Ornaments (U.S. 2008)

The Gist:

Three friends and their assorted significant others have spent the Christmas holidays together for the past eight years. This year that means a self-centered woman who is indifferent to her girlfriend's desire to be a mother; a depressed man who is antagonistic to the fact that his new boyfriend is in love with him; and a sappy man whose wife is so newly pregnant, no one has been told yet. Over the course of the get together people act terrible to each other, testing love and friendship to the breaking point. 

Mildly Spoiler-ish Comments: 

There seems to be a train of thought that the holiday season isn't depressing enough on its own, so Christmas movies should be sad to lend a helping hand in making everyone even more miserable. Although in this case the Christmas setting is inconsequential. Any holiday or date of note that friends would use as an excuse to get together would have served, spring break, thanksgiving, a birthday, a graduation reunion, even Arbor Day would have been equally fine.

The issue of holiday aside, we have people leading sad lives, and facing issues that will quite likely end their friendships and relationships. Happy times. 

On the positive side, the acting is more or less ok (with a couple dips into over-dramatic). A larger sized man is cast as the depressed self-destructive gay man, so if nothing else, he is not the standard actor you'd expect for a gay role. 

Also, the story isn't uninteresting. It's just massively depressing. Additionally several of the characters are written to be incredibly unlikable, to the point that I didn't care about the terrible things they were going through. If anything, it quickly turned into "Oh that horrible person just had a bad thing happen to them? Good."

If movies where you actively want people to end up divorced and alone is your kinda movie, this was tailor made for you. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

One boyfriend

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope

• Director: Brian Samuel Davis
• Writer: Brian Samuel Davis 
• Actors: Mattie Spradlin, Arthur Spradlin, Julie Tolman
• 92 min
• IMDB

The Books of John (US 2007)

The Gist:

John (of the title) dies while writing in his diary (the books of the title) setting up a situation where his surviving partner Frank goes off in search of John's hidden past and in doing so finds a way to move on with his life and perhaps a new love. Also, Frank's young gay male friends worry that he's spending too much time morning and not enough time partying, and so are punished for being jerks. 

Comments (with Spoilers):

In a word, the movie was bad. 

The acting varied from okay to poor, and the quality of production (sound, filming, editing,...) varied as well, but even if you can ignore issues common to low budget movies, the bizarreness of the story can't be easily glossed over. 

The main story of the movie involves Frank reading his dead lover John's diaries and going to Alabama to find out about Dead John's childhood (While alive John was tight lipped about his past). 

Once in Dead John's podunk hometown, Frank immediately meets / has sex / starts a relationship with New Guy. During this courtship, everyone says things like how Dead John must be watching over Frank, and has brought him and New Guy together (via his dairies). Except that it turns out there is an obvious connection between Dead John and New Guy, so saying that Dead John is responsible for getting them together is a little creepy. 

There's also a subplot involving two of Frank's younger gay friends, a couple who are written as shallow and dumb, and for the crime of being shallow and dumb (thinking that morning for your dead lover should not interfere with partying) they get punished with HIV, setting off melodrama. Unfortunately involving some of the weaker actors, so poorly acted melodrama. 

Given all the technical issues and odd story, in the end, it's not worth watching. 

Women:

Several, mainly Frank's lesbian friends, who except for Frank's best friend, don't get to do very much. 

People of Color: 

Several, mainly Frank's lesbian friends, and one half of the shallow young(ish) gay couple. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Some skin and a quick flash of bare butt. Compared to the standard stereotype of gay flicks, this movie is almost modest.

• Directors: David A. Schweiger, L.W. Smith
• Writers: David A. Schweiger, L.W. Smith
• Actors: Forrest Bankston, Jeff Batton
• 89 min
• IMDB

Bear Cub (Cachorro) (Spain 2004)

The Gist:

Pedro, content his life of friends and lovers, and most importantly no serious commitments, agrees to help his sister by taking care of his nephew Bernardo for two weeks while she is in India for a trip. When circumstances require Bernardo to stay longer, the boy's grandmother comes into the picture threatening to break up the new found bond between uncle and nephew and their fledgling family. 

Comments:

I've mentioned the "gays plus a kid makes a family" subgenera here before. This is sort of the same idea, but with a determinedly single man in place of a troubled gay couple and without the cliche of having the kid be a homophobic jerk. Actually, several gay flick cliches are avoided, resulting in a movie dealing frankly with sex, drugs, and AIDS amongst other issues. 

It's well done and worth a watch. Especially so if you're into bears of the big hairy man variety.

Women:

Family, neighbors, schoolmates. In other words, it does not ignore half the population. 

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

The movie starts off with a rather revealing "bear on bear" sex scene, so yeah, there's definitely skin of the big hairy man variety.

• Director: Miguel Albaladejo 
• Writers: Miguel Albaladejo
• Actors: Jose Luis Garcia Perez, David Castillo
• 99 min
• Spanish
• IMDB

Eleven Men Out (Strákarnir Okkar) (Iceland 2005)

The Gist:

Ottar Thor, a star football (soccer) player comes out of the closet during a magazine interview in order to improve the odds of his being the cover story. He gets the cover, but is also kicked off the team as well. While dealing with the repercussions, he joins a gay amateur football (soccer) team and soon enough they will play an exhibition game against his old team, on gay pride day appropriately enough. 

Not really spoilery comments: 

While from the description it sounds exactly like the "Outted athlete joins a gay team to victory" sub genre of gay movie I've joked about before, this doesn't quite exactly follow the path laid out for it. 

For one thing, for a sports movie, very few games are actually played. Another reason, an unfortunate one, is that it spends quite a lot of time with how other people, his friends and family, deal with Ottar's announcement of being gay, rather focusing clearly on him. Unfortunate, because it was a bit annoying watching his parents and others freaking out about how his being gay would negatively affect their lives.

The division of time spent on Ottar's vs everyone else also means that by the end of the movie, he remains the same vague and undefined jerk as he is at the beginning. 

Interestingly, this is not a romanticized view of Iceland. As seen here the entire country is cold, dark, and wet from near constant downpours, and there is little to do other than get drunk. Not exactly a tourist board postcard view. 

In the end it's not a bad movie, just one that ends up being a little boring. 

Women: 

Yes

People of color: 

Some

Gratuitous nudity:

Locker room shots

• Director: Róbert I. Douglas
• Writer: Róbert I. Douglas
• Actors: Björn Hlynur Haraldsson, Helgi Björnsson, Arnmundur Ernst Björnsson
• 85 min
• IMDB

KickOff (UK 2010)

The Gist:

A gay 5 man Sunday football (soccer) league team, whose members all have issues to deal with, are about to play their first game. Unfortunately it's against the toughest bad rep team in the league (whose members also all have issues to deal with).

Comments:

The movie has many elements that should have made me love it: a large multicultural cast, varied sexuality, it's loud and bright, and sharp yet playful. Instead I just thought it was barely ok. 

Unfortunately instead of coming off as natural and a reflection of the real world, it  feels formulaic and kind of preachy. Every footballer has an issue to work through, and each one is given time to do so, leading to a story juggling drugs, internalized homophobia, questions of paternity, metrosexual-phobia, and more, and more, and more, to the point that the repetitiveness of looping subplots gets a little exhausting. So much is going on (and quickly resolved) that it's difficult to care about anyone.

Still, it's not a bad movie, just a really weak one.  Rikki Beadle Blair is the best thing in it, although in the end, watching him play a fey, gay dad of an angst-y teen made me wish I were instead watching him play a fey, gay dad of an agnst-y teen in Metrosexuality (a great British TV show).

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

One joke scene

• Director: Rikki Beadle Blair
• Writer: Rikki Beadle Blair
• Actors: Duncan MacInnes, Ian Sharp, Ludvig Bonin, Rikki Beadle Blair
• 99 min
• IMDB

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend (U.S. 1999)

The Gist:

An up and coming actor is about to marry his girlfriend, much to the annoyance of his boyfriend. A bumbling straight man is convinced to play gay as an excuse to skip out on the aforementioned wedding without facing dire consequences from his boss / girlfriend. A would-be paparazzi photographs something she shouldn't have. Which all mixed together doesn't add up to the sum of it's parts. 

Comments:

The movie wants to be a witty "Oscar Wilde-ian" farce by way of a Rock Hudson/Doris Day movie with a light dose of slap-stick comedy. While good to be ambitious, the people involved unfortunately don't manage to pull it off, and instead ended up with a slap-stick comedy that is not as "smart" as it thinks it is. 

It is also, despite being included in various lists of gay flicks, not exactly a "gay movie." The (frankly unlikable) gay couple are actually minor characters here. The real protagonist is the clumsy straight man, and thus this is actually a hetero love story, where the setting happens to be a marriage between a closeted actor and his unsuspecting bride.

If doors hitting people in the face knocking them unconscious is your kind of comedy, this might be worth watching. If that's not the definition of hilarity for you, then this is probably not worth the effort.

Women:

Several 

People of color:

None

Gratuitous nudity:

None. Though there are scenes with women in nighties if that's the way you "roll."

• Director: Kenneth Schapiro
• Writer: Kenneth Schapiro
• Actors: Deborah Gibson, Sean Runnette, Jill Novick, Valerie Perrine, Chris Bruno
• 81 min
• IMDB

Can't Stop The Music (U.S. 1980)

The Gist:

Heterosexual songwriter Jack (Steve Guttenberg) needs to put together a band to showcase his music. His heterosexual female roommate, former supermodel Samantha (Valerie Perrine) decides to help. Newly arrived in New York, heterosexual lawyer Ron (Bruce Jenner), wanting to woo Samantha, helps as well. Together they gather a group of eclectic heterosexual men and form the famous heterosexual disco music singing group, the Village People.

Comments: 

The movie is a very campy musical made during that brief time in 1980 when people thought the 80's would be 70's sexual liberation continued to a disco beat, not realizing everything was about to change. The story is dumb/silly, the acting ranges from bad to worse, it's all manner of terrible. So terrible that it swings into fun to watch territory.  

One of the things I find interesting about it is that everyone in it is straight. Well, maybe not the Leather Man, but ostensively all the other men are intended to be hetero. Quite a feat, considering the movie is about the Village People (although in truth they are only minor characters in their own movie). 

Despite doing things like writing hit disco songs about the YMCA, being utterly uninterested in his supermodel best friend, or any woman at all, other than his mother that is, Jack has a line about chasing stewardesses, proving he is straight. The "Construction Worker" dreams of fame and women (abet in a musical dream sequence). The "Indian," who spends his time half naked, "gets it on" with Samantha's female best friend. Heck, the main focus of the movie is the hetero romance between Ron and Samantha. 

People sing, they dance, they hang out nude in the hot tub of the YMCA, and yet they are all straight. Which oddly enough, makes everything even gayer, because this is the freaking Village People after all, who are so uber-gay that they negate all attempts at heteronormalizing all characters present.

Despite the throw away lines and plot points assuring the audience that all the male characters are safely straight, they all end up feeling like they're one day shy of coming out of the closet. Had there been a sequel it would have featured Jack, his boyfriend, and the now divorced Samantha attending the wedding of her ex-husband Bruce Jenner and the Leather Man (who was impossible to stuff into the closet in the first place).

It's a silly movie with outlandish numbers, a few Village People songs, and worth a watch if you like bad campy movies. 

Women:

Yes.

People of color:

Yes.

Gratuitous nudity:

Technically yes. During the YMCA routine there's brief flashes of naughty bits.

• Director: Nancy Walker
• Writers: Bronte Woodard, Allan Carr
• Actors: Valerie Perrine, Bruce Jenner, Steve Guttenberg, and assorted Village People: Ray Simpson, David Hodo, Felipe Rose, Randy Jones, Glenn Hughes, Alex Briley
• 124 min
• IMDB

eCupid (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

In a fairy tale for a social media age, we have Marshall, a man about to turn 30 who is unfulfilled by his job, and uncertain about his seven year relationship that has settled into being comfortable. Bored one night, he downloads an app, "eCupid," which promises to find him true love. The apparently omnipotent app proceeds to give Marshall exactly what he desired, life as a single man, with a string of hot men vying for his attention. Given everything he wants, why can he only think of his now ex-boyfriend Gabe?

Comments (with unimportant spoilers):

The answer to why he can only think of his boyfriend Gabe is obvious of course. It's because this is a moral lesson teaching romantic comedy with fairy tale overtones and a mobile phone app in place of an ornery genie granting your every wish to disaster. 

It is a perfectly adequate, perfunctory, "gay flick," that does exactly what it promises to do, be cute. No more, no less.

Which oddly is the worst problem with it. This feels like it was aimed squarely for average and having achieved that, "they" have ended up up with a fast food meal of a movie. Neither good nor bad, not surprising, and oddly lacking. 

General comments aside and focusing on the story, It's a bit strange that when the boyfriend Gabe receives a text saying Marshall was bored with the relationship, instead of getting mad, or having a fight, or just talking about it, Gabe immediately breaks up with him ending their seven year relationship over momentary boredom. 

Issues of 'adequacy' aside, the movie is what is. A gay flick that is cute if you watch it, but is not a loss if you don't.

Women:

One. Morgan Fairchild as, well, a mysterious and possibly powerful someone who knows a thing or two about love. Actually, considering the movie's name is eCUPID, it may have made more sense if her role was cast with a man instead. Likely the first and last time I ever argue that a gay flick would had been better with fewer women, which in this case would mean no women. 

People of color:

None

Gratuitous nudity:

None

• Director: J.C. Calciano
• Writer: J.C. Calciano
• Houston Rhines, Noah Schuffman
• 95 min
• IMDB

Why not me? (Pourquoi pas moi?)(France 1999)

The Gist:

A group of 20-something, lesbian and gay, French expat friends living in Barcelona decide to finally stop lying and come out to their parents. Further, they figure the best way to do this is at all at once at a party for mutual support, both for themselves, and their parents as well. Little do they realize that the drama they were expecting, of potential parental disapproval, would be the least of what happens that night. 

Comments:

It's a cute fun movie with a large cast. Hmm, considering we are talking about a lothario lesbian in danger of running out of available women in Barcelona, a football (soccer) playing gay man 'crushing' on a team member, a Star Wars obsessed woman, her educated-to-the-point-of-unemployable girlfriend, a "straight but not narrow" secretary, all their parents (who are another long list of attributes and quirks), and all their potential love interests, make that a very large cast. 

There's a "Almodóvar-lite" feel to the movie, with the brightness of it, strong female roles, wild coincidences, and high drama, though admittedly, not with the same quality or skill. It also plays with elements of fantastic realism, but in the end the main qualities that struck me were again, that it was cute and fun. 

It's worth a watch.

Women:

Many. 

People of color:

A couple.

Gratuitous nudity:

Extremely minor.

• Director: Stéphane Giusti
• Writer: Stéphane Giusti
• Actors: Amira Casar, Julie Gayet, Bruno Putzulu, Alexandra London
• 96 min
• French, Spanish
• IMDB

Fruit fly (U.S. 2009)

The Gist:

Bethesda, a performance artist, moves to San Francisco for a six month stay to work on her next piece, a variant of the work she habitually returns to, her desire to find her biological mother. While in the city she makes a new family of friends, and in getting a new gay best friend, gains the label "fag hag" much to her initial annoyance. Also, being a musical, people sing and perform as the city is filled with the lights and tinny sounds of 6 bit games. 

Comments:

From an interview I read, the story goes that while promoting an earlier film they'd worked on, whenever H.P. Mendoza (Writer/Director) and L.A. Renigen (Bethesda)  'hit' a LGBT festival, men would automatically assume that she was a fag hag. This oddity prompted an idea that turned into Fruit Fly. 

It's not your standard musical. Many scenes were filmed in gorilla style, that is, on public streets and locations on the sly without permits. People sing about public transportation, teenage angst, hooking up, and 'workshop-ing' their lives to tunes intentionally reminiscent of old video games. Instead of grandiose story of large massive events with a definitive dramatic conclusion, this is more of a character piece where life happens.

From what I remember, (professional) reviews tended to be mixed, but personally I really like it. The movie is fun and filled with energy and light, and features people who (in gender, race, age, and sexuality) would normally be ignored in most movies. 

Regardless of my opinion, if the inherent goofiness of people breaking out into song is off putting to you, or alternatively, if you are a strong musical fan who can't stand when actors don't have strong voices, then it wouldn't be worth watching. 

On the other hand, if quirky oddball movies with a strong sense of style and place are your kind of thing, then it's worth a watch. 

Women:

Many 

People of color:

Many 

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope

• Director: H.P. Mendoza
• Writer: H.P. Mendoza
• Actors: L.A. Renigen, Mike Curtis, Theresa Navarro, E.S. Park, H.P. Mendoza
• 94 min
• Musical
• IMDB

Just A Question Of Love (Juste Une Question D'Amour) (France 2000)

The Gist:

Laurent works very hard to convince his family that he is straight, even pretending his best friend is a serious girlfriend. His school work on the other hand, does not receive quite as much effort on his part, to the point that he is danger of flunking out of agricultural college. As a last chance he is given an internship working under a researcher, Cédric, sparking events that will bring family, truth, friendship, and love to a dramatic conclusion.

Comments (with an unsurprising spoiler):

The spoiler is this, the protagonist spends the majority of the movie repeatedly saying it will not go well when his parents and family finds out he is gay. His parents and family are repeatedly shown verifying that yes, they will react badly when they find out he is gay.

Given this, it's a bit much that characters (the same ones who'd been promoting his coming out) are surprised that Laurent's parents and family react badly when he finally comes out to them. 

That aside, it's well done. Not earth shattering good, but good enough. Although given that it is not merely a romance drama, but rather a coming out romance drama, a lot of time is spent with Laurent's parents dealing with his news which can get a bit tiresome, but overall still worth a watch. 

Women:

Mothers, aunts, family, friends, so in a word, yes.

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor

• Director: Christian Faure
• Writer: Christian Faure, Annick Laboulette, Pierre Pauquet
• Actors: Cyrille Thouvenin, Stéphan Guérin-Tillié
• 88 min
• TV Movie
• French
• IMDB

The Gay Deceivers (U.S. 1969)

The Gist:

In the late 1960's Danny and Elliot avoid the draft and the Vietnam war by claiming they are homosexuals. When it appears that the army is checking to see if they were lying, they move into a "gay" apartment complex, setting up a situation where they attempt to juggle girlfriends and normal life on the one hand, and acting like effeminate queens on the other. 

Comments with spoilers (then again the movie is over 40 years old):

I had first heard about the movie when I read Vito Russo's The Celluloid Closet where three things are noted about it:

1. It's homophobic. (And it is, misogynistic as well)
2. The actor playing the manager of the "gay" apartment complex tried to downplay the worst aspects of the homophobic humor. (It's debatable just how much of a positive effect he had, though in his favor, he is one of the better things about the movie and is almost more than just a walking stereotype)
3. There's a final joke about why the army was keeping tabs on them. (The army is full of homosexuals you see, and doesn't want straight men like Danny and Elliot in it)

These three notes aside, what I found most interesting about the movie is that it's a cautionary tale.

The boys start off the movie with straight white male privilege up the wazoo. Danny has a golden future laid out for him, a fixed path from law school to marriage to a corner office in a big law firm, while Elliot is a laid back oversexed gigolo where everything he wants is handed to him on a silver platter by rich women. 

However, the rules of male heterosexuality are inflexible, with no allowances for deviation. As soon as the stink of homosexuality touches them, their lives are wrecked. Over the course of the movie they loose their girlfriends, family, and employment. Even their sex lives dry up due to their charade. 

As far as family and friends are concerned all the boys did was move into a ridiculously decorated one bedroom apartment with "outrageous" neighbors, yet this is evidence enough to condemn them as deviants. Even when they come clean and admit it was all an act, they aren't belived, because again, the straight and narrow path is very narrow. 

When Elliot loses his job as a lifeguard (because homosexuals cannot be trusted around children) this is shown as wrong, not because discrimination against gay people is wrong, but rather because he is actually straight. Then again, this just reinforces the attitude that they were asking for trouble when they started their ruse. 

Despite all of that, it is arguable that the movie isn't that bad for it's portrayal of homosexuality. At least not too bad in context for the time period it was made. All the gay characters are silly queens yes, but no one is a psychopathic murderer or ends up dead, which was progress. 

Even if my reactions and thoughts about the homophobia displayed are all an oversensitive overreaction and the movie is just a "playing gay" comedy, I don't know that I'd recommend watching it. For a comedy, it's not that funny. At least not by modern standards since the majority of jokes fall along the lines of "Isn't it Hilarious that Homosexuals Want to be Women?"  

On the other hand, if you're good at watching things in context of the time they were made, or want to see it as an example of historical representations of homosexuality in movies, it would be an interesting watch. 

Women: 

Mothers, girlfriends, lovers, but only in the "real" world. The homosexual world is female free. 

People of color:

None

Gratuitous nudity:

There are a couple of sort of risqué shots. Actually, it may be interesting that the more "handsome" of the two leads is treated as a sex object. Did playing gay turn him into a woman as far as the 'camera' was concerned, or was his inability to remain fully clothed a "bone" of sorts for women (or gay men?) in the audience?

• Director: Bruce Kessler
• Writers: Abe Polsky, Gil Lasky, Jerome Wish
• Actors: Kenvin Coughlin, Larry Casey 
• 97 min
• IMDB

SoulMaid (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

Moses has epilepsy which give him visions; that lead him first to true love in the form of Steve, the (formerly straight) literal man of his dreams; then later to Glintentica, who may be a figment of his imagination, or who may an evil spirit who wants to take over his body in an effort to wipe out the local gay population by turning them all from prissy effeminate queens to boring straight men. 

When it turns out to be the later, the (formerly straight) boyfriend and an annoying female roommate hope to rid Moses of Glintentica by performing the most bizarre exorcism ever, despite Glintentica's threats to turn Steve (the formerly straight boyfriend) straight again if they succeed. 

Will true love prevail? Does anyone care? 

Comments:

The people involved in this were apparently trying to make a wacky romantic comedy with commentary about ex-gay therapy. It's possible that the idea could have worked,  but unfortunately, they didn't go far enough, which considering the plot description may seem an odd critique. 

The problem is that while they ended up with a crazy movie, it's not crazy enough to to overcome a huge number of issues such as poor script, wonky characterization and bad acting. In the end, the final product trips over itself, and falls somewhere between boring and just plain bad. 

The best thing about it is that the lead isn't too bad an actor. There is also the fact that even if it failed, the people involved at least tried to be interesting, if weird. Still, all in all, not worth watching. 

Women: 

One and a half. The most annoying female roommate ever, and the "evil goddess" Glintentica, who despite being played by a woman, is (if I'm reading the credits correctly) voiced by a man.

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

No, though the character of Moses who between his job as a sort of, but not really nude-maid and being written as being clothes phobic, spends a lot of screen time in his undies doing yoga poses. 

• Directors: Jeffrey Maccubbin, Jeffrey Thomas McHale, Dan Mohr, Josef Steiff
• Writer: Josef Steiff
• Actors: Tom Bailey, Becca Connolly, Joe Schenck
• 95 min
• IMDB

You Should Meet My Son (U.S. 2010)

The Gist: 

After years of trying to set up her son with eligible women over Sunday dinners, a mother learns that her son is gay. Determined that he not live his life alone, she and her sister set out to find him a husband. 

Comments:

It's a cute movie that does a good job of being amusing and is, well, for lack of a better word, cute. 

There are a few issues, some jokes fall flat, acting levels vary a bit, and the "gay bar as menagerie of wildly varying stereotypes" is so cliche that it needs to be retired, but for the most part the movie works as a light entertainment comedy with a "serious" message of acceptance and unconditional love.

Worth a watch if you're in the mood for a silly, big-hearted indie movie that doesn't require any thought on your part and that is again, amusing and cute. 

Women:

Several

People of color:

Several

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope

• Director: Keith Hartman
• Writer: Keith Hartman 
• Actors: Joanne McGee, Carol Goans, Stewart Carrico
• 85 min
• IMDB

Longhorns (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

Kevin is a Texan "good ol' boy" college student who is going through a phase. A phase that exists in certain gay porn scenarios where 'straight' college guys masterbate together,  "lending a helping hand," or more, all the while pretending that there is nothing gay about it at all. A phase that is forced to be questioned when Kevin befriends an openly gay college student named Caesar. 

Comments:

The movie quickly starts to feel like a rather timid soft porn flick, with scene after scene after scene of male characters in bed together 'banging the bishop,' 'charming the snake,' 'shaking hands the devil,' 'manhandling the ham candle,' well you get the idea. Unfortunately you can only watch so many repeats of bare chested actors lying in bed, hands under covers, pretending to jerk off before it starts to get monotonous. 

When you strip away all the pretend almost-sex scenes, you're left with a fairly short and somewhat clumsy coming out movie. One where plot and characters are much less important than ensuring every male character has one full frontal shot and ends up jerking off in bed with Kevin. 

Despite being obviously less than impressed with the movie I actually kind of like it. Not sure why when the best thing I can say about it is that given what is presumably a low budget, it doesn't look or sound too bad. The movie is certainly pointless and arguably dumb, but it isn't terrible quality wise, and there's a certain charm to it.

Very minor vaguely positive notes aside, I do not recommend seeing this unless the only thing you require from a "gay flick" is an occasional flaccid penis shot and fake porn scenes. Although if this is the case, you'd be better off just watching real porn. 

Women:

Two. Girlfriend and a friend. Three if you count a woman who doesn't really have lines as much as moans, and seems to have been hired for the size of her breasts.

People of color:

One.

Gratuitous nudity:

Full frontal for all! Well, all the male actors anyway. 

• Director: David Lewis
• Writer: David Lewis
• Actors: Jacob Newton, Derek Villanueva, Dylan Vox, Kevin Held
• 75 min
• IMDB

Fun Down There (U.S. 1989)

The Gist: 

Buddy, a young gay man, leaves his small-town home in rural upstate New York to make a new life in New York City.

Comments:

Depending on your attitude, this is one of two movies:

• An almost plotless, not very well done, boring movie about a not too smart guy leaving home to move to New York City, that just stops with no real end to the story, or
• A raw art film done a realist style unconcerned with polish, consisting of scenes for each day of the week. Specifically the week that a naive man-child leaves his rural home to establish a new life in New York City. 

Then again, maybe it's both. I'm not entirely sure. 

What I do know is that only using available lighting means that night scenes are a bit hard to see clearly, and that a scene consisting of a mini-safe sex lecture firmly sets the movie in the 80’s (actually, for a safe sex lecture it feels extremely natural). Also, long silent shots of New York work to establish a strong identity for the city. Interestingly one of these scenes is of the abandoned elevated rail line that will eventually become High Line Park. 

Plotless or not, art film or not, the lead is a good actor, good enough that it felt like he wasn't acting at all, that this could have been a documentary and he really was an innocent young man. Even though it is an odd, uneven thing that admittedly is yes, not overly exciting at times, and has a mix of acting from good to poor, overall I liked the movie, but as for recommending it? 

If you like movies with a defined story with clear cut beginnings and endings, where "interesting" things happen, and everything helps push the plot along, then this is not a movie for you. 

If you like movies with long shots where "nothing happens," and the only plot/story is life rolling on and on, then this may be worth a watch.

Your call. 

Women:

Family, boss and co-workers, in other words, yes. 

People of color:

One waiter

Gratuitous nudity:

There is one shot where you sort of kind of see something in shadow and dark, but then again, it ends up "feeling" natural, so gratuitous is not quite the right word. 

• Director: Roger Stigliano
• Writers: Roger Stigliano, Michael Waite
• Actors: Michael Waite, Yvonne Fisher, Martin Goldin, Nickolas B. Naggourney
• 89 min
• IMDB

Cowboy Junction (U.S. 2006)

The Gist:

A closeted married man has an encounter  (i.e., hooks up) with a young gay man, the cowboy of the movie, and brings him back home to work as a handyman. While he's off at work, the young man and wife become friendly, which threatens to reveal dangerous secrets. 

Comments:

I'll play nice and not reveal the details of the big secret of the movie other than to say that the secret was so obvious that by the the end of the movie it was not so much shocking as a relief the story was finally over. In other words the movie is unfortunately not really good. 

The story is "whatever," the acting just ok, and overall the production was, well odd, but the question is if the oddness was intentional or not. 

For example, the set up of a married man hiring a live-in handyman implies a large home, but instead of that there's a small cramped house on a busy street, which adds to the sense of desperation on the husbands part and the obliviousness of the wife as to what her husband is up to.

If deliberate it would be an interesting way to deal with characterization, but considering the poor quality of other aspects of the movie, it feels like the oddness was more than likely just an accident of budget constraints. 

The best thing I can say about the movie is that at least the folks involved tried to make something interesting, it's just unfortunate that the basic story couldn't sustain a movie. 

Women:

One, the wife, given that this is in essence a three person play, not as bad a ratio as it sounds.

People of color:

None.

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes, or no, depending on your definition of gratuitous nudity when it comes to sex scenes.

• Director: Gregory Christian
• Writer: Gregory Christian
• Actors: Gregory Christian, Elyse Mirto, James Michael Bobby
• 80 min
• IMDB

Violet Tendencies (U.S. 2010)

The Gist:

Violet is the "last fag hag in New York," or at least the last woman left in her crowd of friends, all gay men. Rapidly approaching 40 and still single, she is facing the prospect that in order to find a boyfriend she may need to quit her "boys" cold turkey and leave the gay world behind, because it's not like she's going to find a straight man hanging out at gay bars. Also, there's two subplots where two gay couples don't do very much, but drama happens anyway.

Comments (with a couple unimportant spoilers):

Mindy Cohn plays Violet, so the expected joke in writing about the movie would be something about how Natalie from the Facts of Life grew up to be a middle aged fag hag in New York. Although oddly she's not the only familiar face in the movie. I recognized a few men from other indie gay movies, so my viewing went like this: 

"Hey, I remember him. He played a gay writer in another gay movie. Huh. He's a gay writer in this one." 

"Hey I remember that other guy. He played a slutty gay in another gay movie. Huh. He's a slutty gay in this one."

So the lesson is that not only can you be typecast as gay but as a specific kind of gay? Or maybe the lesson is that roles available in indie gay movies are a bit limited, or maybe I'm being too harsh.  

Regardless, the movie is neither good, nor bad, just average. It's also a bit over long, and unfortunately spends a bit too much time on the secondary (and uninteresting) gay characters instead of Mindy, er, Violet. 

Actually, there is something interesting about the her gay boys. The idea is thrown out that they take her for granted and to a certain extent sabotage her attempts at relationships. In the end this is supposed to be untrue because they "love her," yet, pretty much all the movie does is show them taking her for granted and to a certain extent sabotaging her attempts at having a long term relationship.

There is a caveat to my saying the movie is just average, which is that this is obviously not a good movie to watch if you object to the term "fag hag" (or jokes about women's body parts, or lewd humor).

Women:

The protagonist, a co-worker, and a couple other minor roles. 

People of color:

A couple

Gratuitous nudity:

Not technically, though there are some rather revealing gogo boy outfits.

• Director: Casper Andreas
• Writer: Jesse Archer
• Actors: Mindy Cohn, Marcus Patrick, Jesse Archer
• 99 min
• IMDB

Issues 101 (U.S. 2002)

The Gist:

Joe is man (aged 18? 36?) who in quick succession comes out of the closet (more or less) and goes off to college (as a freshman?). Once there he meets, and falls in and out of love with a straight frat dude in less time than it takes to drink a beer. This feat accomplished, he rushes a frat and quickly ends up sleeping with his "older" frat mentor Christian. Despite Christian's habit of sleeping his way through fraternity pledges, he is "straight," or at least "straight with issues." Then again considering  Christian sets up Joe with his openly gay younger brother (despite obviously wanting Joe for himself), dumb is probably a better descriptor than straight with issues.

While all this is happening, Joe runs for student body president (as a freshman?), people are angst filled (or at least as angst filled as their acting abilities allow), male actors flash their bare butts at the camera for no reason, and you as viewer end up wondering why you're watching such schlock in the first place.

Comments: 

This movie is bad. No, that's too kind. It's terrible. This is "gay movies suck" stereotype kind of horrible. 

There's a lot wrong here. Nonsensical story, ridiculous sets (one of the frat houses seems to consist solely of a bare wall with Greek letters taped onto it), non-existent acting skills, this movie has it all. 

Even with all this going on, one of the strangest things about the movie is the protagonist Joe. It's not clear just old he is supposed to be. The story is more or less written as if he were 18-ish, yet the actor playing him is a thin haired man who looks to be in his mid-thirties (and at least 15 years senior to his "older" frat brother mentor) so it feels like he's an almost middle aged adult who've decided to go back to school to join a fraternity. His characterization is also wildly inconsistent. Depending on scene, he is unbelievably naive or a sage elder, a wide-eyed brand new baby gay or jaded old bitter queen. 

To be fair, it's not all bad. A good thing about the movie is... well, if you're into skinny white guys, there are occasional flashes of skinny white butts. Then again considering you can see much better looking bare male butts on the internet for free, this is not really a selling point. 

There's also... I guess you could watch it as a lesson on what not to do if filming your own independent movie. 

Sadly, the best thing I can say about this movie is that there are even worse ones out there.

Women: 

If you count roles with any lines at all, a few. 

If you count roles with more than a single line, then two. A mean woman running against Joe for student body president, and Christian's girlfriend who by movies' end apparently still doesn't know that her boyfriend is a total power bottom who constantly cheats on her. Somehow this is supposed to be a happy ending.

People of color:

Nope. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Yup.

• Director: John Lincoln
• Writer: John Lincoln
• Actors: Michael Rozman, Dennis W. Rittenhouse Jr.
• 90 Min
• IMDB

Shelter (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

Zach, a young man from a working class background living in San Pedro California, has put his dreams of art school on hold to help his sister raise her son. What little free time he has is spent dealing with his off-and-on again girlfriend and hanging out with his best friend Gabe, who lives in a rich part of town. When Gabe's older brother Shaun returns home for a visit, he and Zach start hanging out, surfing, becoming close, and setting up a situation where Zach must not only face truths about himself, but also decide between his apparent inescapable family obligations and what he really wants for himself in life.

Not too Spoiler-ish Comments:

Poking around online it looks like this is a very well liked movie, and deservedly so. It's well executed, the acting is good, and the connection between the two leads is palpable. They do a great job of portraying falling in love. 

Additionally, the surfing shots are beautiful, and the movie doesn't avoid the fact the guys would face some issues, not only with Zach dealing with being newly out and the pressures he faces with his family obligations, but of class as well. That is, that growing up in a beachside mansion vs. living in "the ghetto" as they jokingly refer to San Pedro, would lead the two men two have different outlooks on life.

All in all it's a good movie.

Which is not to say perfect, though in truth perhaps the issues I have reflect more on me than the movie. I kept having suspension of disbelief problems, a race/reality thing. As presented in the movie, San Pedro is a nearly deserted, rundown, white working class city relatively close to the monied white enclave of whatever South O.C. / North San Diego beach town it is Gabe and Shaun parent's mansion is located at. Thing is, in reality San Pedro is not only nowhere near the monied parts of Orange County/San Diego, is also actually a relatively average neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles with a large Latino population. 

So yeah, not exactly real life. Regardless, the movie is good, and an example that a "Gay movie" doesn't have to mean mediocre or bad. 

Women: 

Two. Cranky sister, and an on & off again girlfriend.

People of color:

Nope.

Gratuitous nudity:

Not really. 

• Director: Jonah Markowitz
• Writer: Jonah Markowitz
• Actors: Trevor Wright, Brad Rowe
• 97 minutes
• IMDB

Heaven's A Drag (aka To Die For) (U.K. 1994)

The Gist:

After his drag queen performer lover dies of AIDS, a man is set on moving on with his life of meaningless hook ups as soon as possible. His drag queen performer lover's ghost on the other hand disagrees. 

Comments: 

The stereotype of "AIDS" movies is that they are dreary and depressing, but this is about a ghost using tricks to interfere with his lover from, er, tricking with other men. It should be a version of Topper, where dead Cary Grant is gay and teaches Cosmo to fully live life. It should have its sad moments yes, but in the end be fun and up-lifting.

It's not.

Instead it's a movie where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he will soon die from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

The drag queen half of the couple dies, leading to the second half of the story where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he has died from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

Well, in truth, there is more to it,  lessons are learned, and amusing ghost tricks are tricked, it's just that instead of fun and uplifting it ends up being kind of dreary and depressing. In addition, it's dark and muddy looking, the sound quality is iffy, and the comedy relief neighbor is anything but funny.

All in all, this is only really worth watching as proof just how depressed everyone was in the day, so that even comedies were sad and dark, or better yet, just go watch Topper instead. 

Women:

Two. A mom and the unfunny comedy relief neighbor. The joke being that she's desperate to marry her boyfriend, because a woman wanting a committed relationship is apparently hilarious. 

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor

• Director: Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Writers: Johhny Byrne, Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Actors: Ian Williamsn, Thomas Arklie, Dillie Keane
• 101 min
• IMDB

Long-Term Relationship (U.S. 2006)

The Gist:

X = Mr. Slutty Gay

Y = Old fashioned romantic gay man new to town. 

Looking for a relationship Y takes out an ad in a gay newspaper. Yes, considering it's actually not that old, the movie is already badly dated. Anyway, tired of his slutty life X answers the ad. X meets Y. They date and fall in love, but have a problem. Can they make a relationship work when X + Y = terrible sex?

Comments: 

The silly equation of X + Y = terrible sex is an over simplification. The two leads have many other issues beyond sex. In fact so much time is spent showing us that these guys are not a good match that no amount of counterpoint "we are so cute together" montages can overcome the negatives. 

Despite an unrealistic romantic comedy "everything will work out in the end" attitude, a mutual love of Douglas Adams' work is probably not the core value needed for a successful relationship to work. In the real world they would make much better friends than husbands.

Questionable romance aside, The acting ranged from ok to fairly good, I liked that it was pointed out that our slutty protagonist uses condoms, and overall the movie was good enough that while not great, it wasn't exactly bad either, just a little boring.

Women:

Two and a half. The half being an off screen voice. 

People of Color:

One female best friend. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Full frontal within the first five minutes, so yes.

• Director: Rob Williams
• Writer: Rob Williams
• Actors: Matthew Montgomery, Windham Beacham
• 97 min
• IMDB

An Angel Named Billy (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

After his drunk homophobic father kicks him out of the house, gay teen Billy goes to the big city, where he finds both a job as a live-in caretaker for an older man who has had a debilitating stroke, and the possibility of love with his boss, the older man's 30-something year old son James.

Comments (with spoilers because just saying the movie is bad doesn't quite cover it):
So yes, the movie is bad, bogged down with bad acting, and featuring an icky love story where a man falls for the runaway teenager he hired to take care of his sick elderly father

Looking at actual reviews, I'm not the only one to think a man stalking romancing his 18(?) year old, penny-less, essentially homeless, barely out of the closet, emotional wreck, unskilled, totally dependent on this job, employe as being creepy.

Even if you don't have an issue with the James/Billy romance, there's also the issues that large parts of the story make no sense and people are just strange. Billy's mother for example. She keeps trays of milk and cookies just sitting around her hotel room, she is thrilled that her son is involved with a much older man, and admits to having always known that Billy was gay, and knowing this, bizarrely left him with her homophobic, bible-thumping, angry drunk, ex-husband when she took off after their divorce.

Bad acting, bad romance and wacky story details aside, it's also, at two hours, far too long and in need of heavy editing.

Not recommended unless you're into bad gay flicks, and/or wanted to make a drinking game of it, such as taking a shot every time someone recognizes Billy's inherent goodness and refers to him as an angel, every time James does something stalker-ish to Billy such as staring at him while he sleeps, or (if you want to get stinking drunk) every time someone cries.

One final note, given the movie is about the James and Billy, It's amusing to me that the couple on the poster/dvd cover art is not actually James and Billy, rather it's Billy and another teenager, the need for "cute" boys on the art outweighing the need for meaningful representation of the story.

Women:

Billy's mom and her sassy African-American coworkers.

People of color:

The above mentioned sassy African-American coworkers.

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope. While fulfilling many a stereotype of bad gay flicks, gratuitous nudity isn't one of them.

• Director: Greg Osborne
• Writers: Kevin M. Glover, Eliezer J. Gregorio, Max Mitchel, Greg Osborne
• Actors: Dustin Belt, Richard Lewis Warren, Hank Fields
• 120 min
• IMDB