Chef's Special (Fuera de Carta) (Spain 2008)

The Gist:

Maxi, an out gay chef focused on getting a Michelin star for his restaurant has his life thrown into chaos when his children from a failed marriage move in with him right at the same time a rather famous and handsome football (soccer) player moves in next door. 

Comments:

Poking around online it seems that some people are annoyed by the movie's politically incorrect humor and/or by the fact that protagonist Maxi is far from butch. 

The main, though not sole, issue people seem to have with the humor is that the protagonist's father spends the entire movie continually telling crude homophobic jokes. It's used as proof of his being an asshole, but even so the joke wear thin pretty quick. 

As for the fem lead, well, not every gay dude is a mountain of stereotypical masculinity. Gay equals sissy can get problematic if a single character is meant to represent the entire community, the whole wide spectrum of "gay" to the exclusion of everyone else. Something that isn't going on here. While some of the humor does come from the fact he's a bit swishy, for the most part it is not a joke, but rather just who he is. 

Following the "rules" of gays plus kids equals family storylines, Maxi's children, well, at least the older brother, spends most of the movie being a bratty jerk, though the writing is good enough that unlike other movies with similar storylines, the boys behavior actually makes some sense. 

Despite what seems to be a growing list of problems, I actually likes the movie. It's not exactly great cinema, but it is fun and manages to make some well used worn out storylines entertaining,  if you don't mind non-PC humor that is. 

Women: 

Yes

People of Color: 

No

Gratuitous Nudity: 

No

• Director: Nacho G. Velilla
• Writer: Oriol Capel, David S. Olivas
• Actors: Javier Cámara, Lola Dueñas,Fernando Tejero
• Spanish
• 111 min
• IMDB

All The Others Were Practice (U.S. 2015)

The Gist:

Jorge, pronounced George, coasts through life, work, and romance; living, working, and dating.

Comments with a big spoiler that isn't much of a spoiler:

We have a movie where not everyone is white, nor gay, nor male, with a non-traditional gay lead, i.e., he's neither white nor thin. More so, when focusing on his love life, his dating problems are the standard "dating is hard" issues that you'd expect from any romcom, not the "no one will date me because I'm fat!" storyline usually used when the protagonist isn't a skinny twink. 

All a good start. Unfortunately it is immediately is hobbled by the difficulty making an interesting story about aimless people living somewhat boring lives. Jorge is described as a commitment-phobe, except he doesn't seem actively afraid of relationships, just passively "meh." The same attitude he has about everything in his life, which does not make him the most engaging of characters.  

On top of that there is a similar problem in that the secondary characters are pretty much all aggravatingly boring.

There's also an issue with the conclusion of the story, in that there isn't one. Not really anyway. This counts as spoiler, but given the setup of a dude having a string of dates and hook ups that don't lead anywhere, and also considering the movie's title, you'd expect the movie to end with him learning a lesson and being ready to build a life with his new (final) boyfriend. 

This doesn't happen. Not really anyway. The pieces are there and put into place, but there's no real reason to believe Jorge's learned anything at all, or that final dude will not just be yet another man who will come and go from his life with no impact or lasting effect. 

This list of negatives makes it sound like I hated the movie. I didn't. I actually liked it. It's not terrible, it's just... not very interesting. 

Women: 
Yes

People of color: 
Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 
No

• Director: Brian Tolle
• Writer: Brian Tolle, John Hancuff
• Actors: Charlie Ballard, Kimberly MacLean, Bennie Bell
• 88 min
• IMDB

Alex and Leo (Alex und der Löwe) (Germany 2010)

The Gist:

Timid Alex and subdued Leo, who have just broken up with respectively, a boyfriend and a girlfriend, meet and are obviously attracted to each other. Alex introduces Leo to his group of friends, two women and an annoying gay man, who are all wacky when not being morose. Will Alex and Leo do anything about being obviously attracted to each other such as immediately jumping into a serious long-term relationship before the dust settles from the disasters of their last relationships? 

Comments (with obvious spoilers):

The movie is a romance comedy that doesn't quite work. There are low budget issues and 'meh' level of acting skills, but even ignoring those, it doesn't solve the movie's main problem, that it's kind of boring. 

There's some very minor character development, mainly in the leads becoming slightly less meek by the time the story ends, but other than that, not much really happens other than Alex's friends alternating between being weird and kooky, or hungover and morose. Unfortunately neither extreme is interesting. To qualify, the women are kooky and or morose; the annoying gay friend is just written as an asshole. So much so it's not clear why anyone remains friends with him. 

The other not clear thing is just why Alex and Leo are so into each other. That's partially due to the actors having no 'chemistry' with each other, but also due to the way the characters are written. That's not to say they would not have had sex. That's totally plausible. It's the falling in love and wanting a relationship that didn't ring true. 

The movie is also somewhat disappointing in that sexuality is rather rigidly limited here. Leo, who has spent the past four years in a relationship with a woman, isn't allowed to be bisexual, fluid in his preferences, flexible, not strictly heterosexual, or just "unlabeled." Instead there only two options, 100% gay or 100% straight, so being with a man means he must be gay and his prior relationships with women all lies.

On the positive side, there are some funny bits, and there's a certain raw charm to the story. I guess for some folks it would also be a plus that Marcel Schlutt who plays not-straight Leo has done porn. He doesn't actually get full on naked though and he's only okay as an actor, so if that's the only draw, it's not worth it. 

I intended to write that the movie was okay even if it was not worth seeking out, but given all the words I'm using here, from poor acting to boring to disappointing, I guess okay is too positive an adjective. 

Women: 
Yes

People of color:
One person has one line

Gratuitous nudity: 
Sort of. There's a sex scene that nearly, but doesn't quite show butt

• Director: Ives-Yuri Garate 
• Writer: Andre Schneider
• Actors: Marcel Schlutt, Andre Schneider, Sascia Haj, Udo Lutz
• 96 min
• Dialogue is in German
• 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

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

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

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

The Men Next Door (U.S. 2012)

The Gist:

Facing his 40th birthday alone because all his friends have bailed on him, things are not looking good for Doug. Until he meets his new hunky 30 year old neighbor and they hit it off. Although in truth things were not really that bad for him, after all he is also dating a hunky 50 year old as well. At least things weren't bad until the 30 year old and 50 year old meet each other and it turns out they are father and son. 

Commentary:

Despite the daddy / son porn set up, and the occasional gratuitous (and frankly distracting) penis shots, this is not a kinky porn video, but rather a romantic comedy. One with issues. The lead's main personality trait seems to be that he's indecisive then again everyone else comes off as shallow, so maybe being wishy washy isn't too bad. There's is also a bit too much reliance on goofy comedy that's not so much with the funny. 

My main problem with the movie is the overindulgence in the indie gay flicks MUST have nudity stereotype. A scene with two friends talking should have the viewer paying attention to dialogue, not to wonder why one of them is standing around wearing only a shirt without pants or underwear showing off his dick for utterly no reason at all. 

There are plenty of ways to include nudity in a movie that makes sense and helps push the story along, but that is not what happens here. Instead the near random use of it gets distracting, and for me at least it leads to wondering about the thought process actors use when deciding whether to play nude roles or not, the casting process, and what their contracts look like. In other words, pulling me out of the story entirely. 

All that aside, it's not exactly a bad movie. The acting is, well, not horrible, and the story is sort of interesting (if overly melodramatic). In the end it, it's just a mostly average, fluffy gay flick.

Women:

One

People of color:

None

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes

• Director: Rob Williams
• Writer: Rob Williams
• Actors: Eric Dean, Michael Nicklin, Benjamin Lutz
• 84 min
• IMDB 

Shut Up and Kiss Me (U.S. 2010)

The Gist:

Ben wants a relationship. Which leads him through questionable dating services, and questionable help from his friends, until he meets Grey, who may just be Mr. Right. Except that they have a major problem. Protagonist Ben wants a monogamous relationship and and potential boyfriend Grey does not. 

Comments (with a major spoiler because there's no real way to talk about the movie's primary problem without mentioning how it ends. Then again it's a romance dramedy so is the ending really that surprising?):

First off, the movie is not very good. There's lots of low budget problems, from a couple of rooms in a house obviously staged as every setting from gym to restaurant to office, to poor dialogue, to characters disappearing with no explanation, to acting levels that are all over the place from mostly good to outright terrible. All things that can be more or less ignored. What can't be ignored is the ending and how the story runs out of steam and collapses in in itself. 

Monogamy vs nonmonogamy should be an interesting topic for a movie. Creating your own rules by rejecting heteronormative demands for monogamy, or choosing the fulfillment found in remaining faithful to one person. This is more than enough to fuel a story. 

Except that none of this is dealt with in any depth beyond having Grey repeatedly say that nonmonogamy is important to him while never explaining why, and protagonist Ben repeatedly saying that monogamy is important to him while also never explaining why.

The movie goes along as expected, where they break up, but then abruptly ends with them back together again with no real change in the status quo and no explanation of why Ben suddenly decided he was okay with Grey having sex with other men other than just saying that he did. The lack of explanation makes it seem as if the movie is an argument for settling for less than what you want in a relationship. I'm pretty sure that's not what the creators intended, but unfortunately it feels like the skill level was not high enough to do more than that. 

The other movie I've seen writer/actor Ronnie Kerr in, Saltwater, is more or less the same basic story with the same problem. Two men, apparently perfect for each other, have one irresolvable issue that they can't work out that prevents them from being boyfriends. Except that they do suddenly get together at the end of the movie with seconds to spare, not by showing them dealing with the problem, but rather only with a quick line of dialogue just saying that they did. 

I like Ronnie Kerr as an actor, and he does "regular gay guy" well enough, but so far the movies I've seen him in are kind of bad. 

Women: 

Friends 

People of color: 

One sassy employee 

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes

• Director: Devin Hamilton
• Writer: Ronnie Kerr
• Actors: Ronnie Kerr, Scott Gabelein
• 787 min
• IMDB 

SoulMaid (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

Moses has epilepsy which give him visions; that lead him first to true love in the form of Steve, the (formerly straight) literal man of his dreams; then later to Glintentica, who may be a figment of his imagination, or who may an evil spirit who wants to take over his body in an effort to wipe out the local gay population by turning them all from prissy effeminate queens to boring straight men. 

When it turns out to be the later, the (formerly straight) boyfriend and an annoying female roommate hope to rid Moses of Glintentica by performing the most bizarre exorcism ever, despite Glintentica's threats to turn Steve (the formerly straight boyfriend) straight again if they succeed. 

Will true love prevail? Does anyone care? 

Comments:

The people involved in this were apparently trying to make a wacky romantic comedy with commentary about ex-gay therapy. It's possible that the idea could have worked,  but unfortunately, they didn't go far enough, which considering the plot description may seem an odd critique. 

The problem is that while they ended up with a crazy movie, it's not crazy enough to to overcome a huge number of issues such as poor script, wonky characterization and bad acting. In the end, the final product trips over itself, and falls somewhere between boring and just plain bad. 

The best thing about it is that the lead isn't too bad an actor. There is also the fact that even if it failed, the people involved at least tried to be interesting, if weird. Still, all in all, not worth watching. 

Women: 

One and a half. The most annoying female roommate ever, and the "evil goddess" Glintentica, who despite being played by a woman, is (if I'm reading the credits correctly) voiced by a man.

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

No, though the character of Moses who between his job as a sort of, but not really nude-maid and being written as being clothes phobic, spends a lot of screen time in his undies doing yoga poses. 

• Directors: Jeffrey Maccubbin, Jeffrey Thomas McHale, Dan Mohr, Josef Steiff
• Writer: Josef Steiff
• Actors: Tom Bailey, Becca Connolly, Joe Schenck
• 95 min
• IMDB

What Happens Next (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

After a rich 50-something businessman is forced into early retirement, his sister gives him a puppy before moving onto her next project, getting him a wife. For his part however, he seems less interested in dating women than in figuring out what, if anything, his burgeoning friendship with a baseball cap wearing gay man (and fellow dog owner) may imply, considering he has spent so much time working he has never had time for a social life. 

Comments:

I guess going to the dog park is the "in thing" for meeting guys. Also, apparently you can tell if a guy is butch or fem by looking at which gay stereotype he fulfills, wearing a baseball cap or wearing lipgloss. Which surprised me because I had not realized that we were known for doing either. 

Odd stereotypes aside, it was a nice enough movie, sweet even (appropriate for a romance comedy), but at the same time, just not an overly interesting one. Jon Lindstrom and Wendie Malick are fine in their roles as an older man trying to figure out his life/sexual orientation, and his overbearing sister. The dogs are cute (though they kind of disappear once they've fulfilled their duty of introducing the leads), and unlike some indie movies dealing with rich people I've seen, his apartment didn't look cheap. Free advice for indie filmmakers with script calling for for an expensive apartment... don't do it. 

Then again, there's very little about the movie that is not totally predictable, and some sections of it (and characters) seem a bit too flat. Which is too harsh, because it isn't a bad movie, just... average. 

I'd recommend it, but only if you go into it with low expectations.

Women:

Sister, best friend, maid, nail stylist and more, so all in all, not too bad. 

People of color:

The maid. No, really. One person. The maid. 

Gratuitous nudity:

A brief shot of a bare male butt, so while it technically meets the gay flick stereotype of unnecessary bare flesh, it barely does so.

• Director: Jay Arnold
• Writers: Jay Arnold, Thom Cardwell, Ariel Shafir
• Actors: Lon Lindstrom, Wendie Malick
• 100 min
• IMDB

Be Mine (US 2009)

The Gist:

Mason and friends reminisce about the distant past (last year) when he was obsessed with the idea that his first kiss with a man would be perfect and lead to true love.

Comments with many a spoiler:

In the movie we have:

• The just married that day protagonist spends the afternoon with his “sassy” black gay friend (instead of his husband).
• His just married that day husband spends the afternoon with friends (instead of the protagonist).
• Flashbacks to the day the newlyweds first met, where college kids act wacky and sassy at school.
• Flashbacks to the night the newlyweds first met, where college kids act wacky and sassy at a party.
• Flashbacks to the day after the party, where college kids no longer bother being wacky and sassy.
• A subdued party on the night of the wedding where the newlyweds finally spend time together.

Keep in mind that ALL of this happens in a movie barely over an hour long. Now in addition to that hodgepodge of events and scenes, mix in several minutes worth of establishing shots, add on poor acting, inconsistent sound, odd casting (these are very old looking college kids), bad gay clichés (Sassy African-American Queen) and you end up with a bit of a mess.

Which is an overly long introduction to simply say that this is not really a good movie.

A shame, because while having the protagonist fixated on his first “real” kiss with a man is kind of saccharin sweet; there is nothing necessarily wrong with the story of an inexperienced college kid longing for romance and first love.

Unfortunately, as can be gleaned from the plot outline quite a lot of time is spent not telling that story. If that weren’t bad enough, the aforementioned “issues” multiply against each other to the point where instead of a story about a college kid looking for love, it ends up feeling like a multi-hour long saga about drunk 30-somethings crashing a never ending frat party.

In the end, not worth the (admittedly short) time to watch it.

Women:

The protagonist’s white female best friend, a “wacky” white female friend, and party guests walking in the background.

People of Color:

The protagonist’s “Sassy” African-American gay friend and maybe one or two party guests walking in the background. For a wild party, it was kind of boring and I found myself only half paying attention to the movie by this point.

Gratuitous nudity:

A quick flash of skinny dipping butt shots

• Directors: Dave Padilla, Steven Vasquez
• Writer: Jeremy Huntington
• Actors: Dan Selon, Jared Welch
• 70 min
• IMDB

Is It Just Me? (US 2010)

The Gist:

In a city filled to overflowing with hot gay men only interested in quick hook ups with other equally hot gay men, can Blain, an average looking gay man find a chance at true love? Of course he will, and his name is Xander. The actual question is when an online profile picture mix up leads to a case of mistaken identity between Blain and his sexy roommate Cameron, who will Xander choose?

Comments with spoilers:

I was prepared to be annoyed by the movie when the first couple of scenes set up the idea that Blain was the only good guy in Los Angeles, because he was interested in dating and romance, while everyone else in the city was a rude slut. I was also all set to be annoyed by the idea that despite being played by an attractive actor, Blain was supposed to be “average” looking.

Luckily, it did not turn out to be as bad as I feared. Though to elaborate on Blain not being handsome, the story makes it clear (by way of friends telling him repeatedly), that Blain really is a good looking guy (which in itself is kind of annoying, watching pretty people being told they are pretty). 

So what we have in the movie is a good looking guy with low self esteem acting like a pill while trying to start a relationship with another good looking guy. Which brings up the question of why anyone would want to be with such a self-deprecating negative stick in the mud.  

Worse, a self-deprecating negative stick in the mud who is a lying idiot. Then again, it is a mistaken identity romance comedy based on a Three’s Company worthy mix up. If our protagonist weren't a lying idiot and simply told his date the truth that he was not his go-go boy roommate, there wouldn't be a movie. Well, at least not this movie.

His lying idiot antics were amusing to me, not in and of themselves, but in the implications. The movie plays up the idea that lying Blain is a much better catch than his shallow vain roommate Cameron. The problem, for me at least, is that roommate Cameron (and nearly everyone else in the movie) is arguably a much better person than lying Blain. Cameron is vain and shallow yes, but also honest and loyal. By the end of the story he also ends up in a relationship, except that his path to romance is filled with not so much with hijinks and lies as much as lots and lots of sex. 

This sounds as if I hated the movie, but in truth, I didn’t. Flaws aside, this is a good enough movie with fair acting that does an ok job of telling a goofy story of two guys falling in love.

Women:

Two, a best friend and a secretary. 

People of color:

Best friend and occasional guy in background.

Gratuitous nudity:

While not technically naked, there is barely dressed male eye candy by way of go-go dancers which fulfills the gay movie stereotype of requiring bare skin. The actual gratuitous nudity comes by way of a quick flash of bare butt. 

• Director: J.C. Calciano
• Writer: J.C. Calciano
• Actors: Nicholas Downs, David Loren, Adam Huss
• 93 min
• IMDB