Floating Skyscrapers (Płynace wieźowce) ( Poland 2013)

The Gist:

Kuba, a young man who has trained most of his life to be a professional swimmer, meets and falls in love with another man, throwing his regimented, aggressively controlled life, including his relationships with his mother and girlfriend, into chaos. 

Comments (with an unspecific spoiler that's still a spoiler): 

Set in Warsaw this is apparently one of the first Polish movies to deal with being gay which may explain why while it is contemporary, it feels very old fashioned and somewhat outdated, being a story where coming out MUST lead into a painful situation that can only end badly. 

I don't know enough to comment on the state of Polish gay culture, but it does feel like there are phases that local queer cinema goes through and if this movie is an indication, they are still in a phase where, regardless of reality, in popular entertainment at least, happiness and living openly are seen as incompatible. A phase now past for the most part in American movies. 

That aside, the story is told well as we see Kuba attempting to deal with accepting what he wants in love and life with another man verses his actual life with his girlfriend and overly dependent mother. 

The movie is also beautiful to look at, dominated by an urban landscape all grays and blues. 

It's also rather sexual in a no nonsense realistic manner. So the answer to my continual question of does a movie fill the gay flick stereotype of having pointless  gratuitous nudity, is a resounding "maybe."  There's plenty of naked bodies in gym showers and during sex scenes here, but is it strictly unneeded if it helps tell the story? Then again if it had been told without nudity would it have been the same story? 

All in all it would be worth a watch if you have not yet burned out on sad coming out stories.

Women: 

Yes

People of Color: 

No

Gratuitous nudity: 

Maybe? There's plenty of nudity, both male and female, and as I write this I consider it as an artist choice but I could see an argument against this opinion. 

• Director: Tomasz Wasilewski
• Writers: Tomasz Wasilewski
• Actors: Mateusz Banasiuk, Marta Nierdkiewicz, Bartosz Geiner
• 93 minutes 
• in Polish
• IMDB

Birthday Cake (U.S. 2013)

The Gist:

In Los Angeles, Studio City to be specific, two men who both work in the “Industry” (i.e., “Hollywood”), prepare to throw their baby daughter a birthday party. Because they live wacky hijink filled lives, the party will be swamped with wacky relatives, crazy friends, clowns, and a documentary film crew. 

Comments:

The conceit of the movie is that it is a documentary about two gay men and their family as they prepare to throw a birthday party for their baby daughter. What this means is we as viewer get treated to a series of fast comedic skits, all apparently improvised rather than tightly scripted. Unfortunately the quality of the skits/scenes vary from okay to meh to boring.  

The movie almost works when it doesn’t forcefully try to be funny, focusing instead on "honest" moments between the couple and daughter. Too bad that rather slim core of almost good is surrounded by numerous scenes of uninteresting “Industry” jokes and people aiming for wacky but hitting boring instead. 

The movie is a sequel to a short film Groom's Cake (which I haven't seen and have no comments about).  

Women: 

Yes

People of color: 

Some

Gratuitous nudity: 

No

• Director: Chad Darnell
• Writer: Chad Darnell
• Actors: Chad Darnell, Rib Hillis
• 85 min
• IMDB

Dream On (U.K. 2013)

The Gist:

In 1988, painfully shy, teenager Paul is dragged along by his overbearing mother to a Welsh campsite. There he meets his polar opposite, loud, brash outgoing teenager George, who has parental problems of his own. The two boys have an immediate deep connection and make a pact to return to the campsite one year later to run away together. A year passes and Paul returns in search of George. 

Comments (with minor spoilers):

This movie was adapted from a play, although unlike some other play-to-movies I've seen, this one makes the transition fairly well. It's not overly obvious that it wasn't a movie to begin with; no long heart-bearing monologues directed at the camera/audience, or other oddities that work better on stage.

So we have two teenage boys who fall in love during a summer holiday, which sounds like an overly sweet romance story. This isn't that. It's actually a somewhat depressing melodrama. Lots and lots of drama stemming from the (obvious and not too spoilery) fact that both boys, though mainly George, have a lot of baggage to deal with. 

Frankly the over the top nature of the melodrama was a bit too much for me. It quickly gets exhausting. Other negatives included not always being able to understand dialogue due to thick accents, the somewhat slow pace of storytelling, the two lead actors looking more than a touch older than sixteen, and the fact that the older I get the less I believe in the idea of true immediate, soul-mate, type love, at least not when said true love involves teenagers. 

If that last bit hasn't happened to you yet, you can look forward to someday deciding that Romeo and Juliet is not the greatest love story every written and is is actually a cautionary tale about what happens when two drama queen teenagers who fall in love at the drop of a hat, meet and disaster ensues. 

Back to the movie, on the plus side, it is more or less an interesting story of a teenager working his way towards adulthood, discovering who he is as a man. Granted an overly soap opera style DRAMA filled one for my taste, but still, in the end even if I didn't overly enjoy it, I can admit that it is, if not actually a very good movie, it is at least an okay one. 

Women: 
Yes

People of color:
No 

Gratuitous nudity: 
A butt shot 

• Director: Lloyd Eyre-Morgan
• Writer: Lloyd Eyre-Morgan
• Actors: Bradley Cross, Joe Gosling, Janet Bamford, Emily Spowage
• 94 min
• IMDB

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

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

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

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

Hawaii (Argentina 2013)

The Gist:

Martin has returned from Uruguay to his old hometown in Argentina to spend the summer before his job in Buenos Aires begins. Unfortunately through circumstances beyond his control he ends up homeless. While looking for temp work he meets Eugenio, an old childhood friend who is house sitting the home he grew up in while writing a novel. Eugenio offers Martin work and as summer rolls on they reconnect. 

Comments: 

It seems that while many people love the movie and think it excellent, there is a vocal minority who find it dull and pretentious. Some because it takes a calm slower pace to tell its story of two men bonding. I don't agree with this position, but I do understand it. The complaint I don't quite get is from people annoyed that the two leads do not immediately leap on top of each other and play out a "sexing up the hired help" gay porn scenario.

Frankly it's a better movie because of this. Instead of immediate satisfaction, we have the equivalent of fore play. Actually that isn't quite right. The feeling of the movie is more pre-fore play. It's intentionally extending the moment right before you touch a lover for the first time, when everything is possible. So despite not turning into quick and easy porn the movie is still very sensual and filled with sexual intensity and the ache of desire.

If not clear I'm one of the people who love the movie and think it is very good. The acting is excellent, the story interesting, it is well told in use of sound and dialogue and lack of dialogue. The movie does not ignore that things would not be that easy for our protagonists. There are class and socioeconomic issues they need to work through. Eugenio is an experienced upper middle class writer, while Martin, essentially an unemployed immigrant, is very much not. 

It has enough depth that it can handle multiple viewings and I think it's worth trying out. But with the qualifier that it may not be worth it if you can't deal with slower paced movies. 

Women:

Technically yes, though barely. Then again, it's a very minimal cast, little more then the two leads. A two hander as the movie folks call it.

People of Color:

Showing the oddity of this category (or at least the oddity of what exactly Latino can mean) if this were an "American" (i.e. USA) movie, I'd be inclined to count the cast as Latino and say yes. But given the movie is Argentinean, I'd still count the cast as Latino and say no. 

Gratuitous nudity:

There is some slight nudity, but given the way the movie is filmed and the story told, I would argue that it is not gratuitous.

• Director: Marco Berger
• Writer: Marco Berger
• Actors: Manuel Vignau, Mateo Chiarino
• 102 min 
• Spanish (Argentine / South American Spanish, so slightly different than the Spanish most North Americans, at least those of us in California or the Southwest, are used to)
• IMDB

GBF (U.S. 2013)

The Gist:

The top three ruling popular girls at a high school, having learned from magazines, TV, and movies that every woman needs a gay best friend (GBF), try to out maneuver each other to swoop up the only (accidentally) out gay on campus, nerdy boy Tanner, to ensure that they, and not their two rivals, will be prom queen.

While dealing with his sudden found popularity, Tanner also has to figure out how to deal with his best friends who are now all angry with him. 

Comments (with a mild not really surprising or relevant to plot spoiler): 

The story description has all the earmarks of potential horribleness, but it surprisingly manages not to be. Which is not to say that it's particularly good. Cute would be a better adjective. Also fluffy. Cute and fluffy. 

It's decent quality wise and is amusing, if not laugh out loud funny. 

There is also a lesson in it somewhere. Something about being true to yourself, or accepting people as people and not objects, or something something high school something something, but well, the lesson isn't perhaps super important when there's so much cuteness going on. Also fluffiness. Cuteness and fluffiness. 

Oddly it's rated R, because as cute and fluffy as the movies is, apparently the sight of two teen boys kissing means that actual high school teens are presumed to be too young to see it without adult supervision. Spoiler, you get to see two high school "age" boys kissing. 

Joke aside, the rating is rather annoying, because compared to most high school teen movies, this one is rather sweet and innocent, leaving "the gay" as the only reason for the R. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Some

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Darren Stein
• Writer: George Northy
• Actors: Tanner Daniels, Brent Van Camp, FAwcett Brooks, Shely Osgoode, Caprice Winters
• 92 min
• IMDB