10 Attitudes (U.S. 2001)

The Gist:

Josh finds out his boyfriend has been cheating on him, and subsequently ends the relationship, or is dumped. It’s not exactly clear which is supposed to have happened, since one is shown but the other is said in dialogue. Regardless, not taking his newly single status as a 30-something “regular guy” very well, he threatens to leave California and go back home to Ohio.  A friend makes a bet that he can find Josh a new boyfriend within 10 dates and that if this doesn't work, he can give up and head back home. Ten dates, the ten attitudes of the title, ensue. 

Comments with mostly obvious spoilers:

Being very kind, the movie hovers at the edge of bad and just barely okay.

There are several problems here. It feels as if the dates (at least the dates that were not dialogue free montages) were just exercises in improvisation, with the sole rule being that the date has to quickly go bad. I haven't bothered researching to see if this is true, but it is an issue, because if this is the case, several of the actors aren't very good at improv, and if they weren't improvising and had actual written dialogue, then there was a major problem with writing and acting skills. 

It is also at just under 90 minutes, far too long. Much of this length is taken up by an overabundance of montages. Besides dating montages, there are location establishing montages, as well as ones to show that this is a topical "current" movie by showing people doing topical "current" things like talking into their flip cell phones while standing in line for coffee. Besides adding unneeded time, it makes the movie feel badly dated. 

I get that it is supposed to be an amusing critique of the Los Angeles / West Hollywood dating scene, but it never reaches the point of being funny, a fatal flaw for a comedy. Instead of humor it just rambles along aimlessly, showing dates both good and bad (never bothering to explain why the good dates don't lead to anything more), before finally coming to the slightly unexpected ending.

Okay, never mind the idea of it being just barely okay. It’s just bad.

Women:

A few, including Judy Tenuta as a wacky (and largely incompetent) therapist.

People of color:

One of the dates and a couple of minor characters. 

Gratuitous nudity: 

Nope

• Director: Michael Gallant
• Writer: Michael Gallant
• Actor: Jason Stuart
• 87 min
• IMDB

Visions of Sugar Plums (US 2001)

The Gist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All in all, not worth watching.

Women:

Landlady and weepy conservative religious mother who weeps a lot.

People of Color:

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

Gratuitous nudity:

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

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