A blog on all things movie related. Mainly focused on foreign language and gay films. Not really into big blockbusters that rely on special effects. I am very new to this and only just learning the ropes.
A friend of mine lent me a copy of this fashion documentary as she highly recommended it. I was a bit apprehensive about watching it as I had never heard of the designer and thought it was going to be terrible. I was pleasently surprised.
Halston was an American designer who changed the nature of American fashion and became the first US designer to make it on the international fashion scene. His style was minimalist, recognisable and worn by every top celebrity name, including Elizabeth Taylor and Jackie O.
The documentary explored his life through interviews with close friends, his contemporary designers and relevant people of that time. This involved dragging out Liza Minnelli and similar celebrity icons. It recalls the famous Studio 54 lifestyle, including the disco music and fashion. It recounts his attempt to become part of the mainstream and reflects on the horrific impact of AIDs on gay society in the 1980s which lead to his death.
As a documentary, I found the interviewer quite annoying with his need to change his hair style for every interview and his look of surprise at every part of the story. I would have thought someone who was involved in the 1970s, as he claimed to have been, would be partially aware of Halston's life. But do not let you put off by this, Halston's life was fascinating.
I Don't want to sleep alone is about a compassionate man taking in another brutally beaten man and nurses him better. Then at some point a woman comes into the story. To be honest, this is the point I lost all interest and got too involved with my phone.
This film is tedious and slow. There is simply no dialogue and I do like my films to have proper character development, which this film simply does not have. It is pretentious and not entertaining. I am sure a proper film critic would love to dedicate an afternoon to this to depict its meaning. For me, it is this sort of film that puts your average film watcher going to see foreign language films.
The only slight plus of this film is the beautiful scenery. But it is certainly not enough to carry this film.
The Trip is a packed gay romantic comedy based on a true story between a right wing Republican and a gay rights activist during the 1970s and 80s.
It starts with Alan, a committed Republican who is writing a book on the history of homosexuality, who meets the right on gay activist, Tommy, at a party. Tommy agrees to be interviewed for his book. Predictably, Alan falls for Tommy and they start a relationship and move in with each other. The film jumps four years where the publishing company decide to publish Alan's book at the time of an anti-gay vote in Florida and they split. It is not until a few years later when Alan learns that Tommy has AIDs and decides to be with him again and take their once in a life time road trip through Mexico.
Although very predictable and includes the standard cliches that featured in every gay-AIDs films of the 1990s, there is something very moving about this film. The on-screen chemistry between the two leads is very touching, especially in the second part of the film. Maybe I just like the slushy romantic stuff but was quite moved by the ending.
The film got quite over-packed with the director needing to include ever major bit of the gay liberation movement footage - reminiscent of Milk. I do not think this film needed it but I think the director wanted to make a small political point.
There was moments of comical genius but also a bit too much goofy slapstick which can be forgiven for the inspired decision to cast Alexis Arquette as the comedy role.
Despite its predictability and cliches, I think The Trip was a delightful little film and a great way to spend a Saturday night in.
The 'Guilty Pleasures' genre of film is one genre that is often misunderstood. They are not meant to be works of art and their story lines are often one dimensional with obvious morals. However, they are easy to follow and are generally fun which is great if you have had a busy week at work. Pecker is certainly one of these films.
The film tells the story of Pecker (Edward Furlong) who is an amateur photographer who constantly takes pictures of his everyday life in Baltimore. He leads a simple life working in a fast food joint and dates Shelley (played by the fantastic Christina Ricci) who runs a laundry. His family are full of odd balls, including his mum, who works in a second hand clothes shop, his older sister, a waitress in a gay go-go dancer bar, and his younger sister, a girl with an obsession for sugary food.
When Pecker displays his pictures in his work place, a New York art collector offers him the opportunity to have his very own display, which he takes up. He becomes an instant hit. It is not until later he realises his success is due to New York yuppies see his every day life as comical and, in a way, look down on him and his family. As he becomes more and more famous, he starts to see that when his local community starts to disown him for making them a mockery. It is not until the end that Pecker gets to turn the tables.
Although this film is light hearted, it does raise the obvious question of whether the family were exploited? I do not think they were. It just reminded me of an American version of a Mike Leigh film but in photography. Photography, like film, is a form of voyeurism and it merely reflects what the artist sees.
One of the main reasons I decided to watch this film was that I love Christina Ricci. I first fell in love with her in the excellent The Opposite of Sex and since then, I love watching her, regardless of the quality of film. I would almost say she is almost as good as Michelle Williams. In this, she outplays Furlong, but that is probably because his character was more happy-go-lucky and hers had more depth. The rest of the cast had seem to have all come from the excellent TV show, My So-Called Life, which was a treat in itself!
Of course, this film had its faults and, at times, was a bit too silly. But overall, this was a fun piece of cinema that will certainly be on my guilty pleasures list! A great film by John Waters and is much better than his more famous Hairspray!
Soundless Wind Charm is an observational and challenging piece of gay cinema. It tells the story of Ricky, a Chinese guy who has moved to Hong Kong but still regularly communicates with his dying mother in Beijing. An act of fate brings him together with Swiss Pascal, who is trying to leave his abusive boyfriend which they then develop an unhealthy codependent relationship. While this story is told in fragment, Ricky travels to Switzerland and bumps into a dead ringer for Pascal.
One thing I can say about this film that it is slow. There is minimal dialogue and the story is really told through small observations made by the direction. It reminds me of the superior Be With Me. What makes the film enjoyable is the fact that every scene is so gorgeous which is complimented by very natural acting by the two leads. The contrast between the hustle, bustle and rustic feel of China and the white, cold Alps of Switzerland gave this film real exciting visual extremes.
Where this film went a bit wrong was in the fragmentation of the story. The director had placed different parts of the story all over the place, most likely to reflect the fragmented nature of life and love. However, just keeping up with what was happening and trying to fit the tiny pieces together was just too hard work for me to enjoy this film. I understand what the director was trying to do but it just did not work. Maybe a second viewing would be helpful to comprehend the story fully.
There were basic mistakes, like at times the subtitles merged in with the background which made them unreadable, but this merely reflects the low budget of the film. It was also refreshing that the film focused on just the pressures of their codependency rather than pressures from discrimination or pressures of the gay scene.
Anyone who has looked at my blog before will notice I am quite Euro-centric in my selection of foreign films and I do admit I generally prefer them. However, it is nice to dip my toe in another culture every now and then and this is one I have enjoyed experiencing, even if it was hard work at times!
3/5 - Fabulous detail but it was the structure of this film that let it down
Adam and Steve is an over the top gay indie film based around two gay guys who quickly develop a loving relationship despite their own insecurities. It is not until later, they find out that they had a disastrous one night stand 17 years earlier and freak out. but it is their best friends bring them together in the end.
Some films are meant to be bad and some are pretty good at it. Adam and Steve is one that is intending to be bad but fun and over the top which it does to some extent. There are lots of funny one liners which depict the comical aspects of your stereotypical gay lifestyle. Parts of it were hysterical and captures what it is like being a gay guy in a big city finding love.
However, the film sometimes does not know when to draw the line. One of the comedy moments was about Adam always being attacked or insulted whenever he shows affection in public. It is funny the first three or four times but after the twelfth it is just repetitive. I also did not find the whole stand up piece of Rhonda (Parker Posey) about her being fat particularly funny.
I was particularly excited when I heard Kristen Schaal was in it as she is a very underrated comedian. Unfortunately, the scene of Adam's Jewish family was too slapstick for me and just not funny.
Despite this, Parker, along with Chris Kattan (Michael), the two straight best friends, slightly made this film ahead of the main gay characters. Parker is brilliant as the fag hag and Kattan as the envious heterosexual who wants to live a gay man's lifestyle but with women.
It is a quite funny way to spend 90 minutes of your time watching and unbelievably Courtney Love is in the soundtrack! It covers the every day gay issues of addiction, commitment and discrimination in a fun and over the top way.
When a film covers an important but often neglected part of history, you really want to like the film just because you feel the issue needs to be respected and recognised. Before I sat down and watched Proteus I was thinking that I really want to like it because it told the real story of a sodomy trial in a hard labour camp in South Africa in the 18th Century. With the topic of apartheid dominating South African history, this subject has often been neglected.
However, Proteus fell on its arse. The main problem was the horrific direction of Canadian John Greyson. The only previous thing I have seen him direct is an episode of Queer as Folk US in series 2, which was actually one of the best episodes of the series, so I had raised expectations of this film. He really ruined this film. He was blatantly ripping off Derek Jarman with the inclusion of items and scenery from centuries after the time it is based. The actual recording of the film felt like a university film project. I was surprised he has made a number of films as this just came across as a first time film maker with its amateur shooting and non stop cliches.
In addition to this, the acting was poor. There was no chemistry between the two lovers or with any other characters. None of the scenes were at all believable and is an embarrassment for all those involved. What made it worse was the constant change between English, Dutch and Afrikaans. There was no consistency and it made no sense why mid conversation characters were changing their language.
I have tried to see the positives in this film but I am sorry, there was nothing. Considering the story it is based on, this is definitely a wasted opportunity.
Last Exit to Brooklyn is a film based in 1950s Brooklyn and tells the story of drug addicts, radical corrupt unionists, transvestites and prostitutes. This film acts as a closing feature of 1980s American cinema, which your standard 1980s actors such as Ricki Lake, Stephen Baldwin and Alexis Arquette. Despite its period setting, it has all the feelings of your typical 80's film.
Did I actually like it? Yes and No. I thought there were some fantastic performances that really carried the film. The most notable one being Jenifer-Jason Leigh. Her character, Tralala, is a fantastic peroxide blond prostitute who uses her sexuality to help the gang rob and steal. It is not until she meets a sailor who is heading for Korea that you see a different side to her. Leigh plays the versatility well and should be recognised for her role. Other decent performances include Stephen Lang as the sexually confused but corrupt Trade Unionist. A special mention should also go to Arquette for the fabulous transvestite role of Georgetta.
Despite decent performances, I was not taken by the story. I found it difficult to follow in parts and towards the end I got bored. I have spent the last couple of days trying to work out what I can say about this film but I have really struggled. I suppose I have a dislike for 1980s US films and this is another one I have not enjoyed.
2.5/5 - Fine performances but not keen on the story
For those who do not know, the gay scene is usually split into a number of subcultures. Twinks, circuit boys, clubbers, gym bunnies, fetish... The list is endless. One of the biggest sub cultures is Bears and their admirers. Bears are men who like to be men and have hair and as much as possible. Stereotypically they are also fat but there are also muscle bears. Not surprisingly, Bear City puts bear culture at the centre stage. It tells the story of Tyler, a 21 year old twink who has a bear fetish. It deals with him 'coming out' to his other twinky friends as a bear lover or 'chubby chaser', him trying to integrate with the bear community and falling for the top bear.
It is clear that this film was made in order to represent the bear community and to offer an alternative to the perfect, hairless bodies that are usually presented in TLA Releases films. However, for me, it completely misses the mark. It reminds me of late 1980s/early 1990s gay films where there was hardly any films where gay men were at the centre of the story. Those films revolved completely around their sexuality without any other layers to make the characters interesting. Bear City seems to have done exactly the same thing. The only problem with this is that there have been a number of decent films where bears were the main characters, Boystown and Bear Cub were particularly good. These films, although were centred around the bear scene, still managed to cover issues that were not all bear related. Bear City has gone a step back from that and the characters look a bit too one dimensional because of it. The film could have developed other story lines to give the characters some depth while still showing in your face bear sex scenes and lifestyles.
The second issue I have, and it is not the first film to do this, is the focus on Tyler. The film is trying to make the point that gay sub cultures reject people sexually who do not conform with that particular 'look'. The way Roger rejects Tyler at the start because he cannot be seen dating a non bear is portrayed as shallow, but when Tyler rejects his best friend who is a twink, there is no judgement at all. This occurs in a lot of gay films where the smart and funny guy gets rejected by the stud until his full personality is exposed and the stud falls for him. Of course, no film ever makes the smart and funny guy go for another smart and funny guy who also does not have the body.
What does make this film is the performance of Stephen Guarino, who plays Brent, a chubby chaser who is discussing with his partner whether to open their relationship up. His performance is hilarious and he has really been able to give some excellent one liners. I really hope this helps with his acting career because his performance was superb. The rest of the cast were slightly wooden, but he really helped make this film slightly enjoyable
I suppose for any bear and their admirers, Bear City is probably a breath of fresh air where hairy and fat men are sexualised and unapologetically, put at the centre of the film. Not being a bear myself, it will not have the same sort of representation factor for me and perhaps there should be more characters to reflect the diversity of the LGBT communities in more films. However, I am not a fan of making films for the sake of representation. Give some bears a leading role in films and stop being so segregated!
3/5 - Perhaps you need to be bear to really enjoy this!
I am starting a journey into pre-1980s cinema. I have seen a few titles but nothing in comparison to the number I have seen made in the last three decades. The Lion in Winter was perhaps my first 'older' movie that was a historical film. It depicts King Henry II (Peter O'Toole) and his estranged wife Eleanor (Katherine Hepburn) fighting to convince King Philip II of France who should be the next King. Richard (played by Sir Anthony Hopkins in his first cinematic role), the brave and characteristic son which is the preference of Eleanor , while John, the idiotic and simple son, is favoured by Henry. As the film progress, we see how dysfunctional the family really are and how power corrupts.
Now, I do have a natural tendency to favour films set in the present because usually there is something I can relate to. However, I did enjoy this period piece. It was surprising how well it presented the difficulties of relationships and family. It had an interesting modern story hidden amongst the historical setting. Maybe I am just showing my lack of familiarity with the genre, but there were certainly moments I could associate with - like the idea of betrayal and how easy power can corrupt. This film goes further than just trying to relive the past.
There were certainly a number of great and memorable scenes which told the story well and kept me entertained. The most obvious one for me is when it is exposed that Richard had had relations with King Philip. This was the turning point in reducing Richard's prospects of being the next King. For a debut performance, Anthony Hopkins is great and actually looks a lot older then I imagined him to be at this time.
However, it was Katherine Hepburn that stole the show. Her portrayal of the manipulative and slightly mad Eleanor was formidable. She certainly deserved that Best Actress Oscar! Considering the only other film I have seen of hers was Bringing up Baby which I was not really impressed by. Her voice just made it. Lines such as 'Hush dear, Mother's fighting' and 'I would wear them on my nipples but it would frighten the children' were delivered with a mixture of comedy and authority required for the character. I have to say it was one of the best leading female performances I have ever seen.
The film, however, was not perfect. It slightly dragged towards the end and I became restless. I, of course, became engaged again every time Hepburn entered the scene. If they had been smarter editing, this film would have been much better. I have to say watching this was a learning experience for me to be more open minded and try to appreciate things that I am not naturally drawn to.
This is the second documentary I have watched regarding sex workers in the Czech Republic, which this one focuses on both rent boys and porn stars. I hated the first one and this one was only marginally better. If you took away the content and look at the documentary process, this is far superior.
However, there are many ways this was such a let down. The director is interfering with the content too much and therefore the viewer cannot make an unbiased view on the content. The overuse of mood music to emphasise the sadness of the boys' stories and the shots of the evil porno director in his full time job in the morgue dissecting human bodies are clearly trying to artificially create a horrible mood. This sensationalist method makes the director appear one sided.
He also fails to contextualise the topic. There is no mention of the poor economic conditions and the minimal rule of law in a post communist country. It is not a surprise that at that point there are a number of boys who get forced into the industry due to poverty. In addition to this, I imagine the regulation would be weak while a democratic government establishes itself. The way the director presented this would imply all male sex workers suffer the same situation rather than being the result of extreme circumstances.
From the way he presents the situation you would think this is representative of all of the gay porn industry. The film's focus is on the teenage, skinny boys rather than older, bigger men. He uses this to emphasise the vulnerability of the boys. Had he used older men as his subject his documentary might not be so harrowing and he would not be able to paint the picture he wanted to. I also found some of the scenes a bit too staged - but maybe I am being too negative!
Some films are remarkable for the impact they have on society when they are released. Often these titles do not age well as society moves one. Women In Love manages to be a great film now while being controversial for its time.
It tells the story of four people in the 1920s who meet and become lifelong friends, their free spirited attitude being what binds their friendship. Despite Gudrun (Glenda Jackson) marrying Gerald (Oliver Reed) and Rupert (Alan Bates) wedding Ursula (Jennie Linden), Gerald and Rupert engage in homoerotic naked wrestling. They develop a strong physical, mental and spiritual attraction which throws questions at their life choices. They all embark on a honeymoon in Switzerland which results in infidelity and a lasting tension on the friendships and marriage.
As I have said before, I am no literature expert and having never read a DH Lawrence novel in my life, I cannot say whether this film does the book justice. However, I can say that it really pushed the boundaries of British cinema during a time of sexual revolution and the liberation of attitudes. The famous scene of the naked Japanese wrestling clearing demonstrates this. Not only is the wrestling suggestively 'gay', it is also the first film approved by the BBFC to show full male nudity - the director did have to edit some of the penis shots. Surprisingly the censors were more concerned with nudity than the homosexuality despite this film being released two years after decriminalisation. I would have expected attitudes to be less accepting but I suppose they wanted to keep the artistic integrity of the original book.
I understand from other reviews that the film stays loyal to the book and does it justice. If this is the case, it is amazing how radical DH Lawrence was. The script, although can be slightly heavy and difficult to follow at times, is a constant philosophical conversation about the relationship between the sexes as well as whether marriage is a workable institution. I imagine this attitude was radical for the 1920s but certainly fits the liberation movement of the late 60s.
What really made this a classic piece of cinema is the performances. The four main characters were fantastic. Although at times they were melodramatic, it fitted with the script and the film. Jackson of course was the highlight and deservedly won the Oscar for Best Actress. I also enjoyed some of the lesser roles, in particular Eleanor Bron was entertaining as Hermione Roddice.
While often films can try to push the boundaries for the sake of it and therefore not age well as society moves on, Women In Love managed to challenge society's views and attitudes while still being an excellent film.
Romania has become one of the best new countries in film production. 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is one of my favourite films of all time and there have been a number of other amazing titles. They have generally represented a grim Communist Ceausescu era and are often filmed in a simple and bleak style. Katalin Varga follows the trend in style but not in content.
It tells the story of a woman whose husband finds out that their 11 year old son is the product of a rape and therefore disowns them. Katalin therefore decides to track down the father of Ordin, her son. They embark on a journey across rural Romania in which they encounter a number of people. When they finally get to the Rapist's village, Katalin becomes part of his and his wife's life in order to plot her revenge.
British director, Peter Strickland, has created an excellent piece of cinema which follows the recent trend of excellent Romanian cinema. Considering the budget of $28,000, it is a pretty impressive effort. A lot of the visuals demonstrate the beauty of Romanian countryside and there was an intriguing use of sound to complement the scenic shots. Rather than use music, Strickland used natural sound to intensify and build up tension which worked extremely well.
There is one particular scene that stood out for me. Katalin is sitting in the boat with the rapist and the wife and starts explaining what happened the night she was raped. The boat was swaying side to side with a knocking sound by the oars, which is supports the fine acting of the lead.
Considering the low budget, this is a remarkable piece on cinema and continues the excellent quality of output from Romania. If you are a fan of world cinema, I would really recommend seeing one or two Romanian titles.
4/5 - A well directed and acted piece of cinema from Romania - the new power house of world cinema
Having enjoyed Xavier Dolan's Heartbeats, I thought I would give I Killed My Mother, his debut,a go. I had found his second film, although very enjoyable, it was heavily influenced by Y Tu Mama Tabien and The Dreamers. I was expecting similar with this effort. Was I mistaken! I would have thought IKMM was the second film as it was a lot more confident, visually stunning and high in originality.
This film tells the story of Hubert (also played by Dolan) and the difficult relationship he has with his single mother (Anne Dorval). Him, an arty, gay 16 year old, is constantly on the war path with his vulgar, but well meaning, mother, who is struggling to fulfil her role as a single parent. He wants to be independent from the mother's nest and she wants her four year old son back. Day-by-day they are constantly arguing and results him being sent to boarding school.
The relationship between the two leads is an exceptional piece of character acting. It is reminiscent of arguments I have had with my mother when I was a similar age. Dolan plays Hubert as the selfish son who is prone to tantrums, especially when he does not get his way. Dorval is phenomenal as the struggling mother, who may not be the best mother in the world but she clearly loves her son. Just by looking at her eyes you can see the hurt when Hubert tells her that he hates her is so deep. The chemistry between the two characters is amazing and is up there as one of the best performances of recent memory.
Not only is Dolan talented as the leading male, his direction is superb. From beautiful forest shots to the scene where he paints the office Jackson Pollack style, the film is driven by beauty. The viewer is constantly amazed by what is presented visually and it always fits the mood of the film perfectly.
What makes this film even more amazing is that Dolan is 22 years old and directed this film when he was 20. Part of me is jealous of his talent and his career progression and part of me wants to marry him for his genius. Had I watched this without knowing anything about Dolan or seeing Heartbeats, I would still be just as impressed. Nothing was done wrong. To put this in context, it took Pedro Almodovar years to get exceptional, Dolan has done it in his first film. It really is no surprise that it received an 8 minute standing ovation at Cannes.
There have been a number of decent French-Canadian films of late, including C.R.A.Z.Y. and Incendies (which should have won the Foreign Language Oscar!). Dolan's work is leading the way and Quebec is becoming one of my favourite 'countries' for film production.
This film is meant to be semi autobiographical. Pictures of James Dean in his boyfriend's room probably represent Dolan's love of film from an early age. I just hope he has not given his best at the start of his career.
The second series continues in the same fashion as the first series. A 'risque' version of Doctor Who, where Captain Jack (John Barrowman) and his team fight aliens who jump through the rift which is based in Cardiff. They go through many adventures in order to keep the world safe while having many different relationships.
What differentiates it from the Doctor is this is for strictly adults. The director, Russell T Davies (Queen as Folk) takes the characters and rather than just save the world and fight monsters and aliens, the characters are sexual beings to different degrees. Captain Jack, in particular, has this 'I sleep with anything' sexuality and you can suck my balls if you do not like it' attitude. This has turned off a number of Doctor fans for being too gay. This was a very brave step for Davies to take but I think it is to show the appreciation to gay sci-fi fans.
A lot of gay men grow up following sci-fi or super heroes, probably because there are characters that have to hide their identity in order to save the world. Therefore, having a main character so sexually driven is fantastic. Of course, it is the BBC so it is not the most explicit TV series you will ever find but it still challenges the norms of science fiction TV. Gay issues, such as bisexuality and analogues for HIV/Aids are featured as well as quotes from Christopher Isherwood are dropped in every now and then for the gay viewers.
Now, I am not going to pretend I am a massive science fiction fan. I have only watched a few episodes of the Doctor because it had Billie Piper in, who I think is fantastic. I also like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but that is more to do with the witty scripts than the science fiction. Torchwood, however, is more to do with human relations than sci fi. The best episodes are the ones when where the focus is on relationships withing or involving members of the team rather than fighting aliens. In this series, James Masters (Spike from Buffy) makes guest appearances in the opening and closing episodes (Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang and Exit Wounds). These were very emotionally charged, witty and serious. They also happened to be the best!
Of course the acting is not always great (Tosh in particular, seems bad despite Naoko Mori usually being a good actress),and Barrowman can come across as cheesey, but that is sci fi for you! It is the perfect series for someone who likes to dip their toe into fantasy/sci fi but does not want to make a long term commitment.
I know the format of Torchwood changed after this series as it went down to a five part, one story format. I know it was shown a long time ago in the UK but I do not really watch TV often and prefer to rent them in box sets.
4/5 - The perfect sci-fi series for a non sci-fi fan!
Whenever I receive disks from films from either Picadillo Pictures or TLA Releases (two of the main gay film distribution companies), I like to check out the trailers to see what else I might want to watch in the future. One thing I always notice is that usually if the film is about gay men then they will have trailers for gay men films and the same for lesbians. It is almost like lesbians and gay men live separate lives and want to live in some sort of gender division utopia. I have to admit I sometimes get like that as you may be able to tell.
Anyway, when I received Break My Fall I had not realised that the two main characters were females and it was based around the hedonistic 'Shoreditch' scene - not exactly my thing. Oh well, I thought I would give this a go and I have to admit the first 20 minutes I found very difficult and slightly boring. But then something hit me. I worked out what the director was trying to achieve which transformed my whole perspective of the film.
The story revolves around the breakdown of the relationship between Lisa and Sally and how they cope through excessive consumption of drugs and alcohol. The sleeve of the disk refers to the film as being 'blistering' - creating images of hard clubbing scenes which actually the film is everything but. It covers the come down rather than the party. It can be difficult to watch but you get this dis-functional hangover feeling through watching the breakdown of their relationship while they are recovering from the night before. It is clear Kanchi Wichmann, the director, is clearly trying to make an analogy between human relationships and drugs. It really made me reflect on some aspects of own my life.
I have to say I was very impressed with Wichmann's directorial debut. Yes, sometimes the acting is wooden and the script slightly fails at points but blimey she has potential. Not a huge fan of films which put lesbians at the centre stage but this certainly is one of my favourites!
I first watched this when I was 16 years old. I was still discovering my sexuality and used film as a media to define myself. Bedroom and Hallways was one of these films I used to watch again and again just so I felt I had some connection with gay people. It was exciting to see what it would be like 13 years later when I am actually the same age as the main characters.
The film revolves around Leo (Kevin McKidd) and how he deals turning 30. He falls for the gorgeous Brendan (James Purefoy) who has just separated from his wife. Leo is well supported by the excellent flatmates, Darren (Tom Hollander) and Angie (Julie Graham). It explores the fluidity of sexuality, romance and masculinity. Watching it back now, it is surprisingly realistic of what it is like turning 30 and being a gay man - the change from being young to being responsible.
This film is no ordinary gay indie film. It is hilarious and funny with excellent one liners, especially from Hollander. The film also features Simon Callow as the leader of a men's group and his wife Sybil (Harriet Walter) who are hysterical as the new age couple. Every comedy line is delivered so well.
Although this film never made the mainstream, it launched the career of Purefoy and McKidd who ended up in a number of Hollywood films. I am not really surprised that they did as this is a well acted and scripted piece that any actor would be proud to have in their showreel.
I am so glad this film still delivers for me. It not only brings back memories of watching it but also the massive crush I sued to have on James Purefoy. This is a must if only to learn that Margaret Thatcher's biography is the best way to desexualise any situation!
4.5/5 - Reliving memories in this hysterical gay comedy
Bruno wants his girlfriend back. Having heard rumours that the guy she is with, Pablo, has sexually experimented in the past he decides to get close to him and make them break up, 'Plan B'. What happens is that they become closer and develop into more than just a 'bromance'.
One thing that describes Plan B is that it is slow paced. There are large chunks of the film that focuses on the characters reactions and expressions without any dialogue. There are also a number of beautiful shots of Argentinian landscape that captures the mood of the film. Having reflected on this film and scanned a few reviews, there has been much criticism of how slow and dull this film is. I disagree that this sort of style is boring. Some of the best foreign language films have done this well, with the excellent Uzak as a fine example. Plan B does not manage to pull it off, but there are excellent moments, especially with the sexual tension and confusion over their new found love for each other. However at times, some of the acting ruined the intended impact of the direction.
What really lets this film down and irritated me is the way Bruno becomes quite predatory. Rather than let them become intimate gradually through a mistaken intimate touch or a gaze that went on too long, he went for an obvious move. This being making up an audition where he needs to practice kissing a man. Now this would be the sort of line someone who was more comfortable with their sexuality. I would have preferred it is the film used its slow and suggestive mechanisms to perhaps foster some sort of intimacy rather than turn it into something more tangible like potential lovers. The scenes, for example, when they were sleeping in bed together as friends was perfect to introduce this unspoken intimacy rather than go for the obvious and visualise it.
Argentinian cinema is usually of a pretty high standard and is probably one of my favourite film making countries outside of Europe. Classics such as Nine Queens or the Oscar winning The Secret in their Eyes are far superior to this and I would certainly not recommend this as a good example of what this wonderful country can do.
I have a confession to make. Please no one judge me for this. I cannot stand The Godfather. I have tried about 5 times to like it but I can never properly get into. So the thought of watching a similar Italian Mafia based film, filled me slightly with dread. Why bother watching it, you may ask? Well BBC Four have this World Cinema series on a Sunday night and I had heard good reviews so I thought I would give it ago.
To draw a comparison between Il Divo and The Godfather is a bit simplistic just because they both feature Mafia type characters. Il Divo tells the story of real life Italian politician Giulio Andreotti and the many scandals that he is associated with, ranging from his rise in the Christian Democrat Party to his links with the Mafia.
Did I like it? In a number of ways yes. First it was beautifully shot. Great camera work which gave it a modern feeling. I just loved how the camera would stop on a hand with an ant crawling up it or the skate board that turned into the car bomb from the Red Brigade. It was further complemented by an amazing soundtrack which gave a massive modern contrast to the story of ageing Italian politicians.
Second, I absolutely loved how Giulio was portrayed by Toni Servillo. Many of his lines expressed his bitter irony he supposedly displayed. They were sharp, funny and witting and fitted really well with the modern pace of the film.
The one let down, and I have noticed I have been negative in my reviews so far, is the film expects you to know Italian politics from that era. Or, to put it another way, I got lost trying to work out what was going on because I know very little about post-war Italian politics. I therefore think I should really watch this again now I have a grasp what happens. So maybe my review is premature?
3.5/5 - Probably would be marked higher after a second watch
WTC View has been on my list since I started my rental account so there were high expectations for this film. The post 9/11 climate in New York is an interesting and unique topic for films because the general focus has usually been on war.
Eric (Michael Urie) placed an advert for a flat mate the day before the attacks for his flat that looks over the World Trade Centre. He then struggles to find one despite interviewing a political advisor, a construction worker, a bonds trader and an idealistic student, each giving their perspective on the attacks. While all this happens, Eric is in denial about his grief.
Michael Urie plays Eric well and differs from his following role of Mark in Ugly Betty. He managed to tone down the campness and pitched the character well. Some of the supporting cast were wooden at times but you forgive the film because of its low budget.
It works well as a concept but I still remained slightly underwhelmed. The film is based on Brian Sloane's play and therefore is predominately dialogue and not much actually happens. This itself is not a problem but the transfer from stage to screen did not quite work. I do not know what it was but there was something missing.
When Ludwig appeared in my account, I started asking myself why did I choose this title? I know nothing about the history, I am usually disappointed in Italian film making and it is almost four hours long. Gulp. I needed to remind myself that I felt the same when I received Lagaan. Both films turned out enjoyable.
Of course, anyone who has ever looked at my blog will know the reason why I chose this film - Ludwig II was gay, or at least bisexual. As my knowledge of 19th century history is ropey at best, I have no idea whether he did take the suggested male lovers while as well being in love with Elisabeth.
However, the film did not really cover that, instead focusing on how his inability to lead drove him mad. His focus on beauty, whether it be Wargner's music, castles or beautiful men, caused his downfall as his unwillingness to deal with his Kingdom meant plotters dethroned him. It has always been my understanding that monarchs are meant to rule regardless of their capabilities but this is obviously optional for royalists.
It was well acted and beautifully shot but I feel it was more like an A-Level literature text - something you read to further yourself rather than to enjoy. The only really issue I had was the length. I always struggle with films over two hours, which may make me an amateur but never mind! I felt the last half could have been edited down by an hour and then it would have been a much more engaging film.
Considering Italy's status as one of the leading European nations in cinema, I have usually been let down by their releases. With the exception of I am Love and Life is Beautiful, most films have disappointed. This especially applies to Gomorrah and My Brother is an Only Child and even Death in Venice was a let down. However, I did not dislike Ludwig, but I would perhaps put it in the same category as Salo - something I would not watch for pleasure but is a learning experience for my film obsession.
3.5/5 - Edit it down by an hour and you have got yourself a classic.
I have to confess that I am not a big fan of reading. Partly because I have to read a lot for my job and partly because I would prefer to sit back and watch a film. Some think this is strange considering I love foreign language films and therefore need the assistance of subtitles. However, I won this title in a competition (along with tickets to a viewing of one of her films), and thought it would be helpful to learn more about films made before 1990.
I actually enjoyed it. It went through the rise of her career through MGM, her many husbands, her battle with the press and her two Oscar wins. The book focuses on the glamour of her lifestyle and the press and public obsession with it. She was the original celebrity that mainstream film stars have become today. It was interesting how sometimes things were faked in order to create an image.
I find there are huge similarities between Elizabeth Taylor and Angelina Jolie today. Two iconic women in the film industry with faces that define an acting generation that the press cannot get enough of their lives. Both have done films in order to keep them in the press (Father of the Bride; Mr and Mrs Smith) and earn plenty in the box office.
However, they both have talent. Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? is my favourite Taylor film and the character of Martha is one of my favourite female performances of all time . And I adore Jolie's portrayal of Lisa Rowe in Girl, Interrupted. Both can act, both are beautiful but both wants the fame and lifestyle that goes with it.
My favourite part is the chapter on Who's Afraid of Virginia Wolf? I love the way she abandoned her glamour for the role and how she wanted that part more than anything. A complete opposite to the attitude she took for her other Oscar winning role of Butterfly 8.
The only slight criticism is that the author was overly biased towards Taylor. He made out Debbie Reynolds was evil for playing the upset housewife when Eddie Fisher left her for Taylor. However, Elizabeth even used marriage as a way of promoting her films. However, I suppose an author who has extensively researched her life would be biased and just shows the dedication the author has for his subject.
This book has opened the door for an era of cinema I am not too familiar with yet and I cannot wait to explore these classics.
4.5/5 - An excellent book on glamour, love and films
Following a relaxing holiday where I did not manage to watch any films, I had a little catch up. The first one from LoveFilm was another TLA Release called Seeing Heaven. Now, for those who are not familiar with TLA, the produce LGBT independent cinema. They are never big films and generally only watched by the LGBT community. The majority of them are guilty pleasure trashy films, and on rare occasions, actually top quality films. However, they sometimes release bad films that try to be art or say something profound about the gay community and this was one of those films.
Seeing Heaven tries too hard to mean something and reflect gay culture in some way. In this case, it looks at the porn and rent boy industries. It first fails with the terrible acting, which is made worse with the constant flash backs which is followed by another wooden expression. The film has a habit of overdoing the camera work and comes across as if the director is just trying to show what he can do. This ultimately fails and makes the film worse.
It also drags out every gay film cliche in the book and the constant Dorian Gray references were cringing. So many other titles have managed to cover this subject better. Strapped, for example, is another TLA release and it manages to cover the issue of prostitution, say something interesting about gay men while not taking itself seriously. 90% of TLA Releases are good or fun, but it is titles like Seeing Heaven that just should not have been made.
I have noticed that I have been quite harsh with the films so far, but this is the luck of the draw with my account. I also go through stages of getting films which I love. This is what I love about the service as well as films generally - seeing what is out there, good or bad.
I am sure this goes against every blogging rule but I wanted to make sure that it is known I have not given up already. I have a holiday in Spain over the next few days and do not have access to the internet. I will hopefully have an opportunity to watch a couple of films and report back when I get home!
The Warriors was a 1979 cult film based on the fictional gangs of New York. Cyrus, the leader of the Gramercy Riffs, announces a truce but is shot dead by the leader of the Rogues, However, the Rogues manage to frame the Warriors, who are then chased around New York until the news is announced that it was not the Warriors that killed Cyrus.
I really did not enjoy this film. I really think you had to be 15 in 1979 to properly appreciate it.I was hoping it would show the reality of gang warfare in inner cities. It does look like it would be a symbol of rebellion for teens of that time, but it really had not aged well. The over the top outfits made them look like members of Fame rather than tough New York gangs.
As someone who has lived in South London for five years, the existence of gangs is always present despite not really being visible. They do have their own clothing, but not Village People outfit rejects. There were elements of gang culture in there but it did some across as too theatrical and middle class. The acting matched this and made it some over the top farce rather than a hard core gang film.
There were some interesting parts, I particularly loved the use of the comic book graphics which added a characterture feel to the film. There were elements of gang culture that exists today, such as tagging. The role of women, or girls, was also interesting. They were there for their sexuality, sometimes using it as a weapon which is also realistic.
I suppose I am slightly too critical of this film because I was only a glint in my mother's eye when it was made. Had I grown up in the 1970s I probably would be its biggest fan. Instead I prefer the grittiness of Children of God to the campary of The Warriors.
I am not sure why I added this film to my list but I really did not enjoy it.
A Four Letter Word explores the life of Luke, a stereotypical gay guy who goes on a journey of self discovery when he meets Stephen (with a PH), a rent boy who he falls for. However, Stephen is not always who he seems to be. While Luke goes on this relationship of self exploratory, a number of characters are there to support him, including his anti-stereotypical gay friend who works with him at the sex shop in Chelsea, the couple who have just moved in with each other and the heterosexual alcoholic woman who has to be in control of everything, including her wedding.
This film is your typical TLA Releases production: wooden acting, a plastic cast and a script as shallow as a kids paddling pool. Certainly not a work of art and does not try to produce anything meaningful. Some of the one liners, such as 'slut is a four letter word for yes!', did produce a smile, but a few too many sank without trace.
I always find it intriguing that these films always portray the two extremes: one the gay man who parties and sleeps around, and two, the gay man who is the activist and helps the community. I never fully understand why films do this as usually gay men are a mixture of the two
I also found the couple that had a sub plot to be completely pointless and wooden. I am not sure why they were included as they brought nothing to film and seemed the most boring couple in the world.
Despite all its faults and flaws, A Four Letter Word is meant to be trashy and light hearted which I suppose it delivers (although there are better examples). While this was never going to meet the artistic merit of a 1960s classic or a French masterpiece, this sort of film has a place on my rental list because it is a guilty pleasure - something we should not be taking too seriously.
2/5 - Fails as a piece of cinema but a little gem of a guilty pleasure
Red River tells the story of Thomas Dunson (John Wayne) who wants to start his own successful cattle ranch in Texas. He adopts an orphan boy, Matt Garth (Montgomery Clift). Fourteen years later, they have their own full cattle ranch, but look to head north to Missouri because of the level of poverty in the south. The film captures the relationship between the two cow boys and how Dunson turns authoritarian.
I have to be honest and say that Westerns are really not my cup of tea. I have tried four or five times to get into them but they are just not my thing. At times, I really struggled to follow the story, especially as the film lasted over two hours. Despite this, there were moments of brilliance in the acting. Wayne had moments where he magnificent, playing Dunson like a third world, blood thirsty dictator. Clift balanced this out with a more humane Matt. John Ireland's performance as Cherry Valance is also worth noting. Despite these moments of brilliance, it did not help the film dragging.
I think there are two types of reviewers - one who likes to be taken to a completely alien place in time and another to see something that they can relate to. I think I am more of the latter. As you can probably tell from my previous reviews, the only thing I can associate with is the influence this film had on the Village People!
I am sorry and I try my best to engage with all genres, but this just did not do it for me.
2/5 - I am sure it is probably a classic but it is just not my thing
As someone who is keen on learning more about cinema, I decided to go to this glamour exhibition of over 70 photo portraits of the stars of the screen from 1920s-60s. It featured actors, from Audrey Hepburn to Elizabeth Taylor and Charlie Chaplin to James Dean.
I have to admit my knowledge of film from this period is extremely limited but this did not ruin the display at all. It was amazing the glamour of the collection and how styles changed, especially in the women. There were some striking and popular images, such as Elizabeth Taylor in Suddenly, Last Summer and it was good to see them on a canvass. I also liked the display of who they airbrushed the pictures and shows, even then they had some work done.
Overall, the only let down was my knowledge. I wish I had seen more of the films but I hope to do this in the future. A worthwhile visit for any film buff - it closes soon so hurry!
Eleven Men Out tells the story of Otter, Reykjavik FC's top striker, who decides to out himself to a national magazine. He is immediately dropped from the side and decides to play for Pride FC, a gay amateur side. In the meantime, his teenage son struggles to deal with this on top of having an alcoholic ex-Miss Iceland for a Mother. Otter gets to prove his worth by organising a match with his old club during gay pride.
Although homophobia is rife in sport, especially football, the story is not really original and pretty predictable. However, I do not think it was intended to be a major work of art but just really wanted to make a small political point but the film ends up as being inoffensive and unmemorable.
The acting was nothing special and surprisingly wooden in parts. The relationship between Otter and his son was not believable. Despite this, there are light moments of comedy with the drunk ex-wife and the un PC brother. Otter himself is more like a character from Footballers' Wives and certainly had the looks if nothing else.
There was moments of comedy when they travel out of Reykjavik and you get a real sense of what an Icelandic fishing community is really like.
Iceland is not known for its cinema, and this sits in the shadows of the far superior 101 Reykjavik for any serious fans of European cinema. However, this was a light movie that is mildly entertaining and good for a week night in and perhaps I should not expect so much from it. I just wish such an important topic could have been done a lot better.
2.5/5 - Has its moments but really fails to deliver what it sets out to achieve
All Boys is a documentary about the gay porn industry in post Communist Czech Republic. It follows a number of models and the director in the rise and fall of the industry. It includes what they did after they reached the end of their career at the ripe old age of 22.
As a documentary it was pretty poor. The voice over was trying to make out the film was something it was not. At times it felt quite exploitative which I suppose the industry is. There are many porn stars that enjoy themselves and are in control of their career. However, this company took vulnerable teenagers off the street and persuaded them to model, promising them money. Most of the boys end up homeless, drug addicts and alcoholic. Despite this, I am a committed libertarian and think in no way the industry should be restricted. I just think the director should think about what he is leading these boys into. Some of the boys end up in 'normal' careers, one even has a wife.
I also found difficult that the studio specialised in barebacking scenes. However, there was no mentioning of testing the models. I just got the impression that this was a low budget studio that did not take their responsibility seriously. I suppose a documentary film is better at focusing on the more corrupt element of the industry, but this does not reflect a lot of the industry.
I suppose it did not help that the type of guys used are really not my type.
I think overall this will appeal to anyone who enjoyed Bel Ami late 90s twink porn, but sorry this is just not my thing.
1/5 - Poor documentary - a turn off not a turn on.
Holding Trevor tells the story of Trevor, a young gay guy, who is lost and has no direction in life. His best friend and ex lover, Darrell, is a junkie, who he loves. Despite meeting Ephram, the man of his dreams, he is still missing a purpose. He is supported in his journey by his bitchy gay friend, Jake, and fag hag, Andie.
I have wanted to see this film for a couple of years, partly because of it being a gay indie classic, and partly because of Jay Brannan (Jake). Jay plays Jake in much the same manner as Ceth in Shortbus - funny and slightly bitchy. I have wondered whether it would be good to see him do something different, but I think this type of character reflects him and this is what he does best.
Holding Trevor is a better representative of gay indie cinema. In no way it is perfect, some of the shots are amateur and, at points, the acting can be slightly wooden. However, this type of film will never be made in Hollywood so it is a compromise for such a themed film to be made. Saying that, the dialogue is very natural and reflects typical conversations a gay man would normally have - witty one liners and subtle put downs.
Trevor does become too self involved at times and there is an element not wanting him to be happy, reflected very well with the 'perfect' doctor Ephram. However, the voice overs are a little self indulgent and it gets very Dawson's Creek at times. Despite this, he represents a lot how some gay men feel about life.
His relationship with his friends is pivotal in the film and Andie in particular is very good. The sub plot of her finding out she is HIV positive was very realistic. Her relationship with Trevor demonstrates that you do not have to be related in order to be family.
Although this film will never be Oscar winning, I think it is, despite its flaws, a little gem amongst the many poor titles within its genre. I knew it would not live up to my high expectations, but it is still essentail viewing for any gay man.
3.5/5 - Rough round the edges but deep down it has a heart
I was expecting my next discs but they have yet to have arrived so I have decided to review a documentary that is on BBC Four tonight.
Time Shift - Dear Censor is an excellent documentary on the correspondence between the BBFC and film directors. It demonstrates how society's attitudes change and how the film censors have to cope with the responsibility of determining what the boundaries in taste and decency are.
Rebel Without a Cause, one of my favourite films, was one of the first to feature because they felt the parenting skills of James Dean were poor and could negatively influence society. This seems ludicrous in today's films but clearly an issue of the time.
I was surprised there was no real mention of censoring homosexuality (the Celluloid Closet is a better resource for this). Women in Love was the nearest but was more focused on the first male full frontal nudity.
BBFC developed its role to allow potentially offensive films, such as the haunting but excellent A Clockwork Orange, to receive approval because they are a work of art. As a committed libertarian, I agree no organisation should limit films just because the majority of the population would be offended.
This principle was particularly tested with Salo or the 120 Days of Sodom, which is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. But the correspondence with Pier Paolo Pasolini made the excellent point that it is a film to 'turn off' abuse rather than 'turn on'.
I was very interested in more recent films, such as Shortbus, which have pushed the boundaries again. However, we are not allowed to see any correspondence from the last 20 years so I hope the BBC will do this again to uncover the concerns of more modern classics.
I really enjoyed this step back in time and it gives a good grounding in the history of film, how society has changed and how governments deal with controversy in art.
If you have access to BBC iPlayer, I highly recommend it.
