BearCity (US 2010)

The Gist:

After accepting that what he really wants in life is a big hairy bear, a young man embraces the bear community, and is welcomed into a group of friends, each dealing with their own lives and issues. As he becomes more comfortable with his new life, our young gay (not especially bear-ish) protagonist works on getting a boyfriend, specifically the hottest, most popular (read: sluttiest), silver fox, "daddy" in town.

Comment with no important spoilers:

I wanted to like the movie a lot more than I did, but unfortunately there were a few too many issues for me to fully get into it. 

Mainly that there is just way too much going on. There are a couple movies worth of material here if not a short run TV show. In addition to the main story of protagonist chasing after his silver fox daddy; there is also an out-of-work chub guy deciding to lose weight by surgery, only to lose his hot chaser boyfriend instead; as well as gay couple deciding to try non-monogamy despite their concerns of what it may do to their relationship.

There are hints of interesting threads to follow, but not enough time to deal with them so things are dealt with only superficially or ignored. Why is the silver fox daddy so afraid of relationships?  Why is he so mean to the young guy? Will the young guy and the silver fox daddy deal with the fact that they are at least twenty years apart in age? These are just a few examples, and only from the main storyline, which is actually the least interesting of the three stories presented.

Another negative was that there were a few distracting technical/ low budget issues (jumbling day and night in the same scene always tends to throw me when noticeable).

On the other hand, the acting is relatively good and these are NOT the same stories that are told over and over again. 

At the very least this is worth a try… as long as you aren't bothered by naked, stocky, hairy men in sex scenes that is, because this movie abounds in sex scenes a la Queer as Folk (i.e., show everything but penis). 

Actually, I'd add another caveat, if the word husbear makes you cringe, this is probably not the best bear movie for you.  

Women:

Not really.

People of Color:

A couple

Gratuitous nudity:

Lots and lots of nudity and very hairy sex scenes.

• Director: Douglas Langway
• Writer: Douglas Langway
• Actors: Joe Conti, Christian Dante White, James Martines, Stephen Guarino
• 104 min
• Spanish
• IMDB

Visions of Sugar Plums (US 2001)

The Gist:

Closeted protagonist dude and his boyfriend happily prepare for their first Christmas together. Unfortunately for them things quickly break down when closeted dude admits that not only are his conservative religious bible-thumping parents coming over for the holiday, but that they don't know their closeted son is gay. So he needs to de-gay the apartment. Starting with the boyfriend. 

Will the relationship survive? Will the parents find out their nelly, unmarried son is a nelly homosexual? How badly will they react? Will the boyfriend have an affair with a random guy he meets while sulking at a bar on Christmas Eve? Does anyone care?

Comments with a couple of spoilers that don't matter since you're never going to see this:

Strip off the Christmas tinsel and you are left with a simple gay coming out movie. Unfortunately not a very good one. Extremely not good. Which leads to the question "Is it so bad that it becomes good again?"

So, reasons not to see this in no particular order:

1. It feels like the movie was shot on a video camcorder, only using the built in microphone and ambient lighting. Every time conditions are even slightly less than ideal (the majority of the time) it is muddy looking and the dialogue is barely understandable. 
2. For a melodramatic coming out story, this is REALLY melodramatic.
3. The sassy black drag queen neighbor, who depending on your attitude to the gay movie stereotype that the lone African-American gay man present must be an effeminate queen, is either boring or offensive or both.
4. Terrible overacting.

On the other hand, reasons to see the movie include:

1. The terrible overacting is funny when the mom discovers that her son is gay and yells out: “No!" "NO!" "Oh Jesus NO!" "NO!" "NOT MY SON!” Sadly, unintentional hilarity only happens the one time and the rest of the movie is just regular bad acting.
2. The movie is only a little over an hour long.

All in all, not worth watching.

Women:

Landlady and weepy conservative religious mother who weeps a lot.

People of Color:

The aforementioned landlady and a sassy black drag queen neighbor who hosts a drag show at what appears to be someone's living room disguised as a gay bar.

Gratuitous nudity:

No nudity. Just a boyfriend who appears to have been cast for his looks, so is somewhat shirt-phobic. If skin is the reason to watch a gay movie, the DVD cover art with a present strategically placed over the boyfriend's “junk” (and the closeted guy screaming at the present (because it's badly wrapped?)) is the most you will see.   

• Director: Edward J. Fasulo
• Writer: Anthony Bruce
• Actors: Edward J. Fasulo, Mark W. Hardin
• 78 min
• IMDB

Patrik, Age 1,5 (Sweden 2008)

The Gist

Göran and his husband Sven move to the suburbs in preparation for adopting a baby and living a life of Swedish family values. Unfortunately no country is willing to let a gay couple adopt a child. When an opportunity to adopt unexpectedly comes, they jump at the chance, only to find that due to a typographical error, 1 ½ year old Patrik is actually a 15 year old homophobic hoodlum. The rest of the story is fairly predictable, and yet…

Comments with a technically major spoiler or two

In an earlier entry I joked about the plot points that a  “gay couple + kid makes a family” story must cover and this movie hits nearly every single one. Kid is a homophobic ass? Yup. The gay couple’s relationship is strained by the stress of adapting to the kid? Yup. Happy ending? Yup.

The movie is very predictable, and yet, it is also good.

The production as a whole is well done. It is nice to look at, showing us a Swedish summer that is sharply colorful. The acting is good as well. In some of these gays with kids movies, you never buy into the idea that the adult actors even like children. However in a scene where Gustaf Skarsgard looks at a man with his young son you truly believe that he is someone who longs for fatherhood. 

  

Even though large chunks of the story are predicable, there are pieces that are somewhat surprising, as the movie touches on both the positive and negative aspects of suburbia, and doesn’t shy away from the casual homophobia the men face, both from their community and their “liberal” government.

Definitely worth a watch. As long as you don’t mind subtitles (or speak Swedish) that is.

Women:

Family, co-workers, neighbors, bureaucrats; these men do not live in a world where half the population is conveniently missing.

People of Color:

I tend to not find a sea of all white actors quite as annoying when taking place in a stereotypically homogeneous place such as Sweden. Interestingly, a line of dialogue makes it clear that the “other” for these people are Polish immigrants. Even so, the movie is not quite 100% blue eyed blond Swedes, just 99% or so.

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope.

• Director: Ella Lemhagn
• Writers: Michael Druker, Ella Lemhagen
• Actors: Gustaf Skarsgard, Torkel Peterson, Tom Ljungman
• 103 min
• Swedish
• IMDB

Be Mine (US 2009)

The Gist:

Mason and friends reminisce about the distant past (last year) when he was obsessed with the idea that his first kiss with a man would be perfect and lead to true love.

Comments with many a spoiler:

In the movie we have:

• The just married that day protagonist spends the afternoon with his “sassy” black gay friend (instead of his husband).
• His just married that day husband spends the afternoon with friends (instead of the protagonist).
• Flashbacks to the day the newlyweds first met, where college kids act wacky and sassy at school.
• Flashbacks to the night the newlyweds first met, where college kids act wacky and sassy at a party.
• Flashbacks to the day after the party, where college kids no longer bother being wacky and sassy.
• A subdued party on the night of the wedding where the newlyweds finally spend time together.

Keep in mind that ALL of this happens in a movie barely over an hour long. Now in addition to that hodgepodge of events and scenes, mix in several minutes worth of establishing shots, add on poor acting, inconsistent sound, odd casting (these are very old looking college kids), bad gay clichés (Sassy African-American Queen) and you end up with a bit of a mess.

Which is an overly long introduction to simply say that this is not really a good movie.

A shame, because while having the protagonist fixated on his first “real” kiss with a man is kind of saccharin sweet; there is nothing necessarily wrong with the story of an inexperienced college kid longing for romance and first love.

Unfortunately, as can be gleaned from the plot outline quite a lot of time is spent not telling that story. If that weren’t bad enough, the aforementioned “issues” multiply against each other to the point where instead of a story about a college kid looking for love, it ends up feeling like a multi-hour long saga about drunk 30-somethings crashing a never ending frat party.

In the end, not worth the (admittedly short) time to watch it.

Women:

The protagonist’s white female best friend, a “wacky” white female friend, and party guests walking in the background.

People of Color:

The protagonist’s “Sassy” African-American gay friend and maybe one or two party guests walking in the background. For a wild party, it was kind of boring and I found myself only half paying attention to the movie by this point.

Gratuitous nudity:

A quick flash of skinny dipping butt shots

• Directors: Dave Padilla, Steven Vasquez
• Writer: Jeremy Huntington
• Actors: Dan Selon, Jared Welch
• 70 min
• IMDB

Is It Just Me? (US 2010)

The Gist:

In a city filled to overflowing with hot gay men only interested in quick hook ups with other equally hot gay men, can Blain, an average looking gay man find a chance at true love? Of course he will, and his name is Xander. The actual question is when an online profile picture mix up leads to a case of mistaken identity between Blain and his sexy roommate Cameron, who will Xander choose?

Comments with spoilers:

I was prepared to be annoyed by the movie when the first couple of scenes set up the idea that Blain was the only good guy in Los Angeles, because he was interested in dating and romance, while everyone else in the city was a rude slut. I was also all set to be annoyed by the idea that despite being played by an attractive actor, Blain was supposed to be “average” looking.

Luckily, it did not turn out to be as bad as I feared. Though to elaborate on Blain not being handsome, the story makes it clear (by way of friends telling him repeatedly), that Blain really is a good looking guy (which in itself is kind of annoying, watching pretty people being told they are pretty). 

So what we have in the movie is a good looking guy with low self esteem acting like a pill while trying to start a relationship with another good looking guy. Which brings up the question of why anyone would want to be with such a self-deprecating negative stick in the mud.  

Worse, a self-deprecating negative stick in the mud who is a lying idiot. Then again, it is a mistaken identity romance comedy based on a Three’s Company worthy mix up. If our protagonist weren't a lying idiot and simply told his date the truth that he was not his go-go boy roommate, there wouldn't be a movie. Well, at least not this movie.

His lying idiot antics were amusing to me, not in and of themselves, but in the implications. The movie plays up the idea that lying Blain is a much better catch than his shallow vain roommate Cameron. The problem, for me at least, is that roommate Cameron (and nearly everyone else in the movie) is arguably a much better person than lying Blain. Cameron is vain and shallow yes, but also honest and loyal. By the end of the story he also ends up in a relationship, except that his path to romance is filled with not so much with hijinks and lies as much as lots and lots of sex. 

This sounds as if I hated the movie, but in truth, I didn’t. Flaws aside, this is a good enough movie with fair acting that does an ok job of telling a goofy story of two guys falling in love.

Women:

Two, a best friend and a secretary. 

People of color:

Best friend and occasional guy in background.

Gratuitous nudity:

While not technically naked, there is barely dressed male eye candy by way of go-go dancers which fulfills the gay movie stereotype of requiring bare skin. The actual gratuitous nudity comes by way of a quick flash of bare butt. 

• Director: J.C. Calciano
• Writer: J.C. Calciano
• Actors: Nicholas Downs, David Loren, Adam Huss
• 93 min
• IMDB

Violet's Visit (Australia 1995)

The Gist:

A 15 year old girl, Violet, aka Scooter, runs away to Sydney in search of her father. Who turns out to be in a relationship with another man and very comfortable in his child free very gay life. Can they all work out how to be a family or will Violet/Scooter have to go back to her unhappy life of putting up with her mother's ever changing parade of boyfriends?

Definitely spoiler filled comments:

The “Gay couple and kid(s) become a family despite themselves” sub-genre of cheap gay flicks is not exactly a highlight of queer cinema. To tell the story you just plod along all or most of the following outline:

GAY COUPLE: We have no kids(s) and are super gay, YAY!

GAY COUPLE: We now have kid(s) because:

                             Adoption (but not the baby we wanted)

                             Friend or relative kicked the bucket

                             One of us had a kid(s) before coming out

GAY COUPLE: Having a kid(s) means we can’t be super gay any more, pout;

KID(S): You guys are fags, pout;

ALL: Let’s have a “we are learning to get along” montage;

GAY COUPLE: Oh no, despite the montage, things are not going well and we will:

                             loose the kid(s) and

                             break up as well, pout;

ALL: Never mind, thanks to another montage, things worked out and we are a family now, YAY!

Toss in some variables such as acting and directing skills mix and stir and for better or worse you’ve got yourself a movie; in the case of Violet’s Visit, for worse.

I rented the movie from Netflix where the reviews range from glowing positive “best movie ever” to complaints of thick Australian accents. I fall into the complaint crowd. Not for the accents, but rather because it was just not very good. 

It starts off as if a sappy after school special about a gay couple and a girl learning to be a family then halfway through, suddenly turns into a sappy gay themed soap opera about a man dealing with both his boyfriend of 8 years and daughter leaving him.

The daughter running away when things get tough makes sense at least as running away from trouble is one of her few established characteristics. What makes no sense is the boyfriend who had been championing the idea of the three of them living together as a family suddenly changing his mind and leaving. I can only guess this it was done to add drama to the story. However, instead of drama, having him flip his position 180 degrees out of the blue just makes everything confusing.

Beside the plot issues there is poor acting and broad stereotypes. To be gay in Australia means being into drugs, gym, poppers, gym, leaving porn magazines strewn across every available surface of your home, and gym.

All in all, not really worth the time. 

Women: 

There is annoying Violet/Scooter, her annoying mother who shows up for one scene, and a crazy homeless gal who hangs out in the background of one scene and has no lines. 

People of color:

I've a tendency to be less potentially annoyed by foreign films if they end up being all white. Then again, Sydney in the 90's would probably have had more nonwhite people than a single lone homeless, crazy, Asian woman. 

Gratuitous nudity:

There's a brief "don't really see anything" shot done for comedic purpose. As far as just showing off skin, the would-be dads spend a lot of time being relatively undressed.

• Director: Richard Turner
• Writer(s): Andrew Creagh, Barry Lowe
• Actors: Graham Harvey, David Franklin, Rebecca Smart
• 84 min
• IMDB

Aaron... Albeit a Sex Hero (US 2009)

The Gist:

It isn't bad enough that Aaron is stuck in a dead end job leading groups of retired women on movie themed tours around Austin. On his latest tour he has to deal with a hunky but annoying van driver, drug dealers, scorpions, henchmen, cops, tarantulas, rattlesnakes, and pretty much most of Texas, all trying to put him out of his misery. Aaron decides he’d rather not die and starts fighting back.

Comments with Spoiler:

If the sound were stable enough to consistently hear dialogue over background music. If the night scenes were shot in such a way that I could see what was happening. If the action “shoot out” scenes were done more believably. If all these were true, would I actually like the movie?  Maybe?

I tell myself that as long as there is a good story I can look past technical faults associated with low budget indie movies. Unfortunately, with this movie on top of the technical issues, there’s questionable acting, a weak plot that works only by having characters making one stupid decision after another, and most importantly, that I’m not necessarily predisposed to liking action movies, even one where the "good guys" spend just as much time trying to get into each other’s pants as they do shooting at bad guys.

That last bit counts as a spoiler by the way. While dealing with what feels like most of Texas out to get him, Aaron ends up arguing/flirting with a hot Latino van driver, making this a movie where the male leads f*ck the idea of platonic bromance action flick to death. Unfortunately for them, they are saddled with a recurring joke that every time our boys start to get it on, a shoot out soon follows.

If watching attractive men occasionally making out in badly light night scenes is enough incentive to put up with many assorted technical, plot, and acting “issues,” then the movie is worth a try... Maybe.

Women:

An annoying wife, a grandmother and a tour group of older women. All minor characters, who seem to exist solely for comedy relief. Athough frankly they are not that funny. 

People of color:

Some tour group women, some henchmen, and the Latino van driver.

Gratuitous Nudity:

“Sexy” shower scenes and a quick flash of full frontal when we learn that our Latino van driver goes “commando”… because character underwear status is important in action flicks?

• Director: Paul Bright
• Writer: Paul Bright
• Actors: Matthew Burnett, Rafiel Soto
• 82 min
• IMDB

Redwoods (US 2009)

The Gist:
Everett (Brendon Bradley), is a man in a comfortable but stale relationship where he and his partner appear to be together more for their autistic son than for each other. While partner and son are away on a trip, Everett meets writer Chase (Matthew Montgomery) and the two develop an instant passionate emotional and physical attraction for each other. Will Everett abandon responsibilities and family for his soulmate?

Possibly spoiler-ish comments:
While it never quite reaches the level of "good" I liked the movie more than I did not. There's a core of potential in it, although if edited to remove the extraneous elements, it would be a very short story featuring pretty much only the leads and shots of the Redwoods. At times shots of trees and nature are the best thing going for the movie.

Which is harsher criticism than it deserves. Compared to other low budget movies, it is fairly well acted, not totally one dimensional, and makes good use of the Russian River locale.

The movie does deserve some credit. In order to ensure that Everett is not cast in any sort of negative light for wanting to jump on top of Matthew Montgomery, a less well done version would have gone for painting everything in stark black and white instead of gray, and cast Everett’s boyfriend as cruel instead of merely dull.

Having the son be autistic (at least I think he is supposed to be autistic) to add to Everett's internal conflict might be a bit over the top, but then again, maybe it was the easiest way of downplaying the option of simply breaking up and working out shared custody of their son.

The biggest problem with the movie though is the ending, which nearly negates everything I wrote implying that the movie was not overly simplistic. I won't spoil it, but it goes way too far into "wrap everything up and put a bow on top" territory taking it from what could be real life into movie drama land.

While not a great movie, it is fine for what it is, a fairly low budget gay flick that tells a story where people just happen to be gay instead of a "gay story."

Women:
A few minor roles of mother, friend, and cousin. Considering that the movie is very sparsely populated (other than the two leads there's barely anyone else in it) this isn't too bad.

People of color:
Seems the Russian River area is all white.

Gratuitous nudity:
A couple of full frontal shots (not of the leads) that having nothing to do with the story or plot and are little more than distractions that pull you out of the movie. There's also a quick flash of flesh that depending on your attitude towards showing skin during love scenes may or may not count as gratuitous.

• Director: David Lewis
• Writer: David Lewis
• Actors: Matthew Montgomery, Brendon Bradley
• 82 min
• IMDB