) and how different my life would be if I had made one stupid move and let him get away.
So I think this a movie, not about the connections that seem to be made in the present but actually about the connection that was missed twenty years ago.
Anything
(2017)
A very intersting story. well told
3 May 2018
I saw this yesterday at an advanced screening. I have to say that I went in not really expecting much and came away really impressed. I woke up this morning with elements of the story still running through my mind
It was a very interesting story well told. It's mostly a movie about LA but the opening, which take place in a small Southern town, tells us all we need to about the 'back story' in just a few moments with very few words. Everything centers on a character named Early, played by John Carroll Lynch. He is a man of few words and so much of the movie's style revolves around that. However, Early is book-ended by two very different, but equally 'outspoken', women. In fact, sometimes both seem incapable of knowing when a bit of silence would be appropriate. However, a third woman is always in the background. We never see her but, in one of the loveliest scenes in the film, we hear her words which are simple, clear and affectionate. I think that perhaps dealing with the loud and theatrical personality of the woman with whom he is now fascinated, is more of a stretch for Early than dealing with her gender.
A word about Matt Bomer: If memory serves there was something of an uproar from trans activists when he was cast in this part. I admit that I was somewhat skeptical that he could pull it off. However I have to say that Freda was a memorable, and totally believable, screen character. I suppose there was some Matt Bomer in her somewhere but I didn't really see it or feel it. It was an amazing piece of work. Bomer is an out gay actor who was totally convincing playing a straight romantic lead in White Collar, and who then moved on to break my heart playing closeted Felix in The Normal Heart. I can't wait for The Boys in the Band, opening soon on Broadway. This movie has a lot of supportive things to say about Freda, an attractive and interesting trans woman. In my opinion it would be a shame if trans activists were to decide to shoot themselves in the foot..... to shoot the entire trans community in the foot actually..... by trying to deny it an audience. I might point out that Boys in the Band was attacked as being an 'incorrect' depiction of gay life when it originally played.
I might add that if one insists that a cisgender actor should not be cast to play a transgender character then it follows that a transgender actor should not be cast to play a cisgender character.
It was a very interesting story well told. It's mostly a movie about LA but the opening, which take place in a small Southern town, tells us all we need to about the 'back story' in just a few moments with very few words. Everything centers on a character named Early, played by John Carroll Lynch. He is a man of few words and so much of the movie's style revolves around that. However, Early is book-ended by two very different, but equally 'outspoken', women. In fact, sometimes both seem incapable of knowing when a bit of silence would be appropriate. However, a third woman is always in the background. We never see her but, in one of the loveliest scenes in the film, we hear her words which are simple, clear and affectionate. I think that perhaps dealing with the loud and theatrical personality of the woman with whom he is now fascinated, is more of a stretch for Early than dealing with her gender.
A word about Matt Bomer: If memory serves there was something of an uproar from trans activists when he was cast in this part. I admit that I was somewhat skeptical that he could pull it off. However I have to say that Freda was a memorable, and totally believable, screen character. I suppose there was some Matt Bomer in her somewhere but I didn't really see it or feel it. It was an amazing piece of work. Bomer is an out gay actor who was totally convincing playing a straight romantic lead in White Collar, and who then moved on to break my heart playing closeted Felix in The Normal Heart. I can't wait for The Boys in the Band, opening soon on Broadway. This movie has a lot of supportive things to say about Freda, an attractive and interesting trans woman. In my opinion it would be a shame if trans activists were to decide to shoot themselves in the foot..... to shoot the entire trans community in the foot actually..... by trying to deny it an audience. I might point out that Boys in the Band was attacked as being an 'incorrect' depiction of gay life when it originally played.
I might add that if one insists that a cisgender actor should not be cast to play a transgender character then it follows that a transgender actor should not be cast to play a cisgender character.
Basmati Blues
(2017)
Bollywood, not Rom-Com
13 February 2018
I saw this movie this morning knowing nearly nothing about it. However fairly quickly, as soon as the setting moved to India, it dawned on me that I was watching sort of a western take on a Bollywood movie with music, and romance, dancing, good guys, bad guys, a love triangle, a bit of suspense and a bit of mayhem. The standard elements, identified by some other reviewers here as rom-com are the expected elements in a classic Bollywood film. And, let me be perfectly clear, the bad guys here are clearly the westerners. In fact, part of the suspense comes from wondering how the well-meaning western heroine, a scientist who has naively allowed herself to be manipulated by American agribusiness into doing something very harmful, can possibly redeem herself. Finally she will have to realize that the small farmers who surround her, and who have taken her into their hearts, are living and working under a system very different that what we usually see in the United States. These farmers do not hop into a giant pick-up truck, drive into town, take out a loan and buy their seed from a farm supply store.
In my opinion, this is not a great film but it was a lot of fun. I liked it a lot more than La La Land which I also saw very early in its run with no pre-conceived notions of what I would be seeing. However, as I write this, Basmati Blues has a 3.7 rating here while La La Land has an 8.1. I don't get that....
Tonight I did a search on this movie and discovered that an early trailer had ignited controversy.... because of a white horse? and because of the present day phenomenon where angry trolls seem intent on attacking and destroying a movie they could not have actually seen. Please, just don't listen to them!
La La Land
(2016)
Is that all there is?
19 December 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't lived in Los Angles in almost thirty years and was curious to see a movie about the present day city. I was really quite surprised to find that there appear to be no same sex couples there.... not on the streets, in restaurants and clubs, at parties... anywhere! Of course, lack of LGBT representation doesn't make this a bad movie and the fact that there wasn't a hint of even a token LGBT character doesn't really mean much because, other than the two lovers, there weren't any characters to speak of. OK, there was John Legend's who has about six lines of dialog and a big song that really has nothing to do with the narrative. There was a sister.... what happened to her? and the room mates.... what happened to them? the restaurant owner?
I can think of two other musicals that rely almost entirely on the give and take in a relationship: "I do! I do!" was a hit on Broadway but that at least follows the couple over the course of fifty years. A more recent movie, "The Last Five Years", probably has much more in common with "La La Land", but that movie rates a 5.9 on IMDb and this one is currently clocking a stupendous 8.9
My guess is that if the two main characters really connect with your inner daydream this movie will really resonate for you. Let's face it, the notion that Mia would somehow write a one woman show, pull together the money to rent a theater and mount a production, give up completely and return to Nevada, be called in by a director who somehow has the funds for a movie and a location, Paris, but no script.... and presumably tracks her down to offer her both the lead and the script-writing, all on the strength of one performance? This is clearly daydream territory. So, be my guest, dream on. It's just that I didn't particularly like either character and that leaves me being entertained, up to a point, by everything else. The singing was OK, the dancing too. The music was OK. The snappy production was impressive but I personally preferred the long, live, takes and the more realistic look of "The Last Five Years", a movie that never got the hype that surrounds this one.
So that brings me back, in a way, to my original point. Twenty-five years ago "Newsies" was a major studio re-launch of the classic movie musical. I remember that it got some the worst reviews I have ever seen and bombed at the box office. Even now, after selling zillions of VCR and DVD units, and spawning an, originally overlooked, but eventually smash hit Broadway production it only rates a 6.9 here. Could that be because it was directed by Kenny Ortega and features a cast of dancing paperboys, and not the dreamy pairing of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone?
So my point would be that "La La Land" is really awesome as the ultimate heterosexual movie musical of our time. It's not fabulous and it clearly doesn't want to be. It traces its origins back to Fred and Ginger, or Gene and Debbie, but without the aid of Edward Everett and Helen, or Donald and Jean or any of the characters that helped to make those movies so memorable. And so I would ask, "Is that all there is?"
I can think of two other musicals that rely almost entirely on the give and take in a relationship: "I do! I do!" was a hit on Broadway but that at least follows the couple over the course of fifty years. A more recent movie, "The Last Five Years", probably has much more in common with "La La Land", but that movie rates a 5.9 on IMDb and this one is currently clocking a stupendous 8.9
My guess is that if the two main characters really connect with your inner daydream this movie will really resonate for you. Let's face it, the notion that Mia would somehow write a one woman show, pull together the money to rent a theater and mount a production, give up completely and return to Nevada, be called in by a director who somehow has the funds for a movie and a location, Paris, but no script.... and presumably tracks her down to offer her both the lead and the script-writing, all on the strength of one performance? This is clearly daydream territory. So, be my guest, dream on. It's just that I didn't particularly like either character and that leaves me being entertained, up to a point, by everything else. The singing was OK, the dancing too. The music was OK. The snappy production was impressive but I personally preferred the long, live, takes and the more realistic look of "The Last Five Years", a movie that never got the hype that surrounds this one.
So that brings me back, in a way, to my original point. Twenty-five years ago "Newsies" was a major studio re-launch of the classic movie musical. I remember that it got some the worst reviews I have ever seen and bombed at the box office. Even now, after selling zillions of VCR and DVD units, and spawning an, originally overlooked, but eventually smash hit Broadway production it only rates a 6.9 here. Could that be because it was directed by Kenny Ortega and features a cast of dancing paperboys, and not the dreamy pairing of Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone?
So my point would be that "La La Land" is really awesome as the ultimate heterosexual movie musical of our time. It's not fabulous and it clearly doesn't want to be. It traces its origins back to Fred and Ginger, or Gene and Debbie, but without the aid of Edward Everett and Helen, or Donald and Jean or any of the characters that helped to make those movies so memorable. And so I would ask, "Is that all there is?"
Akron
(2015)
A good film well worth seeing
27 November 2016
I saw this movie. Akron, at NewFest here in NYC and liked it. Both guys were attractive and it was very romantic, sometimes erotic, and interesting because their relationship was accepted by both families, even the Latino father of the character played by Matthew Frias. Joseph Melendez, the actor who played his father, was at the screening and he mentioned that he was eager to play the part of a Latino father who didn't, stereotypically, throw his gay son out of the house. The interesting plot really revolved around an event that was not related to the gay theme at all.
However the movie has a 3.7 rating on IMDb which is ridiculous and, to my mind, is another proof that IMDb is being trolled by homophobes. Many years ago the website created a complex rating system that was designed to minimize attempts by the industry to puff up their product, by having all their employees give a film 10 for example, or having a popular star instruct fans to do the same. The problem is that at that time the present culture of mean, negative, trashing commentary was only just rearing its ugly head and IMDb has apparently done nothing to try to minimize this newer phenomenon.
Of the 112 people who rated this movie, 23 gave it a '10' and then the ratings gradually ramp down from there until you get to 41 people who gave it a '1' rating. Are we really supposed to believe that 41 people saw this gay themed movie in its very limited distribution and hated it so much that they ran home and logged into IMDb to rate it as low as possible? In addition, none of these 41 people hated it enough to bother to write a single negative review.
It seems to me that if just one anti-gay group told its members to go home, register for IMDb, and trash the film it could be very effective in warping the IMDb ratings for a small film like this..... a church with a large Latino membership in Akron who objected to being portrayed as gay accepting comes to mind..... just sayin'.
So the point of all these words is to suggest that it would be wise to think twice before avoiding a gay themed film just because it seems to have a abysmally low rating on IMDb.
However the movie has a 3.7 rating on IMDb which is ridiculous and, to my mind, is another proof that IMDb is being trolled by homophobes. Many years ago the website created a complex rating system that was designed to minimize attempts by the industry to puff up their product, by having all their employees give a film 10 for example, or having a popular star instruct fans to do the same. The problem is that at that time the present culture of mean, negative, trashing commentary was only just rearing its ugly head and IMDb has apparently done nothing to try to minimize this newer phenomenon.
Of the 112 people who rated this movie, 23 gave it a '10' and then the ratings gradually ramp down from there until you get to 41 people who gave it a '1' rating. Are we really supposed to believe that 41 people saw this gay themed movie in its very limited distribution and hated it so much that they ran home and logged into IMDb to rate it as low as possible? In addition, none of these 41 people hated it enough to bother to write a single negative review.
It seems to me that if just one anti-gay group told its members to go home, register for IMDb, and trash the film it could be very effective in warping the IMDb ratings for a small film like this..... a church with a large Latino membership in Akron who objected to being portrayed as gay accepting comes to mind..... just sayin'.
So the point of all these words is to suggest that it would be wise to think twice before avoiding a gay themed film just because it seems to have a abysmally low rating on IMDb.
King Cobra
(2016)
Garrett Clayton nails it
31 October 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I have to say that this movie was much better than I expected it to be. I suppose I went to see if Garrett Clayton could pull off (no pun intended) playing Brent Corrigan and I felt that he really nailed it (no pun intended). I actually would have been satisfied just to see him in the flesh, as Steven (Christian Slater) remarks at the beginning (was there a pun intended?) and I would have been disappointed if there wasn't enough of his fabulous self on display. In this respect I suspect that many the targeted audience share my hopeful expectations and I would assure them that I wasn't disappointed, though obviously this was a film about porn films and not actually a porn film. However I was pleasantly surprised that I found the movie generally entertaining and that the people I saw it with...... really I should say gay men I saw it with.... found that there was plenty to discuss after we saw it.
I have no idea how accurate it was and I know nothing about the director, couldn't care less about Franco's sexuality. Reviewers here have complained that it wasn't sordid enough but I think one could assume that at least two of the totally unhinged characters were 'perhaps' using controlled substances so I'm not sure we needed to actually see them ingested. The two characters I refer to were very nearly played for laughs, until the very, very real violence that, considering that this was based on a true story, did not come as a complete surprise. And then the cheesy faux Schubert that accompanied their denouement sort of put a black comic cherry on top. Others have complained that it doesn't portray the full spectrum of gay life. Well.....duh?
I have just seen eight films at NewFest (The LGBTQ film festival here in NYC) and I wouldn't rank this at the top of them, but then again I wouldn't rank it at the bottom either. And last week I saw "Moonlight" and , though I expect I will be dodging pitchforks for saying this, I don't think it was all that much better than King Cobra.
For those of you expecting thrilling action I should warn that this story played more like "In Cold Blood" than "Boogie Nights". I was surprised that the story wasn't sensationalized more, though perhaps it was and I'm just too jaded to see it. It certainly wasn't a movie to take your mother to, however. Finally, I want to say that, although the entire cast did an excellent job, Clayton really stole the show.... and it was a lot of fun hearing him shout out the last line!
I have no idea how accurate it was and I know nothing about the director, couldn't care less about Franco's sexuality. Reviewers here have complained that it wasn't sordid enough but I think one could assume that at least two of the totally unhinged characters were 'perhaps' using controlled substances so I'm not sure we needed to actually see them ingested. The two characters I refer to were very nearly played for laughs, until the very, very real violence that, considering that this was based on a true story, did not come as a complete surprise. And then the cheesy faux Schubert that accompanied their denouement sort of put a black comic cherry on top. Others have complained that it doesn't portray the full spectrum of gay life. Well.....duh?
I have just seen eight films at NewFest (The LGBTQ film festival here in NYC) and I wouldn't rank this at the top of them, but then again I wouldn't rank it at the bottom either. And last week I saw "Moonlight" and , though I expect I will be dodging pitchforks for saying this, I don't think it was all that much better than King Cobra.
For those of you expecting thrilling action I should warn that this story played more like "In Cold Blood" than "Boogie Nights". I was surprised that the story wasn't sensationalized more, though perhaps it was and I'm just too jaded to see it. It certainly wasn't a movie to take your mother to, however. Finally, I want to say that, although the entire cast did an excellent job, Clayton really stole the show.... and it was a lot of fun hearing him shout out the last line!
The Real O'Neals
(2016–2017)
Very funny, entertaining and thought provoking
10 March 2016
We just saw the first and fourth episodes of this at a screening and since the audience loved it and were laughing like crazy I have to say that I am suspicious of a few of the eleven revues I see here. It seems that the Catholic League and the Hundred.....er... 'Million Moms' have a problem with it so I can't help but wondering if they are using IMDb to try to scuttle it.
It's a very funny comedy which deals with timely and serious issues. If you think that a young gay character should not be depicted on broadcast TV or that the Catholic Church is a sacred institution about which nothing humorous can ever be said or even implied than I suggest you steer away from this show.
However, I have to say that I thought the pilot one of the best I have ever seen. If I had any problem with the show it was that the Catholic School that he was attending wasn't dealing with him the way that the Catholic League is dealing with this show, in other words going on the attack with reckless abandon.
All five members of this family were a bit over the top but I liked them all. The relationship between the mother and the son was especially unusual in my experience with sitcoms so I'm not sure where the notion that this series is 'nothing new' is coming from?
Looking at the five 1*star reviews that are present , as I am writing this, two were from members who have never reviewed anything before, one from a reviewer whose only recent reviews were "Trash" and "Terrible" and one from someone who loved "Paul Blart: Mall Cop II" saying "This is the kind of film we need more of in America. No profanity, no homos"..... So if that's where you're coming from stay away from The Real O'Neals. Otherwise, I suggest you give it a try.
It's a very funny comedy which deals with timely and serious issues. If you think that a young gay character should not be depicted on broadcast TV or that the Catholic Church is a sacred institution about which nothing humorous can ever be said or even implied than I suggest you steer away from this show.
However, I have to say that I thought the pilot one of the best I have ever seen. If I had any problem with the show it was that the Catholic School that he was attending wasn't dealing with him the way that the Catholic League is dealing with this show, in other words going on the attack with reckless abandon.
All five members of this family were a bit over the top but I liked them all. The relationship between the mother and the son was especially unusual in my experience with sitcoms so I'm not sure where the notion that this series is 'nothing new' is coming from?
Looking at the five 1*star reviews that are present , as I am writing this, two were from members who have never reviewed anything before, one from a reviewer whose only recent reviews were "Trash" and "Terrible" and one from someone who loved "Paul Blart: Mall Cop II" saying "This is the kind of film we need more of in America. No profanity, no homos"..... So if that's where you're coming from stay away from The Real O'Neals. Otherwise, I suggest you give it a try.
Addicted to Fresno
(2015)
A lot of fun
4 September 2015
I saw this yesterday at a sold out Newfest screening in NYC. The audience loved it. I wouldn't say that this movie is the next "Some Like it Hot" or "Sullivan's Travels" but it was a lot of fun. When I saw it, the audience was laughing a lot and they howled at the Bar Mitzvah scene and the 'fellatio' scene too.
Today I see three negative reviews here. Two, it would seem at least, are from men. One of whom tags himself: cinnyaste? I see that he has written 80 reviews here at IMDb. The two others are strangely similar, and were posted on the same day, the second by a reviewer who had only been an IMDb member for one day when this one solitary review was posted?
The audience at Newfest was more women than men. The two stars of the movie are women as are the writer and director. Cinnyaste (I guess the common spelling was already taken) claims: "Another misstep is the addition of a neither-here-nor-there LGBT agenda which doesn't mix well with the main story" Agenda? Let me say that again, Agenda????? Since one of the two sisters is a lesbian would subtracting her sexuality from the story have given the "main plot" of the movie less of a LGBT agenda? Well I guess it would. The resulting half plot would have been much less agendified.
The other sister has problems with an addiction and a codependency between the two runs as a serious thread throughout the film. However this is primarily a comedy and I can assure you the that there were a lot of laughs. Although this movie was admittedly a low budget quickie, which was mostly shot in the motel where it took place, it was much better than these two...... sorry three..... reviewers would have you believe.
To the reviewer who complains that he doesn't believe that any of the creative team are from Fresno... gasp!... I would point out that this story could have taken place in any one of a thousand small cities across this country. A recurring complaint about so many American cities these days is that they are all very nearly the same.
Today I see three negative reviews here. Two, it would seem at least, are from men. One of whom tags himself: cinnyaste? I see that he has written 80 reviews here at IMDb. The two others are strangely similar, and were posted on the same day, the second by a reviewer who had only been an IMDb member for one day when this one solitary review was posted?
The audience at Newfest was more women than men. The two stars of the movie are women as are the writer and director. Cinnyaste (I guess the common spelling was already taken) claims: "Another misstep is the addition of a neither-here-nor-there LGBT agenda which doesn't mix well with the main story" Agenda? Let me say that again, Agenda????? Since one of the two sisters is a lesbian would subtracting her sexuality from the story have given the "main plot" of the movie less of a LGBT agenda? Well I guess it would. The resulting half plot would have been much less agendified.
The other sister has problems with an addiction and a codependency between the two runs as a serious thread throughout the film. However this is primarily a comedy and I can assure you the that there were a lot of laughs. Although this movie was admittedly a low budget quickie, which was mostly shot in the motel where it took place, it was much better than these two...... sorry three..... reviewers would have you believe.
To the reviewer who complains that he doesn't believe that any of the creative team are from Fresno... gasp!... I would point out that this story could have taken place in any one of a thousand small cities across this country. A recurring complaint about so many American cities these days is that they are all very nearly the same.
La diosa arrodillada
(1947)
Steamy !
28 July 2015
I saw a beautifully restored print of this yesterday at the Museum Of Modern Art, NYC. The theater was totally full but this was something of a pot boiler and I'm not sure what the cineastes thought of it. At least they could put it on their list. Not being a film fanatic I was just curious to see how a 'serious' Mexican film from that era might look. I must say the production values were very good indeed. Amazing sets and wardrobe and complex camera angels. María Félix could compete with any of the Hollywood divas. It was interesting that some of her gowns featured horizontal stripes which were apparently designed to make her more 'broad' of hip and bust. She looked great, but not exactly by modern American standards.
The movie reminded me of "Gilda", which IMDb dates from the year before, but not as neatly put together. It seemed to me that there might have been a rational and organized plot lurking beneath all the confusion but when I thought about it I realized that such a plot would have been a bit trite and contrived and ultimately boring so why not gussy it up a bit. At one point a servant fills some screen time lighting a fire and then a bit later we have a shot from inside the fireplace, through the flames and into the room. Don't see that every day! Actually, for me the most memorable setup was a shot from the garden with the naked derrière of the kneeling goddess statue in the foreground. Behind, through French doors into the dining room, we can see Félix sitting at the far end of a long table, alone and still. The front of a car pulls up in a driveway on the right side of the frame, its light go out, the door slams and then, after a moment we see Córdova, inside, walking across the foyer, far behind her. A great shot which contributes almost nothing to the telling of the story.
So between this, and Lady from Shanghai (also 1947) and Gilda I would choose Rita and Glenn. To my taste Glenn is cuter than Orson or Arturo, Rita actually had me convinced that I was straight for a day, and as much as I admire Agustin Lara, Put the Blame on Mame is a better song than the one featured in this film. But I suggest that you see all three and decide for yourself!
The movie reminded me of "Gilda", which IMDb dates from the year before, but not as neatly put together. It seemed to me that there might have been a rational and organized plot lurking beneath all the confusion but when I thought about it I realized that such a plot would have been a bit trite and contrived and ultimately boring so why not gussy it up a bit. At one point a servant fills some screen time lighting a fire and then a bit later we have a shot from inside the fireplace, through the flames and into the room. Don't see that every day! Actually, for me the most memorable setup was a shot from the garden with the naked derrière of the kneeling goddess statue in the foreground. Behind, through French doors into the dining room, we can see Félix sitting at the far end of a long table, alone and still. The front of a car pulls up in a driveway on the right side of the frame, its light go out, the door slams and then, after a moment we see Córdova, inside, walking across the foyer, far behind her. A great shot which contributes almost nothing to the telling of the story.
So between this, and Lady from Shanghai (also 1947) and Gilda I would choose Rita and Glenn. To my taste Glenn is cuter than Orson or Arturo, Rita actually had me convinced that I was straight for a day, and as much as I admire Agustin Lara, Put the Blame on Mame is a better song than the one featured in this film. But I suggest that you see all three and decide for yourself!
Pride
(I) (2014)
Fabulous!
5 September 2014
I was invited to a screening of this and went expecting to be informed and intellectually stimulated, which I was. But I didn't expect the movie to be so unbelievably entertaining. It starts with the music of Pete Seeger and ends with Billy Bragg, two activist musicians who I greatly admire, but along the way a key scene dances its heart out to Shirley and Company (you'll probably have to look that up).
I suppose I should have anticipated that since the UK Miner's strike of 1984 had already generated one great movie, Billy Elliot (with its own great dance sequence to T Rex), the magic was there to be tapped again. Perhaps it's that Maggie Thatcher makes such a great evil queen villain. But as Shirley sings, "One monkey don't stop no show"
So I urge you to see this and have yourself a grand old time.
This week I've seen three movies that might be classified as message movies, First "Love is Strange" which was all very moving and sentimental but which had so many script problems that at a certain point it was really a chore to ignore them. Then " La Grande Illusion" at MoMA which is certainly well scripted and constructed but ultimately, for me, not very emotionally moving. This movie was so fast and fun and furious that if there were any problems I've long ago forgotten them. And, without a doubt, the message came through strong and clear and fabulous.
I suppose I should warn you that if you get steamed up when you can't understand every word of an 'across the pond' accent, maybe you should wait for a DVD with subtitles.
Also: If you think of Rupert Murdoch is a great Australian er.....Brit.... er .. American... then this movie is not for you. If you think that "Wild Strawberries" provides a template upon which all movies should be based then this movie is not for you. If, however, you thought that "Kinky Boots" was not quite RED! enough (there's a double entendre there) then buy a ticket to this and have a ball!
I suppose I should have anticipated that since the UK Miner's strike of 1984 had already generated one great movie, Billy Elliot (with its own great dance sequence to T Rex), the magic was there to be tapped again. Perhaps it's that Maggie Thatcher makes such a great evil queen villain. But as Shirley sings, "One monkey don't stop no show"
So I urge you to see this and have yourself a grand old time.
This week I've seen three movies that might be classified as message movies, First "Love is Strange" which was all very moving and sentimental but which had so many script problems that at a certain point it was really a chore to ignore them. Then " La Grande Illusion" at MoMA which is certainly well scripted and constructed but ultimately, for me, not very emotionally moving. This movie was so fast and fun and furious that if there were any problems I've long ago forgotten them. And, without a doubt, the message came through strong and clear and fabulous.
I suppose I should warn you that if you get steamed up when you can't understand every word of an 'across the pond' accent, maybe you should wait for a DVD with subtitles.
Also: If you think of Rupert Murdoch is a great Australian er.....Brit.... er .. American... then this movie is not for you. If you think that "Wild Strawberries" provides a template upon which all movies should be based then this movie is not for you. If, however, you thought that "Kinky Boots" was not quite RED! enough (there's a double entendre there) then buy a ticket to this and have a ball!
Burning Blue
(2013)
Glad I saw this....
13 June 2014
I certainly wouldn't consider this movie to be a great film but I liked it and am glad I got a chance to see it.
It has always seemed to me that a surprising number of the negative reviews that I read at IMDb fall into two categories. The first is that the movie was not a movie that the reviewer wanted to see, and the second that the movie wasn't made in the manner that the reviewer would have made it. Keeping that in mind I would caution anyone thinking of seeing this that it is NOT a feel good story of 'coming out' in the military. In fact I don't think that I would even characterize it as a gay movie. I would say that it is first and foremost about the military itself and more particularly about the anti-gay witch hunts that were commonplace in the military for decades. It clearly is made from the point of view that these witch hunts had a negative impact on everyone involved, including the military itself. Consequently, there are going to be people who dislike this movie because they despise the idea of gays in the military. In other words, this is not a movie they wanted to see..... ever..... and they don't want you to see it either.
This is a movie about a bunch of guys having a jolly old time flying, and incidentally crashing, very expensive fighter planes during a time of supposed 'peace'. It wouldn't appear that any of them have any doubts about the nature of their sexual orientation. They are the kind of straight dudes that can cavort around naked, even get raunchy and physical with each other without seeing it as really sexual at all. The investigation that becomes central to the film actually comes about because of how they are doing their job; their negligence and dishonesty. If there is one thing that unites them it is the necessity of covering up their screw-ups, and this attitude goes all the way up to the highest command level. To the reviewer who complained that more than 30 minutes at the beginning of the film were devoted to "exposition and character development" I would suggest that, no, this was the actual film. It just wasn't the film you wanted to see. (By the way, I also might mention to the reviewer who complained "It was so hard to follow. Couldn't tell if a day went by, a month, a year or many years" that, in the print I saw at least, the years and locations of each segment were clearly written on the screen. Perhaps you just were too lazy to read them. That could also be why you mistakenly thought it "represented the 1950's")
I have to say that I personally did not particularly enjoy the 'top gun' style antics of these guys. I have a low opinion of the movie "Top Gun" because it helped people get over sour memories of the Vietnam debacle, not a bad thing in itself, but unfortunately I believe it made it easier for us to be led us into the First Gulf War, which many people in this country found to be highly enjoyable and uplifting, but then, again, into the Second one which was 'fun' to watch on TV at first but then not nearly as much fun as it dragged on and on...... like Vietnam. On the plus side, it didn't seem to me that any of the main characters here were portrayed as heroes, except perhaps the one who walks away. Most are easy on the eyes, and I have to hand it to them, they were able to get stinking drunk in their studly white uniforms without spilling a drop.
I think it is fair to point out that "Burning Blue" has what might be considered to be problems with continuity and clarity but I recently saw "Breathless", a movie often found in critic's top ten all time lists, and it was considerably more incoherent and less clear than this film. "Breathless" jumps all over the place. But as one highly respected critic has said, that represents: "the meaninglessness of the time interval between moral decisions." Huh??? If a defining moment here in a crucial scene slips by us unnoticed could it be because the individuals involved initially would prefer to pretend it never happened? And then, for reasons both personal and legal, that turns out to be a rather difficult to accomplish.
It has always seemed to me that a surprising number of the negative reviews that I read at IMDb fall into two categories. The first is that the movie was not a movie that the reviewer wanted to see, and the second that the movie wasn't made in the manner that the reviewer would have made it. Keeping that in mind I would caution anyone thinking of seeing this that it is NOT a feel good story of 'coming out' in the military. In fact I don't think that I would even characterize it as a gay movie. I would say that it is first and foremost about the military itself and more particularly about the anti-gay witch hunts that were commonplace in the military for decades. It clearly is made from the point of view that these witch hunts had a negative impact on everyone involved, including the military itself. Consequently, there are going to be people who dislike this movie because they despise the idea of gays in the military. In other words, this is not a movie they wanted to see..... ever..... and they don't want you to see it either.
This is a movie about a bunch of guys having a jolly old time flying, and incidentally crashing, very expensive fighter planes during a time of supposed 'peace'. It wouldn't appear that any of them have any doubts about the nature of their sexual orientation. They are the kind of straight dudes that can cavort around naked, even get raunchy and physical with each other without seeing it as really sexual at all. The investigation that becomes central to the film actually comes about because of how they are doing their job; their negligence and dishonesty. If there is one thing that unites them it is the necessity of covering up their screw-ups, and this attitude goes all the way up to the highest command level. To the reviewer who complained that more than 30 minutes at the beginning of the film were devoted to "exposition and character development" I would suggest that, no, this was the actual film. It just wasn't the film you wanted to see. (By the way, I also might mention to the reviewer who complained "It was so hard to follow. Couldn't tell if a day went by, a month, a year or many years" that, in the print I saw at least, the years and locations of each segment were clearly written on the screen. Perhaps you just were too lazy to read them. That could also be why you mistakenly thought it "represented the 1950's")
I have to say that I personally did not particularly enjoy the 'top gun' style antics of these guys. I have a low opinion of the movie "Top Gun" because it helped people get over sour memories of the Vietnam debacle, not a bad thing in itself, but unfortunately I believe it made it easier for us to be led us into the First Gulf War, which many people in this country found to be highly enjoyable and uplifting, but then, again, into the Second one which was 'fun' to watch on TV at first but then not nearly as much fun as it dragged on and on...... like Vietnam. On the plus side, it didn't seem to me that any of the main characters here were portrayed as heroes, except perhaps the one who walks away. Most are easy on the eyes, and I have to hand it to them, they were able to get stinking drunk in their studly white uniforms without spilling a drop.
I think it is fair to point out that "Burning Blue" has what might be considered to be problems with continuity and clarity but I recently saw "Breathless", a movie often found in critic's top ten all time lists, and it was considerably more incoherent and less clear than this film. "Breathless" jumps all over the place. But as one highly respected critic has said, that represents: "the meaninglessness of the time interval between moral decisions." Huh??? If a defining moment here in a crucial scene slips by us unnoticed could it be because the individuals involved initially would prefer to pretend it never happened? And then, for reasons both personal and legal, that turns out to be a rather difficult to accomplish.
A good movie about making a very bad movie, and more...
16 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
This is a movie about making a movie, a genre that goes back many decades. As such, I found it entertaining, funny, and particularly original. It is, I admit, somewhat confusing for a couple of reasons. The first is that the 'movie' which the characters are in the process of making is really an inconsequential bit of slightly offensive fluff. The second is that there is a sort of double-vision blurring of characters, cast, and reality going on here.
We live in an age when just about anybody can make a movie and sometimes it seems as if everybody is doing just that. Halley (the character) seems to think that she can simply copy and paste a short dramatic segment of her life onto a big screen and it will become a film. It's interesting that even when she comes to her senses and tries to soberly pitch her ideas she's got nothing more than a song and dance .. literally.
This movie, "He's Way More Famous Than You", does have a plot however. It's "A Star is Born" for the 21st Century with Halley Feiffer never quite realizing that she has actually been cast as Norman Maine. Jesse Eisenberg plays Esther Blodgett off camera. The movie has a sober beginning and an alcohol induced haze of a middle. It could have ended on an up-beat, 'well, who knows where this will lead' note, but wouldn't it be hard to not assume that the real ending must be the actual existence of the movie itself. There's even an appendix where we see yet another movie that shows where this one might have gone, but didn't: darkly lit dramatic vomiting, incest, intergenerational angst, and suicide. (Is it a spoiler to reveal a plot line not followed? i.e. Rosebud isn't a dead baby)
I will admit that the overlap of fiction and reality in this film can be disorienting. Only a few of us outsiders will ever really know where one begins and the other ends. But isn't that all about the world we live in? Isn't it ironic that the very first, very nasty IMDb review of this film spends half it's time panning Jesse Eisenberg not for his performance here but rather for his participation in another film. Nobody wants to see Liberace and what's-his-name kissing, but Michael Douglas and Matt Damon? I'll pay for that(well maybe not). Last night I went up to my alma mater (Juilliard didn't even have a drama department when I attended) and saw a production of Twelfth Night. The character Sir Toby Belch was ably played by a student named Ryan Spahn. In that context his private life was of little consequence. But I doubt it would be possible to make this film, with Michael Urie directing, and not take it into account. On film we find him playing himself and someone else at the same time and that someone else is desperate to have a part in a movie playing someone else who is actually playing himself in this movie too. Or is he? Wait! Am I talking about Twelfth Night? I'm getting confused here, but in an entertaining way.
We live in an age when just about anybody can make a movie and sometimes it seems as if everybody is doing just that. Halley (the character) seems to think that she can simply copy and paste a short dramatic segment of her life onto a big screen and it will become a film. It's interesting that even when she comes to her senses and tries to soberly pitch her ideas she's got nothing more than a song and dance .. literally.
This movie, "He's Way More Famous Than You", does have a plot however. It's "A Star is Born" for the 21st Century with Halley Feiffer never quite realizing that she has actually been cast as Norman Maine. Jesse Eisenberg plays Esther Blodgett off camera. The movie has a sober beginning and an alcohol induced haze of a middle. It could have ended on an up-beat, 'well, who knows where this will lead' note, but wouldn't it be hard to not assume that the real ending must be the actual existence of the movie itself. There's even an appendix where we see yet another movie that shows where this one might have gone, but didn't: darkly lit dramatic vomiting, incest, intergenerational angst, and suicide. (Is it a spoiler to reveal a plot line not followed? i.e. Rosebud isn't a dead baby)
I will admit that the overlap of fiction and reality in this film can be disorienting. Only a few of us outsiders will ever really know where one begins and the other ends. But isn't that all about the world we live in? Isn't it ironic that the very first, very nasty IMDb review of this film spends half it's time panning Jesse Eisenberg not for his performance here but rather for his participation in another film. Nobody wants to see Liberace and what's-his-name kissing, but Michael Douglas and Matt Damon? I'll pay for that(well maybe not). Last night I went up to my alma mater (Juilliard didn't even have a drama department when I attended) and saw a production of Twelfth Night. The character Sir Toby Belch was ably played by a student named Ryan Spahn. In that context his private life was of little consequence. But I doubt it would be possible to make this film, with Michael Urie directing, and not take it into account. On film we find him playing himself and someone else at the same time and that someone else is desperate to have a part in a movie playing someone else who is actually playing himself in this movie too. Or is he? Wait! Am I talking about Twelfth Night? I'm getting confused here, but in an entertaining way.
Kaboom
(2010)
A little history here
20 April 2011
Since other reviewers of Kaboom have mentioned Donnie Darko and Southland Tales, David Lynch, Stanley Kubrick, Polanski, Hitchcock, and Craven I might point out that the character, Smith is introduced as film student who is actually studying "Un Chien Andalou" by those naughty twenty-somethings Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí. Our wiki friends inform us that "The film has no plot in the conventional sense of the word. The chronology of the film is disjointed..... It uses dream logic in narrative flow that can be described in terms of then-popular Freudian free association, presenting a series of tenuously related scenes." Sound familiar? Chien was essentially a student film but one might say that it has had some staying power.
I liked Kaboom but it was certainly a bit silly, especially toward the end. About as silly as a lobster telephone. And if characters were continually waking out of dreams (and being interrupted during "spanking" sessions), perhaps that was a hint to the viewer about where the film was coming from.....
I liked Kaboom but it was certainly a bit silly, especially toward the end. About as silly as a lobster telephone. And if characters were continually waking out of dreams (and being interrupted during "spanking" sessions), perhaps that was a hint to the viewer about where the film was coming from.....
Across the Universe
(2007)
It really captured our memories of the time
30 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
My partner and I went to see Across the Universe without knowing very much about it. We both liked it very much and agreed that it really captured our memories of the time. I liked it so much that later that night I went on line to download some images from the film in order to print up a little 'promo' for the bulletin board in my shop which has a younger clientèle. I was totally taken aback when I began to come across an incredible amount of very negative reaction to the film. The Ann Hornaday review in the Washington Post was one of the nastiest pieces I have ever read in a mainstream paper.
Looking again at her review the next morning it seemed to me that it said more about the writer than about the film itself. And today, looking at some of the external reviews linked here on the IMDb this question comes to mind: Why has a movie so often dismissed as vapid, dull, and kitschy generated such an outpouring of venomous bile?
One theme seems to be that the film appeals to 'know-nothing' kids and 'nostalgic, aging boomers'. I might suggest (though I certainly can't prove) that the crowd that rejected all that 'Sixties nonsense' and brought themselves back down to earth to deal with practical matters are precisely the people who reject this movie. (You might check out the Ella Taylor review in the Village Voice which is linked in external reviews on the left-hand side of this page.) I think they hate it because the characters aren't properly punished at the end for all their idealism and they hate it because it makes them uncomfortable to see what they themselves have chosen to leave behind.
After all, George W. Bush could be a character in this film. He could have been any one of the Max's friends at Princeton, or even Max himself had Max 'sensibly' chosen to stay in school and pursue a career in politics. This country has 'sensibly' chosen to follow such a man who still seems to be driving golf balls off the roof without a thought to where they might land. But to use a roof for a free concert? Free for God's sake!! That would be unprofitable, illegal and so very naive!
To put it bluntly, this film 'sends the wrong message'. These days it makes many people feel uncomfortable to suggest, even for a moment, that perhaps Governor Moonbeam was more of a pragmatist than the Great Communicator. But look at a graph that charts the rise of the national debt. Was trickle down (voodoo) economics actually a 'realistic' policy? We're still dragging that huge bronze Statue of Liberty across foreign landscapes. Isn't that at least as unrealistic as "All you need is love..."? And Lucy's mother pleads that she just wants her daughter to be safe... such a post 9/11 thing to say... but isn't that at the price of her son's life at risk in Vietnam. The plot of this film is only vapid, dull and kitschy if you choose to block out anything meaningful it has to say.
OK... so my partner and I are both about 60 and we met on a rooftop on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1967 (and we're both guys). My shop 'promo' read: "To get a notion of how I remember the Sixties see: Across the Universe". We both loved this movie and urge you to see it too.
Looking again at her review the next morning it seemed to me that it said more about the writer than about the film itself. And today, looking at some of the external reviews linked here on the IMDb this question comes to mind: Why has a movie so often dismissed as vapid, dull, and kitschy generated such an outpouring of venomous bile?
One theme seems to be that the film appeals to 'know-nothing' kids and 'nostalgic, aging boomers'. I might suggest (though I certainly can't prove) that the crowd that rejected all that 'Sixties nonsense' and brought themselves back down to earth to deal with practical matters are precisely the people who reject this movie. (You might check out the Ella Taylor review in the Village Voice which is linked in external reviews on the left-hand side of this page.) I think they hate it because the characters aren't properly punished at the end for all their idealism and they hate it because it makes them uncomfortable to see what they themselves have chosen to leave behind.
After all, George W. Bush could be a character in this film. He could have been any one of the Max's friends at Princeton, or even Max himself had Max 'sensibly' chosen to stay in school and pursue a career in politics. This country has 'sensibly' chosen to follow such a man who still seems to be driving golf balls off the roof without a thought to where they might land. But to use a roof for a free concert? Free for God's sake!! That would be unprofitable, illegal and so very naive!
To put it bluntly, this film 'sends the wrong message'. These days it makes many people feel uncomfortable to suggest, even for a moment, that perhaps Governor Moonbeam was more of a pragmatist than the Great Communicator. But look at a graph that charts the rise of the national debt. Was trickle down (voodoo) economics actually a 'realistic' policy? We're still dragging that huge bronze Statue of Liberty across foreign landscapes. Isn't that at least as unrealistic as "All you need is love..."? And Lucy's mother pleads that she just wants her daughter to be safe... such a post 9/11 thing to say... but isn't that at the price of her son's life at risk in Vietnam. The plot of this film is only vapid, dull and kitschy if you choose to block out anything meaningful it has to say.
OK... so my partner and I are both about 60 and we met on a rooftop on the Lower East Side of Manhattan in 1967 (and we're both guys). My shop 'promo' read: "To get a notion of how I remember the Sixties see: Across the Universe". We both loved this movie and urge you to see it too.
The Mountain King
(2000)
Not easy to forget
19 October 2006
I've seen quite a few short films at the Tampa gay and lesbian film festival over the years and most of them tend to blur together in my mind after a year or so.... but this one I remember, and now I guess I'm going to get a hold of the DVD of "Boys to Men" (it's one of the three films featured) in order to see it again. Duncan Tucker went on to write and direct Transamerica and I just saw Paul Dawson in "Shortbus" last week at the festival and he was fantastic, as was the movie !
I am always frustrated when people pan a movie because it deals with something outside of their own personal experience. Seduction, lies, manipulation... all words with negative associations, and yet there have been times in my life when a most scuzzy character has opened my mind to possibilities that I hadn't dreamed of.
I am always frustrated when people pan a movie because it deals with something outside of their own personal experience. Seduction, lies, manipulation... all words with negative associations, and yet there have been times in my life when a most scuzzy character has opened my mind to possibilities that I hadn't dreamed of.
Tell Your Friends