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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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
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
