Hurricane Bianca: From Russia with Hate (US 2018)

The Gist:

In the previous Hurricane Bianca movie,  a teacher who had been fired for being gay got revenge on his nemesis Debbie, via his drag persona Bianca. This time around Debbie is back in town and comes up with her own overly complicated plot for revenge, sending Bianca to Russia where she will be sent to a gulag for the crime of being gay.

Comments: 

The movie is terrible. The first flick wasn't very good either, but it at least managed to hover on the edge between being bad and merely meh due to having an actual plot, almost having something to say about discrimination against the LGBTQ community, and a certain odd naive charm (mainly due to being new). 

Those mild positives are all missing here, leaving the sequel a mess of not particularly funny, obvious jokes and odd situations that throw out any idea of resembling reality. 

The movie has several throw away guest appearances (Wanda Sykes, Sally Jessie Raphael) and adds new RuPaul Drag Race queens to the mix, including Katya. I normally love Katya, but not so much here. Her normal style of stream of consciousness humor is only evident in outtakes shown during the credit sequence. During the actual movie she doesn't do very much despite being a relatively major character. 

Unless you have need to watch everything remotely Drag Race related, the movie is pretty much skippable.

Women: 

Yes 

People of Color: 

Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 

No 

• Director: Matt Kugelman
• Writer: Derek Hartley, Matt Kugelman
• Actors: Debra Ward, Richard Martinez, Brian McCook
• 85 minutes
• IMDB

Hurricane Bianca (U.S. 2016)

The Gist:
A science teacher moves from New York to Texas, where he almost immediately gets fired for being gay. He just as quickly gets himself rehired while dressed in drag pretending to be a woman in order to get revenge; oh, and also to manage to be the only teacher to get through to the worst kids in school.


Comments:
From what I’d heard about the movie from people who saw it in real life I was expecting it to be horrible, so I was surprised when it turned out to be just regular run of the mill independent-low-budget movie average level of bad.


A shame really, since there are interesting ideas here and it touches on trans issues as well as pointing out that the lack of LGBT rights in many states makes discrimination legal. Unfortunately, the writing, as well as lots of the acting skills, are not up to task of handling these subjects. Ultimately, the movie ends up a bit mediocre because it embraces far too many cheap movie clichés and stereotypes, seemingly unable to be, or perhaps not wanting to be, anything better than a generic throw away ‘flick.’


In the end the only reason to see it is if you’re a fan of Bianca and RuPaul’s Drag Race, since some of the contestants/queens make appearances here as well as some other known faces. Some such as Deborah Ward appear to be trying hard, but don’t have enough to work with to make the movie succeed. Others have no real acting skills, then there's William who seem to be sleepwalking through the movie. Finally we have Bianca, who actually isn't that bad. She's good enough that I’d like to see her, in or out of drag, trying out something better written than this.


Women:
Yes


People of Color:
Two, including Bianca


Gratuitous nudity:
Yeah

• Director: Matt Kugelman
• Writer: Matt Kugleman
• Actors: Roy Haylock, Lola Botha, Wiliam Belli, D.J. 'Shangela' Pierce, Deborah Ward
• 84 min
• IMDB

Vegas in Space (US 1991)

The Gist:

The Empress Nueva Gabor's girlimium gems have been stolen! Gems that are vital to the continued safety of Vegas in Space, capital of the planet Clitoris! Captain Dan Tracey and his crew are sent to discover the culprit, but as it is a women only world, they must first change their sex in order go undercover as showgirls from Earth to solve this mystery and save the planet. Not an easy task considering the number one suspect is Veneer, the Queen of Police. 

Comments:

As is probably clear from the plot description, this is a very camp movie. More specifically, a very low budget, day glow Barbarella aesthetic, drag queen, comedy homage to bad sci-fi B-movies. Apparently the movie has a reputation of being so bad you must absolutely watch it. Thing is, I don't think it is terrible. Rather it lives right on the edge of bizarre and great. 

From what I can tell, people look at the bright artificial colored fake fur covered sets, the wacky rambling over the top story, all the roles played by both men and women done up in drag, rude humor, the use of both color and black and white sequences, varying acting skills, the very basic idea of a planet of women who all act like mad drag queens instead of actual women, and especially the city of Vegas in Space itself,  a model consisting of a perfume bottle covered table with little plastic flying saucers and rocket ships on string waving above, as proof that the movie is a schlocky mess. 

I look at the same and see a very intentional point of view created by drag artists with the desire to perform and bring their dreams to life, shaped by the constraints of a very low budget. A budget low enough it took a couple years to film and even longer to finish the post production work, so that it is more of a product of an early 80's San Francisco performance art mind set than the 1991 release date would suggest. The time from filming to release was long enough that some of the cast died from AIDS related causes before it was finally screened. 

Despite my liking it and thinking it successful at what they were trying to do, I do admit it is a very strange beast of a movie, and not something everyone would enjoy. However, it's worth seeing if you like camp or drag or want a look at what drug fueled, sleep deprived drag artists would do in 1980's San Francisco when given access to a camera. 

Women:

All the women are played by both women and men, so regardless if we are talking about character or the actor playing the role, the answer is yes.

People of color:

Maybe? I'm not really sure. Many of the roles involve heavy, bright green or other loudly colored makeup, so it's not really clear.

Gratuitous nudity:

Not exactly, there are a couple of breasts on display, but appropriately enough given the movie they are are obviously fake. The intent seems to be not so much gratuitous as intentionally outrageous.  

• Director: Phillip R. Ford
• Writers: Philip R. Ford, Doris Fish
• Actors: Doris Fish, Miss X, Ramona Fischer, Lori Naslund, "Tippi"
• 85 min
• Color, and Black and White
• Note: The director has the story of the making of the movie as a one entry blog. It's an interesting read and includes lots of photos and videos.
• IMDB

Outrageous! (Canada 1977)

The Gist: 

In late 1970's Toronto, Robin Turner is frustrated with his life and bored with his job as a hairdresser. His best friend Liza moves in with him after she releases herself from a mental institution. As she tries to deal with life outside the institution she encourages him to do what he longs to do, to perform onstage as a female impersonator. 

Comments: 

The movie has an interesting origin, based on "Making It," a short story by Margaret Gibson, which in turn was based on her real life, from when she and Craig Russel were roommates. Craig Russel being the lead actor. In effect he is playing a fictionalized version of himself a few steps removed from his real life as a famous female impersonator known for his skill at 'becoming' famous celebrities such as Tallulah Bankhead, Mae West, and Betty Davis, and singing instead of lip syncing. 

The movie is very "grimy big city dirty" 70's in feel and despite being billed as a comedy, is somewhat dark, perhaps not surprising given the story deals with mental illness, frustrations of life, and is set during winter where everything seems bleak and covered in grey dirty slush. 

The time period makes it pre-AIDS, but despite it's late 70's post Stonewall setting, it is in many ways pre "gay lib" in feel as well, at least in the scenes set in Canada. There seems to be a more active 'gay life' during the New York scenes, but while in Toronto things are more repressed. At one point a character, a hair salon owner, says a line to the effect that he would lose business if the clients knew one of their hairdressers was gay, or even worse a drag queen. A statement that barely makes sense today. 

Despite my repeated description of it seeming a dour story, it is a good movie and an interesting look at life several decades ago and as such shows ways that things have improved or not both for gay life and for people dealing with mental illness. 

Even if none of that sounds interesting to you, if nothing else, it's worth watching for scenes at the end of the movie featuring Craig Russel's act, which is rather fun, though understandably a bit dated in references. 

Women: 

Primarily the roommate, but a few others as well

People of color: 

Not really

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Richard Benner
• Writers: Richard Benner, Margaret Gibson
• Craig Russel, Hollis McLaren
• 96 min
• 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

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