Big Gay Love (U.S. 2013)

The Gist:

Bob, a large sized man who is having a not so great day, meets handsome chef Andy and they make a connection, but will the potential new relationship survive Bob's insecurities, wacky mother, fabulous friends and handsome enemies? 

Comments (with unimportant spoilers):

In the movie we have high maintenance Bob, a quipster with low self esteem, unlucky in love but successful in his business as a party planner. A bit of a surprise as the two examples of his work we get to see both consist of nearly empty rooms we are told are large successful events. Ignoring this and returning focus to Bob, he has a circle of fabulous gay friends who while not overly concerned about helping Bob find love, at the very least want to get him laid. 

The immediate obstacle to this is that Bob is fat, the absolute worst thing possible in vain, looks obsessed Los Angeles. So one of the many, many stereotypes in the movie is the overused and tired trope of all Angelenos being looks obsessed. Which is not to say that large people don't have issues to deal with, it's just that Bob isn't the huge obese slob the movie pretends he is, in the real world he's "merely" a chubby dude, and in the real world there are many gay dudes who are into heavier men, even in vain looks-ist L.A.

But that's real world, while this is a movie where being called a bear is an insult, so okay, Bob has a huge problem. Except that the problem is quickly thrown away once he meets Andy, who instantly falls for Bob. Moving us to the next problem, Bob's low self esteem. 

The movie presents his insecurities as threats to the new relationship. Understandable and a workable story for a movie. Bob's irrational fears lead to him making mistakes and lashing out against his friends and Andy. 

This is spoiler territory now, but after making the argument that Bob is his own worst enemy when it comes to love, the movie then immediately sets out to weaken it by showing that Bob's fears aren't unfounded.

His fabulous friends suddenly switch for absolutely no reason from being supportive (if shallow) to 'mean bitches' actively working against him. They end getting "punished" for this arbitrary change. There's also Bob's "enemy," an attractive man who for dull reasons doesn't like Bob and in return Bob doesn't like him.  As a result of Bob's insecurity shenanigans, enemy boy becomes an almost interesting three dimensional character for a few minutes before settling back down to merely being a boring generic jerk. 

It is as if for whatever reason a decision was made that low self esteem isn't exciting enough to move the story forward so there was a need to force in even more drama. Because somehow high drama Bob's antics were not enough?  Thing is, the movie would have been far more interesting had Bob been forced to deal with how his issues affected all of his relationships, not just with handsome chef Andy, but with his friends (had they not been turned into cartoon villains) and family, but I'm now in how I would have rewritten the movie territory which is generally not a good sign. 

It sounds like I hated the movie though I didn't. I thought it was an average indie flick. Admittedly a large part of my not disliking it may be due to my having a 'thing' for Nicholas Brendon who plays love interest Andy.

Women: 
Yes

People of color: 
Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 
There's some skin, but no actual nudity

• Director: Ringo Le
• Writer: Ringo Le 
• Actors: Jonathan Lisecki, Nicholas Brendon, Ann Walker
• 85 min
• IMDB

Rock Hudson's Home Movies (U.S. 1992)

The Gist: 

'Dead Rock Hudson' uses clips from movies he starred or acted in to argue that the closeted actor was actually out as a gay man in his screen roles, if you knew how to  properly 'read' his roles and dialogue that is. 

Comments:

This is a rather odd movie with an odd sense of unreality, both in casting a man who looks nothing like Rock Hudson to play him, to having the actor play 'dead' Rock speaking to us from beyond the grave. 

Besides being several steps away from reality, it's also a documentary, well, maybe not so much documentary as much as filmed essay. The thesis being that Rock Hudson played with his audience by teasing he was actually gay through the roles he played, by use of plot and dialogue. This is “proved” with clips from his movies. Showing his characters having questionable relationships with women, questionable friendships with men, how he was often treated as a sex object by the camera (as women usually were/are), and of course, from his Doris Day comedies where twice he ended up playing "gay" in order to get the girl. 

It's an interesting argument, though I'm not sure how much merit it has. The movie acknowledges, in a quick throw away line, the main counter-argument that Hudson was writing neither plot nor dialogue, nor to an extent had control over which roles he was offered, so he had no real power over his character’s actions. Actions that supposedly prove he was gay. 

If the idea is valid that his dialogue or plot points in his movies have a queer subtext, I'm not sure how much of that due directly to Rock Hudson or if these queer subtexts were (are) common in Hollywood movies.  Rock Hudson is not exactly the first actor to play an arguably questionably straight role, or even the first closeted gay actor to do so. 

That said, given how well he was known and how due to his death from AIDS he became for a long time "THE" image of closeted gay actor, the movie's points do end up making some sense. At least it does until it gets to the end and the movie switches to arguing that Hudson predicted his own death, which is a bit odd.

Thesis/point of the movie aside, it's more or less as technically competent as you'd expect for a low budget cheap indie flick that consists almost entirely of medium to low quality clips of other movies. 

While I don't entirely buy into the movie's argument, I personally thought it was an interesting watch and it shows how oddly ‘queer’ hollywood male roles in action and westerns movies can get. As for recommending it? It would probably only be worth it if you were a fan of Rock Hudson or at least a fan of his movies. If not, I suspect it would be boring. 

Women:
N/A

People of Color:
N/A

Gratuitous nudity:
N/A

• Director: Mark Rappaport
• Writer: Mark Rappaport 
• Actor: Eric Farr
• 63 minutes
• Note: As it’s a documentary of movie clips I didn’t bother with my usual metric of casting choices and such
• IMDB

Red Ribbons (U.S 1994)

The Gist:

It's 1994 and an avant garde indie New York theater director/writer has just died from AIDS. His lover and friends have an impromptu gathering to mourn / celebrate him as his lover waits for the dead man's disapproving mother to show up and throw him out of his apartment as it's under the dead man's name. 

Comments:

For a long while there was a joke that all gay themed movies had to deal with AIDS and for a long time it was more or less true. Understandable given the impact the disease had on the community and the resulting need to process and deal with this impact. Meaning that this movie is much a product of its time, in sorrow at least if not in anger, since unlike other AIDS themed movies there is no fury at the 'system' failing us as people died.

So in the story we have a dead man who we still get to see thanks to the conceit of video diary entries he made while still alive and the impact his death (and life) has had on his gathered friends. 

The movie isn't horrible. That said, the acting is largely mediocre, the story is not overly engaging, and despite his presence on the poster Quentin Crisp is barely in it (and not in a particularly interesting role). 

Unless you absolutely need to see every AIDS related gay movie there is, this one is more than skippable.

Women: 
Yes

People of Color: 
No, only white people live in New York

Gratuitous nudity:
No

• Director: Neil Ira Needleman
• Writer: Neil Ira Needleman
• Actors: Robert Parker, Christopher Cappiello, Quenton Crisp
• 62 min
• IMDB

I Want To Get Married (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

It's six days before the 2008 presidential elections. In California this includes voting on Prop 8 which will decide the fate of marriage equality in the state. Against that backdrop we have a nerdy man who despite being successful in business, friends, and home, is unsuccessful in love and so decides he wants to get married. 

Also his mother leaves his father, the nerdy guy has to decide if he wants to betray his community to make money, and a drag queen (playing a woman?) repeatedly sings a terrible song.

Comments:

Some movies are so bad that they swing around the scale back into being good or at least worth watching. This is not an example of that. It's just bad. 

The most obvious of the issues is Matthew Montgomery's acting. I normally like him, but here he either decided or was directed to play his socially inept nerd role with spastic tics, OCD quirks, and barely comprehensible mumbling that makes Jerry Lewis at his most exaggerated seem subdued. His acting is so bizarre that it nearly distracts from the movies other problems. Nearly but not quite. 

His character of a highly awkward adult who can barely speak is somehow also supposed to be a dynamic successful business owner which strains credibility. Aside from his contradictory character, the other roles are so thin as to barely exist. His story and that of his parents (conservative wife leaves her husband and ends up stuck in a casino becoming friends with a singer that coincidentally her gay son adores) are so disparate they don't really work together. The movie can't seem to decide what it wants to be. The songs, or rather the singular song that's repeated over and over again, is terrible. 

The very basic idea of a small portion of the movie, a person has to decide what is more important: money or integrity should have been enough for a good story, but with all the problems going on it never had a chance. 

Women:

Yes

People of Color:

Yes, by way of a single minor Chinese character that is arguably racist. Embarrassingly so. 

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: William Clift
• Writer: William Clift
• Actors: Matthew Montgomery, Rebecca Wright, Mathew Martin 
• 107 min
• IMDB

Two Weddings and a Funeral (Du Beon-ui Gyeol-hon-sik-gwa Han Beon-ui Jang-nye-sik) (Korea 2012)

The Gist: 

A gay man (Min-soo) and a lesbian (Hyo-jin) have married each other to fulfill family, societal and legal obligations. They just have to play at being a couple for one year, then they can divorce and go on with their lives with everything they wanted. Unfortunately this act becomes harder and harder to pull off as life threatens to intervene and reveal their secrets. 

Comments: 

The movie is fairly well done, though the story gets rather melodramatic at times as society is shown to literally beat down people for the crime of being gay. Aside from this external homophobic melodrama affecting the characters, there's also self produced angst as the characters overreact and overact their soap opera lives.  

So yeah, lots and lots of drama. Part of that is also do to essentially all of Min-soo's gay male friends being big queens. I've normally no issues with effeminate men in gay movies, except when it is used as a joke, and to an extent that is what is happening here. The exception being the character "Tina," who is played as bit of an effeminate clown. Unlike the rest of the secondary characters though, he is given enough of a background and motivation that he comes off as a well rounded interesting character who could almost be a real person (far more so than he somewhat boring dull lead). 

Story and representation aside, there is also an issue with translations. Not a major problem, it's just that the subtitles in the version I saw were occasionally a little wonky with odd grammar or unusual word choices that made things a little confusing, such as when a character explains that he left Korea in order to move to Korea. 

Overall the movie is okay for what it is, but what it is, is a bit too melodramatic for my personal tastes. 

Women:

Yes

People of color: 

Everyone. Unless we reverse the question to "Is anyone not Korean?" then the answer is no. 

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Jho Gwang-soo Kim
• Writer: Yoon-sin Kim, Hae-yeong Park
• Actors: Dong Yoon Kim, Hyeon-kyeong Ryu
• Korean
• 106 min
• IMDB

Sunday Bloody Sunday (U.K. 1971)

The Gist:

Alex, a divorced woman (Glenda Jackson), and Hirsch, an older Jewish gay man (Peter Finch), are both involved with the same younger man, an artist named Bob (Murray Head). They each know of the other, and both are, or at least claim to be, content with the situation, of only being part of Bob's life rather than the whole, but life can be difficult and things change.

Comments:

Unlike many of the previous movies I've mentioned here, this is not a small independent "gay" flick. This is Schlesinger. This is a Film with a capital "F."

It's also very good. These are well defined characters driving the story forward. More so, while two of the characters are gay/bi, their sexual orientation is just part of who they are rather than their sole driving motivating factor. This is something we still don't get that often in movies when it comes to minorities. People who are people rather than people who are a label and nothing else. 

They may not be the happiest of people, but that's just because of what this story is, of settling, compromise and acceptance. It is not a punishment for breaking the rules of heterosexuality. In context of time, the early 70's, it's pretty amazing, letting a gay character just "be" instead of being a clown, villain, or victim. This is some groundbreaking stuff here. Treating a kiss between the male characters in exactly the same manner as a kiss between a male and female character is still considered edgy to some extent. 

Even the focus of the movie, on Hirsch and Alex, the older people of the story rather than on younger Bob is is an unusual choice considering how youth obsessed culture was then and now. Although frankly, as written, young artist Bob is the least interesting of the trio, so that is maybe not that surprising. 

It's not a happy cheerful story, and is at times very 1970's "FILM," so may not appeal to everyone, but it is worth trying if you're in the mood for a "FILM" instead of just a "flick." If nothing else, Peter Finch's final monologue is worth seeing. 

Women:

Many 

People of color: 

One man 

Gratuitous nudity:

Some nudity, but debatable if the word gratuitous applies. 

• Director: John Schlesinger
• Writer: Penelope Gillatt
• Actors: Peter Finch, Glenda Jackson, Murray Head
• 110 min
• IMDB

Love Or Whatever (U.S. 2012)

The Gist:

When a man rapidly approaching his thirtieth birthday proposes to his boyfriend, he quickly finds himself single and his life a confusing disaster. When he meets a new man will he mess things up, or learn to accept a chance at "love or whatever?" 

Comments: 

I kind of sort of almost liked the movie, though I'm not sure why since the best thing I can say about it is that while it is not good, at least it's not terrible. An opinion I suspect wouldn’t hold up if the movie were examined too closely. 

The protagonist acts like an idiot (not too uncommon a trait for leads in romcoms), he treats people poorly, and is extremely unbelievable as a psychologist. The jokes are not particularly funny (the worst bit being an ongoing, repeating joke about a woman who had been mauled / molested by a wild animal). The lone bisexual man's sexual orientation is played as an outdated offensive bi-phobic joke. The joke being that he likes both men and women because he is indecisive, immature, and can never make up his mind. 

Reversing the train of thought and looking for good things, the actor playing the womanizing lesbian sister does a good job, and she puts some much needed energy into the movie. Although thinking about it, insatiable womanizing lesbian minor character is rapidly becoming a tired cliche in gay flicks. 

Yeah, I'm quickly changing my opinion about likening it. I'm not however changing my opinion that that movie while not good, is at least not terrible. 

Women:

Yes

People of Color:

Yes? Maybe? No? The only real rule I have for this category is that someone of color has a speaking role. Even just one line would qualify for a marginally yes answer. The only nonwhite people who appear in the movie are some of the sister's "show up for one scene only" sexual conquests. Despite having seen the movie only a couple days ago, I’ve already forgotten if any of them had actual lines. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor, a couple of not strictly necessary butt shots 

• Director: Rosser Goodman
• Writer: Dennis Bush, Cait Brennan
• Actors: Tyler Poelle, Jennifer Elise Cox, Joel Rush
• 84 min
• IMDB

First Period (U.S. 2013)

The Gist: 

A girl set on having a great 16th birthday party next weekend is faced with a problem. Her family has just moved into town and she doesn't know anyone yet, so she only has five school days to become popular at high school. A prospect that Heather, the current reigning most popular girl in school is not exactly thrilled with. 

Comments: 

The movie is a farce of 80's high school comedies with the protagonist and her new best friend, the school's 'freak' girl both being played by men. There's also the school's mean girls who are both named Heather, pretty much all the speaking roles played by people who haven't been teenagers in quite some time, insane teachers, lots of 80's "valley talk," the near lack of adult roles, the near lack of actual classes, and other high school movie cliches amped up and played for laughs. 

While there are some problems and minor issues, the movie more or less succeeds at being a camp high school farce. Thing is I didn't particularly like it. A case where my tastes don't align with the majority, because poking around online it looks like that for the most part people enjoy the movie and think it's really funny, cute and engaging, while I was largely indifferent to it. 

My lack of enjoyment aside, if you're into high school movie farces, or like campy, wacky movies with male actors playing women, then it may be worth checking out. 

Women: 

Yes 

People of Color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Charlie Vaughn
• Writer: Brandon Alexander III
• Actors: Brandon Alexander III, Dudley Beene
• 100 min
• Note: While there are some gay characters in the movie, it's the adult male actors playing teenage girls camp aspect that gets it included in lists of LGBT movies. 
• IMDB

Speechless (Wu yan)(Hong Kong / China 2012)

The Gist:

A mute, naked, western man is found along the side of a river in a town in mainland China. After being taken in by the police, he is sent to the local hospital where he and Xiao Jiang, a nurse, develop a bond with each other. When it is eventually decided to send the mysterious man to a mental asylum, Xiao Jiang decides to take a risk and flee the town with the mystery man in tow. 

Comments (with some spoilers):

The movie is rather good. The story is interesting, it is gorgeous to look at, is mostly well done, and well-acted. Not to say there are no issues with the movie. There are, mainly with pacing. 

Towards the end of the movie there is an extended flashback explaining what happened to traumatize the stranger into muteness, so spoiler, the mystery is solved. The problem with this is that the flashback is long enough that it changes the flow of the movie, and the transition from flashback back to the current story ends up feeling somewhat awkward. The final fate of the characters is also somewhat confusing, to me at least. They are just in a new situation with no explanation given as to what happened between the climax of the story and the end of the story to put them there.

Once the stranger’s backstory is shown it also made it hard to keep up the suspension of disbelief thing going. Essentially, the fact that the police can’t figure out who he is makes them seem incompetent. 

It is sounding like I didn't like the movie, which is incorrect. These issues don't negate that the movie is good and the story intriguing. It's definitely worth trying. Assuming you don’t mind subtitles (or speak Mandarin that is).

Content wise aside, the story behind the making of the movie is interesting as well. It seems that because permission to film it would be denied by the government, it was filmed in secret in mainland China. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

There is some nudity in the movie, but I would argue that it is not gratuitous as it is used to help tell the story. At the beginning highlighting the mute man's sense of innocence, and during later scenes to well, esplaining that would be a spoiler.

• Director: Simon Chung
• Writer: Simon Chung, Lu Yulai
• Actors: Pierre-Matthieu Vital, Qilun Gao, Yung Yung Yu, Jian Jiang
• 92 min
• Mandarin and English (at least that's how it's listed on IMBD, actually there's barely any English dialogue)
• IMDB

Rhythm and Blues (U.K. 2000)

The Gist:

In London, an attractive man named John befriends a skinhead, Byron, and though Byron in extremely swift order: is convinced he should be become a hustler; joins a gay male escort service; and is chosen for hire by an older, eccentric, rich American called Bad Daddy for a night of debauchery. As all this is going on a mysterious serial killer hustler, "The Rent Boy Ripper," is murdering his clients.

Comments:

First off, the movie is largely bad. It's a gay, hustler, murder thriller, comedy; and it doesn't particularly "do" any of those adjectives very well. 

There are occasional humorous moments, but overall the movie is not that funny. The thriller / mystery part of the story alternates between being mildly interesting and boring. The acting ranges from bad to adequate, which is not helped by occasionally confusing dialogue. That last bit is in reference to dialogue / editing, as the movie has people occasionally referencing conservations that only take place in deleted scenes. 

Negatives aside, the movie has an odd charm to it, a sort of low budget, sad, Britishness to it that made me not mind how bad it was. Then again maybe I didn't mind that the movie sucked because I think Paul Blackthorne (John) is hot. 

Regardless of how prurient thoughts affected my judgement, the movie is not worth watching. Unless you're into comedic hustler thrillers that aren't particularly humorous, thrilling, or good that is. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

Women, yes. 
Men, teasingly nearly, but no actual nudity 

• Director: Stephen Lenhoff
• Writer: Michael Jones
• Actors: Angus MacInnes, Ian Henderson, Paul Blackthorne
• 98 min
• IMDB

Hold Your Peace (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

Grouchy guy Aiden is asked by his grumpy ex-boyfriend Max to be his best man at his upcoming commitment ceremony / wedding to Forrest. Thing is Aiden is single, and worse still in love with Max. In order to not appear totally lame Aiden, asks his best friend's other gay friend Lance to go with him to the commitment ceremony / wedding and pretend to be his new boyfriend Brick. There Lance/Brick immediately falls for Max's fiancé Forrest, and pretty much what you expect to happen happens.

Comments (with a major spoiler that in reality is not):

The problem with "pretty much what you expect to happen happens" is not that the story is predictable, but that that it was told badly. The production is uneven, the acting is all over the place from bad to adequate, and the characters are boring. Well, at least the leads are. 

Part of this is that both protagonist Aiden and his ex-boyfriend Max are rude jerks. You can see when the story switches gears and goes to "Aiden's learned his lesson so feel sorry for him now," but you never move away from thinking he's annoying (or at least I never did).

Aside from two bothersome guys, there's fiancé Forest, who is played as perfect, and effeminate twink Lance/Brick who might have been interesting if the script hadn't called for him to spend most of his onscreen time weeping. The advice giving female best friend ends up being the least annoying of the characters, but that's not saying much. 

The major spoiler is this, not that the couples you know will end up together end up together, but that it happens suddenly right at the end of the story. With a snap of the fingers, poof everyone is running off with who they should be with no attempt at dialogue or explanation. Not even the expected "Hey I know we were supposed to get married but i've fallen in love with someone else, sorry 'bout that." While going off in an unexpected direction can be good, in the case it feels more like lazy writing. 

So uninteresting characters in an obvious story that is told poorly. Not surprisingly I wouldn't recommend watching it. 

Women:

Several, though primarily in one scene only. 

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Wade McDonald 
• Writer: Wade McDonald 
• Actors: Chad Ford, Scott Higgens, Aleisha Force
• 96 min
• Note: I have not dealt with the Bechdel test in these write ups. Simplified, the test asks if a work includes at least two women who talk to each other about something other than a man. Frankly most of the movies I talk about here would fail to pass due to lack of female roles. This movie passes because during a bachelor party scene the guests, mainly women, are ALL far more interested in getting drunk than in congratulating the "happy couple." The fact that the minor characters don't even care about the lead roles amuses me more than it should. 
• IMDB

Love's Coming (ใช่รักหรือเปล่า)(Thailand 2014)

The Gist:

Four teenage boys, Zee, Arm, Pid, and Gump are best friends, and things are great, except that Gump hasn't been around lately because he is always too busy tutoring his neighbor Nai. Because of this sudden prioritizing of his hot male neighbor over his friends, Zee begins to wonder if Gump is gay, so he gets the group, and a gay 'uncle' (who prefers to be called Aunt Alexandra), to come up with a series of overly complicated plans to find out the truth about Gump and Nai.

Comments:

It's a largely cute movie with a plot that doesn't make too much sense because instead of a series of ever more elaborate traps and goofy shenanigans to get Gump to come out of the closet, they could have simply just asked him at the beginning of the story if he was in love with Nai or not. Then again that would have made for a very short movie. As is, this is wacky teen comedy so some silliness is to be expected. Also, these are teenage boys, more so straight teenage boys, and teenage boys are known for doing stupid things, so this is less of an issue here as compared to other movies where everything could have been resolved in ten minutes had people just actually talked to each other like real adults instead of movie adults. 

Which leads us to 'Aunt Alexandra.' He's very much a movie version a person, more so a movie version of a camp gay man. Luckily he's written just slightly deep enough to be more than just someone to be laughed at. You get to sympathize with him as well. 

While he isn't really an issue for me, there are some problematic "comedic" scenes. The most glaring being when, as part of the "is he or isn't he" hijinks, the straight teen boys find themselves at a pool with some speedo wearing gay guys showing off their bodies. The boys reaction to the sight of non-hetero men wanting to be objectified is to freak out and get physically ill. Gay panic is funny you all. Yes. Sarcasm. 

Despite this and some other clunker scenes, for the most part the movie is harmless fluff, and mostly positive as it becomes clear that the boys care about their friend Gump and will support him whatever the truth turns out to be. 

Women: 

Mothers, and a girlfriend, so yes

People of Color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No. Though there are lots of shots of shirtless and swimsuited Thai guys if you're into that. 

• Director: Naphat Chaithiangthum
• Writer: Naphat Chaithiangthum
• Actors: Korn Khunaitpapisiri, Suraphat Kirivichien, Norrapat Sakulsong, Chanon Santinatornkul, Suttinut Uengtrakul
• 108 min
• Thai
• IMDB 

The Foxy Merkins (U.S. 2013)

The Gist:

A young naive gay kid, new to hustling, is shown the ropes by a more experienced hustler and they make a connection, becoming friends and more, despite the more experienced hustler being, or at claiming to be, straight, as they do what they can to survive the tough life on the streets. 

Now take the cliche filled hustler movie you've pictured in your head and turn into a comedy with adult women in place of skinny gay twinks. 

Comments:

The movie was made by the same people who did Codependent Lesbian Space Alien Seeks Same. This time instead of low budget, extremely quirky and decidedly odd comedy riffing on bad 50's sci-fi movies, we have  a low budget, extremely quirky and decidedly odd comedy riffing on hustler movies. 

The two leads have great chemistry together, and overall it's a funny movie, though given the subject matter it helps if you're familiar with the genre, specifically Midnight Cowboy and My Own Private Idaho. Many of the jokes and situations only really make sense if you are familiar with the source material, otherwise the requisite "search to find my lost mother" or the required "men are incapable of loving another man" speech are not so much funny as just confusing. Although in case with the reversed genders it's now "women can't love other women," which comes off as very strange and nonsensical, and presumably is part of the intent and source of much of the humor. Other jokes, such as having the clothing store Talberts be THE place for lesbian prostitutes to hang out at are a bit more straightforward.

While I enjoyed it, it's not exactly a great movie. It does have a lot of issues. Not all the jokes are funny, some, such as the harassing cops sequence go on for too long; and there is no real plot, just our leads drifting in a vaguely Private Idaho direction with occasional Midnight Cowboy imagery. The basic idea of the movie is a problem as well, as unlike the Science Fiction of Codependent Lesbian Space Alien, not everyone has seen hustler movies which limits its audience to a large extent. 

So while I liked it, I'm not sure I'd recommend it. At least not without a lot of caveats. That you be a fan of quirky low budget movies. That you can easily ignore the lack of plot. That you know your hustler movies. But mainly that you have a very odd-ball sense of humor, because this is no where near 'normal' comedy territory.

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes 

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes

• Director: Madeleine Olnek
• Writers: Lisa Haas, Jackie Monahan, Madeline Olnek
• Actors: Lisa Haas, Jackie Monahan
• 81 min
• IMDB

Go Go G-Boys (Dang Wo Men Tong Zai Yi Qi) (Taiwan 2006)

The Gist:

Hong decides to pretend to be gay and join the "gays only" G-Boys contest, hoping to use the winnings to pay off his ever increasing credit card debt incurred by his shopaholic girlfriend. His best friend Shin joins the contest because being gay he is of course hopelessly in love with Hong and will do anything for him, since that's exactly what the gays do; martyr themselves whenever possible for straight dudes. 

As this is going on other things are happening. Minor unimportant stuff like a crazy man threatening to bomb the contest. 

Comments:

I spent a few minutes looking around online for information about the movie and didn't find too much, and no actual professional reviews. What I did find were people commenting how funny the movie was, how sexy the actors were, and how much they loved finally finding a non-depressing gay movie with a happy ending.

I guess I'm a stick in the mud because while admittedly the leads are cute, I thought the movie was bad. 

The story is flat and considering it is a romantic comedy it is not that funny, despite all the crazy, wild antics going on. Perhaps worse, the romance you are supposed to be rooting for, given it involves a gay guy dead set on being a victim in his desire to have a tragic unrequited love for his idiot straight friend, is problematic at best. 

On the plus side, a subplot about a young guy finding love and having to come out to his father because he joined the contest was sort of sweet, even if it made no sense (it didn't occur to the young man that joining an all gay contest would tip his father that he was gay).

While the movie spends far too much time making dumb gay jokes, once it settles down and begins to focus on the contest, it actually treats the contestants as "normal" characters instead of gay caricatures. Well, almost at least.  

So I guess depending on viewpoint it's either a fun non-depressing movie or it's not really worth watching. 

Women:

One

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No, though there are several men in skimpy swimsuit scenes. 

• Director: Jong-jong Yu
• Writer: not listed 
• Actors: TAE, Chen-Kang Tang, Yu Fa Yang 
• 90 min
• Cantonese
• IMDB 

The Way He Looks (Hoje Eu Quero Voltar Sozinho) (Brazil 2014)

The Gist: 

Leonardo (Leo) is a young blind teenager who is beginning to rebel against the restraints put on his life by his overprotective parents. Also, his relationship with his best friend Giovana is strained when a new classmate, Gabriel, enters their lives. 

Comments:

I pretty much loved everything about the movie, from story to actors, it is fun, romantic, and well, utterly and totally adorable. The movie is super cute. Which could mean utterly schmaltzy and corny, but luckily doesn't. While it is sweet and charming, it manages to not be too saccharin. 

It is also well acted. Ghilherme Lobo does a particularly good job at portraying someone who is blind. The way the movie is shot enhances this. Many scenes are primarily close ups or filmed so that things in the distance are blurred with only the immediate foreground in focus, recreating in a way the way Leo 'sees' the world. 

While the majority of reviews and articles I've seen about the movie are positive and glowing with praise, I have come across a couple of, if not entirely negative, at least not overly impressed comments. It seems some people felt it unrealistic because a few bullying classmates are 'merely' mean jerks instead of being physically violent. An opinion I don't agree with it. Bullying does not have to be physical and as is, some bullies are just common every day assholes who'd find it funny to make fun of their blind school-mate instead of beating him up. 

The movie is based on a short, I Don't Want to go back Alone (Eu Não Quero Voltar Sozinho) (2010). Based may not be exactly the best description since the short was apparently made as a sort of pilot to raise funds for the feature film. The short is essentially a simpler version of the story and if possible, even sweeter. 

Both are definitely worth seeing. 

Women: 

Yes

People of color:

Yes 

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor nudity, but what there is in my opinion straddles the line of gratuitous and natural. 

• Director: Daniel Ribeiro 
• Writer: Daniel Ribeiro 
• Actors: Ghilherme Lobo, Fabio Audi, Tess Amorim
• 96 min
• Brazilian Portuguese 
• The American title, The Way He Looks, presumably references both that Gabriel is cute and how Leo "sees" the world.  It is not a literal translation of the original Brazilian Portuguese title, Hoje Eu Quero Voltar Sozinho. That would be something more like: "Today I Want To Go Back Alone," apparently referencing Leo's feelings of wanting to be independent.  
• IMDB 

Stud Life (UK 2012)

The Gist:

When 'Stud' lesbian JJ falls for femme fatal Elle, her life is thrown out of whack. As this goes on her best friend Seb makes poor choices of his own when it comes to men. 

Comments with a minor spoiler:

We are big time lesbian drama here, of the Stud variety. If you're unfamiliar with the term, a stud is essentially a very butch dyke.  More so, JJ is an uber butch, a stone butch. She is so butch that this source of strength for her becomes a weakness in that she ends up being overly rigid in life which is where the drama comes in,  as even though Elle is a femme and theoretically they should fit fine as a couple, it turns out that being with Elle may force JJ to be more flexible in her expectations of life and love. 

Despite being set in modern day London, the movie feels sort of oddly old fashioned. I'm guessing much of this comes from the strict Butch and Femme pairing, as if this were a 1950's period piece when it was survival tactic for a lesbian couple to only be a femme paired with a butch who could pass as a man if needed. 

This "old fashioned" interpretation of the movie is just me however, coming from my own biases, since JJ's world of strict butch / femme determination of roles is foreign to my experiences. The lesbians I know in real life joke about femme and butch rather than follow them as strict guides. Interestingly, to me at least, while I am unfamiliar with that aspect of the movie, another part, one where lesbians and gay men get to be best friends is totally in my realm of experience. One where queer women and men don't spend their lives isolated from each other (vs. how many 'gay' movies portray the world, as a place where queer men barely know any women at all let alone lesbians, let alone be friends with them). 

In the end the movie is okay for what it is, an average quality romantic melodrama.  

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes, much of the cast

Gratuitous nudity: 

Yes

• Director: Campbell X
• Writer: Campbell X
• Actors: T'Nia Miller, Kyle Treslove, Robyn Kerr
• 91 min
• IMDB

Scenes from a Gay Marriage (U.S. 2012)

The Gist:

A newly single man, Darren, obsesses over the gay couple who live in the apartment above his, as he tries to sort out his own life.

Comments with minor spoilers: 

This is kind of a low key movie. Which is not a bad thing. Compared to how "aggressive" some movies can be in telling their story, low key can be a good thing. Then again it can be bad if it leads to inaction and dullness. This movie manages to avoid that and keeps the balance of calmness and interesting. The acting is fine, and the story as Darren learns to live his life on his own, is engaging enough.

There is a strange bit though, in that being kept, where one partner in a relationship has all the money and power and "keeps" the other person, is oddly normalized here. A couple of examples are given in the movie and while they are not shown as ideal or particularly healthy, they are not treated as being unusual either. This happens again in another of director/writer/actor Matt Riddlehoover's movies: West Hollywood Motel, where one woman is "keeping" her girlfriend. 

While not the theme of the either movie, it ends up being notable because it contrasts strongly with how not common it is in real life. Well, at least in real life as I've experienced or have knowledge of it. 

Unlike other movies with the words "director, writer, and staring in lead role as actor" this is not a bad movie, and while I would not say that everyone has to immediately go see it, I would say that it is interesting and pretty good. 

Women:

One. It's a fairly limited cast, so not quite as bad it may seem

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Matt Riddlehoover
• Writer: Matt Riddlehoover
• Actors: Matt Ridlehoover, Jared Allman, Tashana McQuiston, Carson Nicely
• 83 min
• IMDB

The Four-Faced Liar (U.S. 2010)

The Gist:

Five college-age people, two straight couples and a womanizing lesbian meet in an Irish bar, not as the lead into a bad joke, but rather as the start of a romantic drama, where after becoming friends with the lesbian character, one of the straight women realizes that she does not have to live the life that was planned and laid out for her in excruciatingly exact detail from birth to wedding to death.

Comments (with one big semi-spoiler):

The one big semi-spoiler is this: (Possibly?) in order to make the protagonist seem less of a "bad person" for having an affair with her new lesbian best friend, the story has her boyfriend do some terrible things to help "accidentally" push her away from him. Which I only bring up because this creates a huge problem for me in that he crosses lines which should have made him a pariah in his circle of friends rather than just being treated as the poor guy whose girlfriend dumped him for a woman. 

Other than that, this is essentially a standard romance drama following many of the standard romance drama rules of people falling in and out of love, acting stupid, misunderstandings, and predictability before the couple you expect to end up together finally end up up together. 

Women:

Several (a good thing considering this is a lesbian love story)

People of color:

None. It seems New York City only has white people living in it

Gratuitous nudity:

Not really

• Director: Jacob Chase
• Writer: Marja-Lewis Ryan
• Actors: Marja-Lewis Ryan, Daniel Carlisle, Todd Kubrak, Emily Peck, Liz Osborn
• 87 min
• IMDB

World and Time Enough (U.S. 1994)

The Gist:

A gay couple, an HIV positive artist and his partner, an innocent minded garbage collector, live in occupied territory, that is the 'straight world,' as they deal with issues everyone faces, from love and life, to acceptance and death. 

Comments with minor spoilers:

The movie is very much a product of its time. Not so much the actual story which is a ‘universal’ tale of a couple dealing with love, acceptance, family and death, but rather the background of where this is taking place. These two men are not rich “white collar” gays living in a safe sequestered gay ghetto. Rather they live a ‘blue collar” life in the ‘regular’ world, occupied territory as it were, of aggressive heteronormality and enforced consumerism. The mere act of living together in a committed relationship makes their lives transgressive. Having one of the men be an HIV positive artist who specializes in short lived ephemeral art sculptures is another aspect of its time, of when AIDS was still considered a death sentence.

If it were re-set to now, the basic story would be the same, but the world they lived in would not. Consumerism will have won, and be worse in ways, but the fact of two men together, if not wholly and totally accepted, would at least not be too uncommon.  

All this aside, I like the movie, though it has several flaws. The device of interviewing one of the minor characters to serve as a narrator doesn’t really work and feels more awkward than useful. Another issue is that the movie feels lopsided as if it were actually two different not entirely complimentary stories lashed roughly together, a story of men in love followed by a tale of obsession (after the artist finds out his father has died). 

There's also the frankly awkward ending. The movie ends, then a couple minutes later ends again. One ending "artistic" and the other hopeful, which makes it seem as if there was a disagreement over how it should end so "they" just included both versions. 

Regardless of the problems, what does work is the idea that these two men are in love, both physically and emotionally. Going back to idea of the movie being a product of its time this is kind of a radical presentation. The early nineties were Hollywood giving us Tom Hanks as a ‘perfect’ gay man (meaning safely platonic and dying) in Philadelphia, while independent queer cinema was responding with a big F’ YOU to society with angry, suicidal, queer kids in Totally F***ed Up. This movie is neither extreme, neither safe nor enraged, but it ends up being more ‘real’ for this. 

Even with problems, it is worth seeing, though if you do, watch it to the very end.  

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes 

Gratuitous nudity: 

No

• Director: Eric Mueller
• Writer: Eric Mueller
• Actors: Matt Guidry, Gregory G Giles 
• 90 min
• IMDB 

West Hollywood Motel (U.S. 2013)

The Gist: 

A young gay couple with issues of compatibility, a lesbian couple whose issue is that things are not as "hot" in bed as they used to be, two young men with numerous issues who've just met, and a middle aged straight couple who gain an issue when the wife suddenly grows a penis, are all staying at the same motel as a not very good at his job of being an omniscient narrator tells us about how they deal with their problems. 

Comments, with minor spoilers: 

This is a very odd movie. It feels like an amateur student film in some respects, but well, these days things like film development errors do not exist unless intended to. Which leads me suspect that it's all intentional. But does that mean using then quickly abandoning the idea of the narrator as soon as the characters were introduced was a narrative choice as well? Spoiler, the narrator disappears fairly quickly. Does it also mean that the establishing shots mixing up Hollywood and West Hollywood is also intentional? Spoiler, Hollywood and West Hollywood are two different places. 

Aiming to recreate the feel of a weird decaying educational film is a valid aesthetic goal I guess, but it is strange when as viewer you can't tell if something is a mistake, or if it is just someone trying to skillfully and intentionally make it appear as if it were a mistake. In the end the way the story is told is distracting enough that I think it impedes the movie more than helps it. 

Compared to the storytelling esthetics, the four stories, even the odder ones, are fairly straight forward. The two 'reality-flexible' stories, of the penis growing wife and of the incompatible gay couple (that turns into a meta commentary about love as presented in gay romance movies) are the better of the stories. The lesbian affair one should have been interesting but falls flat for some reason. 

Oddly, or not, the least interesting of the four tales was the one with the most gay "eye candy," the story of the two, cute, young, Latino men. Least interesting, because their tale never gets much further past the very basic premise of "two attractive men end up sharing a hotel room because they are broke and... stuff." 

It's not a must see kind of movie, but if you're in a mood for quirky this would fit the bill. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Matt Riddlehoover
• Writers: Matt Riddlehoover, Ethan James
• Actors: Matt Riddlehoover, Andrew Callahan, Amy Kelly, Phil Leirness, Cesar D' La Torre, Starina Johnson, Heather Horton, Luis Lucas
• 78 min
• IMDB