Bear City

2010, 105 minutes, USA


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!

The Lion in Winter

1968, 129 minutes, UK


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.

3.5/5 - A grand performance by Katherine Hepburn

Body Without Soul

1996, 93 minutes, Czech Republic


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!

1/5 - Not worth the time!

Women In Love

1969, 125 minutes, UK


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.

4/5 - Ground breaking cinema

Katalin Varga

2006, 81 minutes, Romania


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

I Killed My Morther

2009, 93 minutes, Canada


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.

5/5 - An exceptional debut

Torchwood - Season 2

2008, 13 Episodes, BBC, UK


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!

Break My Fall

2011, 102 minutes, UK


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!

4/5 - an impressive debut!

Bedrooms and Hallways

1998. 93 minutes, UK

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

Plan B

2009, 104 minutes, Argentina


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.

2/5 - Not a good example of Argentinian Cinema

Il Divo

2008, 114 minutes, Italy


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

2005, 100 minutes, USA


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.

3.5/5 - Good but missing something

Ludwig

1972, 230 minutes, Italy

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.

How to be a Movie Star: Elizabeth Taylor in Hollywood

William J Mann, 2009


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 

Seeing Heaven

2010, 106 minutes, UK


'All the public want is pretty flesh'.

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.

0.5/5 - Just terrible

The next few days....

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

1979, 89 mins, USA


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.

1/5 - Dated and OTT

A Four Letter Word

2007, 87 mins, USA

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

1948, 133 minutes, USA


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

Glamour of the Gods: Hollywood Portraits

National Portrait Gallery, until 23 October


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

2005, 82 mins, Iceland


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