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