Best Day Ever (US 2014)

The Gist: 

Facing a midlife crisis on turning fifty, David examines his life and considers ending his current unfulfilling relationship in a favor a starting something new with man he just met who is fifteen years his junior. 

Comments:

A man dealing with a midlife crisis and dealing with his own hangups about dating younger men has potential to be interesting. This movie however doesn't quite make it the entire way to interesting, stalling out somewhere between "meh" and melodrama. 

Part of the problem is casting and writing. David, the man turning fifty, has a boyfriend described as being financially successful, but what we actually onscreen see is an actor who seems miscast in the role and who despite (or maybe due to) saying things like "this deal is coming together," shows no actual evidence of having money. The only part of his characterization that comes through is that he's such a terrible jerk that the conclusion of the movie (stay with boyfriend or leave him) is never in question.  

Another problem is that the boyfriend is not the only inconsistent character. The lead simultaneously wants to have money and also doesn't care about money,  content to “merely” be okay and make movies (he's an indie filmmaker). However, instead of coming off as a real conflicted person, he just comes off as a wishy washy not entirely well written character. 

The main issue though is that while seeming a very personal, being an indie movie about an indie filmmaker, it feels very separated from any actual real life experiences. At least in terms of of the lead's personal life and relationships. He doesn't want to date a younger man, but why? He's settled for being in a "bad" relationship, but why? Has being part of a generation of gay men where AIDS happened right as they came of age affected his expectations of getting older? 

There are no answers provided.

There's potential for an interesting movie about queer men facing life and relationships as they face life after 50, but again this movie doesn't quite reach that potential. 

Women:

No

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

Quick butt shot

• Director: Jeff London
• Writer: James Handshoe, Jeff London
• Actors: Mel England, Tom Saporito
• 82 Minutes
• IMDB

Call me By Your Name (US 2017)

The Gist:

In the warm carefree summer days of 1983 in Northern Italy, seventeen year old Elio falls for his father’s latest grad student intern, confident charming Oliver.

Comments (with an attempt to minimize non-obvious spoilers):

As of this writing the movie is getting praise, nominations for awards, and is showing up on best movies of the year lists, deservedly so. Not absolute praise though. While largely loved by professional critics, I do know people who felt the pacing was far too slow.

I don't agree with this critique, but then again i've been known to like "slow" movies. At least I do  when done well and the pacing is for a purpose, which is the case here. The story mirrors the time it takes for the two young men to go from attraction, to hestant flirting, to love, in a manner that echoes summer itself, both languid stretched-out warm days and simultaneously far too short as the end of freedom and return to 'real life' looms ever closer.

So yes, this is not a fast paced sitcom romance dramedy. Rather it's a story of youth's summer love, that by definition must soon end leading to a sense of hesitation, desire and achingness throughout the story.

In addition to the critiques of length / boredom, there's also been criticism of the relationship itself, because of the ages of the protagonists, seventeen and twenty-four. Not surprising given the events unfolding at the movies time of release, of accusations against individuals and growing acknowledgement of a culture of sexual abuse by men in positions of power against women (and younger men).

Aside from them both being over the Italian age of consent, so both "legal," there's also the fact this is not a story of abuse of power, sexual or otherwise, but rather a love story. Granted they aren't the same age, but given the way Elio and Oliver are written and portrayed they aren't that far apart, in some ways being almost the same person, both filled with the arrogance of youth. Another complaint i've seen, that the leads aren't likeable enough.

Which well, they are both far too full of themselves, but again they are both young men from a certain background of higher education, of "comfortable" moneyed class, and again, young, so this is understandable.

This is starting to sound like I didn't like it very much which isn't correct. I thought the movie was great. One of the best of the year, It is beautiful, well acted, well directed, and also rather sensual, filling you as viewer with not only gorgeous imagery, but managing to convey a sense of smell, heat, and touch as well. Not an easy feat for a movie.

Some scenes, including a specific monologue and one that plays out over the closing credits were enough to bring tears to my eyes, and from the noises I heard, made several people in the audience I saw it with cry.

It is definitely worth seeing.

Women:

Yes

People of Color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

There is some minor stuff happening, for both guys and girls, or more specifically one guy and one girl. Was it gratuitous? Possibly?

• Director: Luca Guadagnino
• Writer: James Ivory
• Actors: Armie Hammer, Timothée Chalamet Stuhlbarg 
• 132 minutes
• English, Italian, French
• Note: I’ve not read the book it is based on, so have no observations about the transition from word to film, but the movie did succeed in making me interested in reading it.
• IMDB

Bed Buddies (US 2016)

The Gist: 

Three best friends wake up from a night of drinking and realize they might have accidentally all slept with each other. 

Comments:

In this short film we have three men, best friends, waking up from a night of heavy drinking, to realize they’ve crossed the boundaries of friendship, so try to figure out what this means by talking about it. A lot. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing except that the dialogue drifts from things actual real people would say into monologues that while they sound deep and meaningful, also sound a bit fake.

While our boys tend to get a bit melodramatic about their situation, it is just sex after all, there is some merit to their freaking out over the possibility of screwing up their friendship. Unfortunately, the acting and writing dilutes this concern, so while the movie is cute and sexy, it feels like it could have been better.  

Women:

No

People of color:

One of a cast of four 

Gratuitous nudity:

Implied nudity along with implied sex 

• Director: Reid Waterer
• Writer: Reid Waterer
• Actors: Dylan Wayne Lawrence, Daniel Lipshutz, Enzo Nove
• T15 minutes
• Short film
• Color and Black & White
• IMDB

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

Unsolved Suburbia (US 2010)

The Gist:

Bisexual high school student Marty and his friends try to solve the case of who shot their friend Eddie while Eddie was in a car making out with his boyfriend Thomas.

At least that’s more or less the plot description I’ve found online. The movie I saw fell more along the lines of: 

No one tries to solve an attempted murder. We eventually get told what happened by someone who wasn’t there and would have no way of knowing what happened. Characters who are supposed to be in high school and may or or may not be of legal age take off their clothes a lot for no reason. 

Comments with spoilers because I don't care: 

So we have a sort of film noir wanna-be murder mystery where there is no actual murder and no one takes on the detective role trying to solve the case of “Who tried to kill Eddie, his angry gangbanger brother or Eddie’s boyfriend’s angry gangbanger brother?" 

A movie where teenagers, both boys and girls, take their clothes off for no reason. One where character after character after character is introduced yet they all don’t seem to be in the same movie, some are in a mobster flick, some are in a high school teen sex comedy, others in an “I can’t accept my gay family member because I’m ethnic” coming out melodrama, others in a gang banger movie, and yet others are in a teen angst drama. 

A movie where characters are all written to operate in only one of two modes, weepy sad or mean bitch, and yet none of the actors have enough skill to pull either off, settling into a medium of whiny cranky. 

So yeah, this thing is a huge mess with numerous problems including an overly confusing and ultimately boring story that feels like it took several hours to tell despite only being an hour or so long. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 

Yes, both "teenage" boys and girls drop clothes for no reason

• Director: Cheetah Gonzalez (aka Steven Vasquez) 
• Writers: Jeremy Huntington, Cheetah Gonzalez (aka Steven Vasquez) 
• Actors: Johnny Lockhart, Steven Christopher, Aleksandr Dissan, David Blanco
• 65 minutes
• IMDB

4th Man Out (US 2015)

The Gist:

On his 24th birthday, a “regular” dude comes out of the closet as gay, throwing his unsuspecting close knit circle of male friends into confusion as they figure out the new status quo. 

Comments:

“Regular” guy comes out as gay confusing his clueless friends and family who all assumed he was straight because he was not feminine is not an uncommon sub-genre of gay films. Unfortunately most of them spend an inordinate amount of time avoiding dealing with the actual queer person in favor of how his news affects all the straight people around him. In other words in this type of the movie the gay man is usually only a minor character in his own movie, so it ends being all about straight angst, and boring as a result. 

This movie is better than most, because while it doesn’t avoid straight angst, it does expand the scope of focus to have two protagonists, both the straight and gay best friends, so in addition to straight angst we have a heavy large dose of gay angst as well. Which sounds like an insult but isn’t intended to be. 

This is emotional drama story time, so angst is a “good” thing here , and not forgetting the movie is actually about a gay man makes it more interesting than most, letting us see our newly out gay mechanic deal with dating men and figuring out how his friendships have changed, as well as showing his straight best friend do the same. 

The movie is totally predictable, with no surprises, and yet it ends up being fairly good, and worth a watch if you’re in the mood for warm hearted drama.

Women:

Yes 

People of color: 

A couple  of very minor roles 

Gratuitous nudity:

No 

• Director: Andrew Nackman
• Writer: Aaron Danncik
• Actors: Parker Young, Evan Todd, Chord Overstreet
• 86 minutes
• IMDB

The Second Coming (U.S. 1995)

The Gist:

In the near future the United States is speeding towards fascism, and a bullied gay high school student named Carlos joins the youth resistance movement, creating videos exposing the truth of the take over of the government by Right Wing Christian Terrorists. 

Comments:

The plot explanation makes this seem like an exciting action adventure flick, which it is not. Art film with all the implications of style being much more important than production quality, acting skills or plot is a more acurate description. Though to be fair, there is an actual plot here. A very thin plot involving conspiracies, but it is there. 

One of the conspiracies involves REX 84, a plan to suspend the constitution and declare martial law.  If you're old enough to remember Oliver North and the Iran Contra hearings, or have heard talk of FEMA concentration camps, REX 84 is this idea of herding up dissident citizens, feared as true for the extremes of both the paranoid far left and far right. 

In addition to conspiracies, the movie compares the homophobia and racism of modern day (mid-1990's) American culture to the rise of power of the nazis in Germany. Sadly, an analogy that is still relevant, even more so given that I'm writing this in the final days of the 2016 presidential elections with Donald Trump being embraced by the KKK and right wing nationalist groups.

Despite having interesting elements, the story told in such a art movie / experimental / movie school "Who cares about quality as long as I get to the TRUTH" manner that most of the movie is barely watchable and ends up  something I wouldn't recommend without a huge mile long list of caveats. 

Women: 

Yes

People of Color: 

Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 

Yes, although given that it occurs alongside violence I'd accept that the intention was not salacious but rather a desire to shock.  

• Director: Jack Walsh
• Writer: K.M. Soehnlein, Jack Walsh
• Actors: Al Giordano, Jeff Constan
• 55 min
• Black and White 
• IMDB

Straightman (U.S. 1999)

The Gist:

After two best friends end up single at the same time, they move in together to save on rent, and their lives continue on as normal with its frustrations and small joys until one of the men admits he is gay. After his announcement, their lives continue on as normal with its small joys and frustrations. 

Comments:
First off, if you look at the movie credit info below, you'll see a repeating pattern of names in director, writers, and actors. Not usually a good sign. That said, I found this to be an interesting movie, though one with too many issues for me to consider it good. Beyond easily ignorable technical issues involved with having a minuscule budget, the main problem is one of writing/editing. 

It feels like a lot of the movie was improvised. I haven’t checked if this is the case or not, but there's a sort of rambling dialogue that doesn’t usually come from strictly following a script: people talking over each other, and wobbly conversations that feel real rather than rehearsed speeches. while it works for a few scenes, most of the time is doesn't resulting in conversations that are a bit too real, going on for too long, directionless. 

The two leads do a good job with their roles more or less, though oddly, not with each other. Their best scenes involve them dealing with other people. When just the two of them together it feels like the only thing they do is talk on and on and on and on at length about nothing and it gets a bit dull. 

Switching to a positive, the movie deals with people not usually seen in “gay” stories.  These guys, specifically the gay dude are "average" people unconcerned with the trappings of gay culture. The story doesn't seem a critique or rejection of ‘gay life,’ rather it's just that such a life is outside these guys experience. 

All in all, I suspect that with heavy editing, and a lot more money than the handful of change it seems to have been made with, there could be a good movie here. But that's a what if. What it actually is, is again, a movie that has a few too many issues going on for me to suggest watching it. 

Women: Yes

People of Color: One of the speaking roles is a guy named Carlos

Gratuitous Nudity:

The are a couple of scenes with nudity, mostly female, but it is so incidental and presented in a unsensational manner that it doesn’t feel gratuitous.

• Director: Ben Berkowitz
• Writer: Ben Berkowitz, Ben Redgrave
• Actors: Ben Berkowitz, Ben Redgrave
• 101 minutes
• 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

The Last Straight Man (U.S. 2014)

The Gist:

After a drunken bachelor party, the groom-to-be and his best friend, a closeted man with a secret crush on the groom, end up having sex. They spend the next decade or so meeting up yearly in the same hotel room on the anniversary of their first encounter, with the intent of "merely" hooking up again, which of course is not quite what happens. 

Comments (with minor unimportant spoilers):

This is an interesting movie. While there are several low budget issues, they are mainly technical in nature, and don’t negatively affect the story too much. Things like occasional wonky sound or the fact that the hotel room our leads have met in for over a decade has apparently never been redecorated. 

I looked around online for reviews and opinions about the movie out of curiosity over reactions to the use of nudity and sex in the movie, because the movie makes generous use of both. Not surprisingly opinions tends to fall along expected lines, that the nudity and sex was too distracting / the movie went too close to being actual soft porn; or that because the movie has naked men in it, it was best thing ever. 

I don't fall into either position. While I've complained in some of these write ups that throwing pointless nudity into a movie for the sake of having nudity detracts from the story because it pulls you out of the story, that is not what is happening here. The story is about a decade long passionate emotional and physical affair, and actually showing some of that passion serves rather than detracts from the movie. As is, it's not the entirety of the movie as more time is spent with our leads talking about their lives then sexing each other up.

So yes, I like the movie. Even though there are story details that don't make too much sense if thought about too much, such as how the married man is able to continually sneak away for a yearly trip on the eve of his wedding anniversary. 

Regardless, overall it is better than not and is interesting enough that it is worth checking out, with the caveat that nudity and implied sex don't bother you, or a second caveat that a movie where characters spend more time talking then being nude or having implied sex doesn't bother you either. 

Women:

Yes, one maid has a couple of lines. Perhaps not that bad, given the very limited cast. 

People of color:

Yes, same one maid who has a couple of lines. Perhaps not that bad, given the very limited cast. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Nudity yes, but as I discuss above, given the way the story is told I wouldn’t describe it as gratuitous.

• Director: Mark Bessenger
• Writer: Mark Bessenger 
• Actors: Mark Cirillo, Scott Sell
• 90 min
• IMDB

Eighteen (2005 Canada)

The Gist:

Young Pip has run away from home after an incident involving his father and brother. As he tries to survive on the streets he listens to his eighteenth birthday gift from his grandfather, an audiotape where his grandfather describes his own eighteenth birthday as a British soldier in World War Two.  

Comments (with no real spoilers):

First off, despite being included in lists of "gay" movies, it isn't really a "gay flick." While it does have gay characters and some subplots are driven by homophobia (and astonishingly bad parenting), the two leads are straight. Which means the actual gays are minor characters and the focus of the movie is to parallel hetero Pip life as a homeless runaway against that of his hetero grandfather trying to survive the war.

I looked around for reviews of the movie and didn't find many professional reviews, but I did find lots of regular people gushing over it, loving this movie to death. I didn't. Which is not to say it's bad. Parts of it are good and while there are some problems here, it at least tries. More so it attempts to be ambitious, which frankly is not too common. 

One of my issues is of simple suspension of disbelief. Basically, while he more or less does a good job with the role, the idea that the actor playing Pip is just barely eighteen pushes credibility beyond the breaking point. Even characters on a TV show where young thirty-somethings play high school kids would look at him and wonder what the heck was going on. As is the guy playing hustler Clark is also far too old for his role. 

The other issues I have are a bit subjective. The movie is too soap opera melodramatic for my taste and there is a lot of story / points to cover crammed into its running time, so some if not most things don't get quite enough time to be dealt with properly. 

Women:
Yes

People of color:
One scene has one guy with a couple of lines

Gratuitous nudity:
I saw the movie last week and have already forgotten if there was any nudity, so um, maybe? 

• Director: Richard Bell 
• Writer: Richard Bell
• Actors: Paul Anthony, Brendan Fletcher, Ian McKellen (voice only), Alan Cumming
• 106 min
• 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

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

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

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 

Out To Kill (U.S. 2014)

The Gist:

A gay private investigator moves into a gay condo complex where he meets his gay neighbors: a gay middle-aged couple, a gay singer, a mysterious gay, a gay dentist, and a gay threesome of three gay sex positive, hot gay men. Before he can settle down into his new gay life in the gayborhood there’s a gay murder when one of his gay neighbors ends up gay dead, but who did it when almost all the gays hated the dead gay guy?

Comments with some minor spoilers that do not reveal the solution to "who done it": 

Okay, I’m obviously being facetious with my overuse of the word gay in the plot summary. Unfairly so, as this is not the first, last, nor only movie where essentially every single person in town is gay. Well, except for the lone woman present and presumably the unseen Tampa police (who are described as not caring if a gay guy is dead). It is just that for whatever reason it seems more obvious in this movie than most, just how insular and gay specific these men’s lives are.

Despite all this ‘gay’ going around, the murder plot is not actually ‘gay’ dependent, and (given some changes in gender to force it into the 'real' world) could easily be a murder mystery of the week TV movie, well, if murder mystery movies of the week were still a thing that is.  The mystery is a fair play one, more or less, and if you pay attention to the clues is solvable. Maybe too solvable? I tend to assume any story where I can figure out the murderer before the end as being too easy. 

Mystery aside, switching to the quality of the movie, it's clear that many of the actors were hired for their looks rather than acting skills. Which brings up that the casting is a little odd in that it’s not just attractive mostly white men, but rather attractive mostly white men who all appear to be roughly the same age. I don't think it is actually the case, but given there are jokes about the middle-aged couple being an entire generation older than everyone else, it is weird how everyone seems to be within five-seven years of each other. 

In the end, it’s neither overly bad nor good, just an average meh movie, and no loss if you miss it or not.

Women:

One

People of Color:

One

Gratuitous nudity:

Is a bare butt shot of a guy described in story as being a slut character development rather than an excuse at fulfilling gay flick stereotypes of nakedness for the sake of nakedness? Considering the way the rest of the movie is done, in this case I'd say yes it is. 

• Director: Rob Williams
• Writer: Rob Williams
• Actors: Scott Sell, Rob Moretti, Marc Strano
• Time
• IMDB

Cloudburst (Canada 2011)

The Gist: 

Stella and Dot, life partners for 31 years, face being forcibly separated as Dot's granddaughter wants to put her grandmother into a special care home. They decide to fight for their right to stay together by taking off to Canada to get married.  Along the way they pick up a male hitchhiker. Dramedy ensues.  

Comments with an unimportant spoiler:

We are in deep in Hallmark style movie territory here with a story of two older women working to overcome an obstacle. In this case a crisis created because one of the women never came out to her granddaughter. A granddaughter who apparently has never realized that grandmother's curmudgeon, take no shit from anyone, butch dyke roommate is actually her grandmother's long time lover. 

Despite touching on serious subjects such as the lack of rights faced by many elderly queer couples, over all it is a rather goofy movie tending to focus more heavy on the comedy aspect of "dramedy" rather than drama.

Besides the two women, there is also the young hitchhiker. The spoiler is this: he remains a bit of a cypher. Apparently the guy is no longer welcome in his family home, but the reason why is never quite explicitly spelled out. Because he is gay? Bi? Straight? A dancer? A hustler? Who knows? Then again, it doesn't really matter as the movie is appropriately enough not about him, but rather about the two women. 

While not a must see movie, its not bad for what it is, a melodrama of the week style flick, and if nothing else, Olympia Dukakis seems to be having a grand time playing a cranky, strong willed, foul mouthed old dyke. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes, though oddly enough for a "lesbian" movie, only of the male variety. Then again, all the scenes involving nudity are done as comedy since it seems nothing is more hilarious looking than a naked man.

• Director: Thom Fitzgerald
• Writer: Thom Fitzgerald
• Actors: Olympia Dukakis, Brenda Fricker, Ryan Doucette
• 93 min
• IMDB

Plan B ( Argentina 2009)

The Gist:

Bruno wants his ex girlfriend back. Granted, it is not as if she is totally out of his life, she is still occasionally sleeping with him. An affair her new boyfriend Pablo does not know of, but now that Bruno can't "have" her as an actual girlfriend, the affair is not enough. His first "plan" to get her back, to simply ask her to dump the new boyfriend in favor of Bruno is met with a resounding no. So he switches to "Plan B," where he will come between Laura and Pablo by becoming Pablo's friend and seducing him thus causing Laura and Pablo to break up. An admittedly unusual tactic. More so considering both men are straight, but who exactly is Bruno tricking in this scheme? 

Comments:

This is Marco Berger's first movie. I'm a huge fan of another one of his other films Hawaii, and this has several similarities, shared themes, to that story. A slow measured tale of two men hanging out together over the course of a summer learning about each other and becoming friends, and a call back to childhood and innocence symbolized by memories of playing with view-masters as kids. You know, those plastic toys that let you see slides of photos. Then again, if you're younger than middle aged, maybe you don't. 

It's an interesting story, and despite his plan of seduction making no sense at all, Bruno jumps into it with a certain charming, if underhanded gusto, flirting with Pablo in a more or less easily plausible denial sort of way. The story could have been played for goofy laughs, but is dealt with seriously here, which makes for a more complicated story than the set up implies. It's well done and worth seeing, as long as subtitles and an unhurried character development heavy story don't bother you that is.

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes, though not exactly

Gratuitous nudity:

No, though there are several underwear scenes, scenes that as they work to show the growing trust and friendship between the two leads doesn't fit the description of gratuitous 

• Director: Marco Berger 
• Writer: Marco Berger
• Actors: Manuel Vignau, Lucas Ferraro, Mercedes Quinteros 
• Note: Manuel Vignau who plays Bruno here, also stars in Hawaii, where he plays Euginio a gay middle class writer.
• Spanish. Argentine Spanish specifically, so a couple of unusual word choices if you're not familiar with it. 
• 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