Chasing Pavement (US 2015)

The Gist:

A well known successful gay porn star who is making plans to leave the industry needs a new roommate. A Japanese immigrant looking to break into the tech industry needs a place to live. They move in together and realizations are made as boundaries are crossed. 

Comments:

The movie is okay. It's not really that bad, though it's also not exactly good either. 

Best thing is that there are some interesting ideas tossed around, such as the porn dude having submerged his 'real' self in favor of his porn persona for so long that there's nothing "real" left of him. He's just a shell of a person with all depth and humanity worn away. An interesting thought, though nothing much is done with it. 

A lot of the movie is like this, an idea is introduced, but not really addressed in much detail. 

Another issue is the dialogue. Everyone, especially the porn star lead speaks in the style of "listen to how  intelligent I am." Unfortunately it all comes off fake, since people, even smart people don'f talk like that ALL the time. It sounds like an expectation of what smart people sound like rather than how they actually speak. 

The stilted way he talks helps with the idea that the porn star is all artificial surface, though I'm not sure that was intentional. 

More oddness is how the porn star is supposedly leaving the industry to become a chef. Other than one line stating this, there's no indication it's happening. Well there is a scene  of him reading a text book, but for a would be chef, he rarely cooks or shows any interest in food. 

The subplot with the new roommate also goes against this leaving porn behind idea, since the new roomie is hired to work on putting together a website for the porn star's services to expand his "business." A job that results in the introverted, straight roomie watching porn staring his new extrovert gay roommate. A situation that leads exactly where you think it will lead. 

Issues and unsurprising story aside, not much happens here. People talk smart. Talk smart more. Then talk smart even more as everyone present, porn star's, friends, clients, and roommates all lead their lives of lies and artifice. 

So yeah, not terrible, just not overly interesting either. 

Women: 

There are two women in the movie, both seen from a distance voyeristly, one has some dialogue so following my rules of "counting as yes if it's a speaking role then, yes.... barely 

People of color: 

Yes. Very much so. One of the better things in the movie is that everyone isn't a white gay man. 

Gratuitous Nudity: 

butt shots and simulated sex

• Director: Matthew Doyle
• Writer: Mathew Doyle
• Actors: Remy Mars, Tokio Sasaki, Antonio Biaggi
• 82 min
• IMDB

Cherry Pop (US 2017)

The Gist:

A straight white man becomes a drag queen as it's his last chance to sing onstage. Comedic stuff not related to that happens. 

Comments:

Apparently straight white drag queen facing and overcoming prejudice from queer, mainly non-white drag queens is a queer movie subgenre. A somewhat boring one, for me at least, since "straight white dude enters queer people of color dominated space and overcomes prejudice to succeed" is not exactly a story I am personally interested in.

Main storyline aside, pretty much all there is to the movie is intentionally cheap n tacky jokes. Queens who hate each other, a queen with a mother in denial that her son Is gay, an ongoing thing about an older queen grieving her dead lover. Yes, that last bit counts as humor.

Truth is despite boring me a little, the movie is competent in telling it's jokes and succeeds in doing what it promises to do, providing an opportunity to see assorted RuPaul alumni and other more or less famous drag queens on screen. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

No 

• Director: Assad Yacoub
• Writer: Nick Landa
• Actors: Lars Berge, Mayhem Miller, Detox, Tempest DuJour (if not obvious, drag names of the actors) 
• 79 min
• IMDB

Homo Heights (US 1998)

The Gist:

Gay icon Malcolm (Quentin Crisp), beloved by all the people of Homo Heights (an apparent all queer city) is not so secretly a prisoner of Maria Callous (Stephen Sorrentino), drag queen leader of the gay mafia.  

Malcolm wants to leave, womanizer Clementine (Lea Delaria) wants her old girlfriend Stella back. Stella wants her new girlfriend Blanche to be less annoying. Nerdy reporter Tootsie wants a scoop. 

Comments:

This is an odd duck of a movie. It is a high camp comedy that despite the implications of those adjectives is not merely loud and obnoxious, but also at times fairly calm and subdued. 

Calm being the result of casting of Quentin Crisp, who was in his late eighties at the time, and filled his his scenes with softness and muted elegance as he more or less plays himself, quoting Oscar Wild and acting somewhat bemused by everything around him as his character waits calmly to leave the earthly plane behind. 

Despite sounding like an odd combo, some of the best scenes here involve Crisp and Delaria playing off each other. There seems to be a genuine fondness between them. Stephen Sorrentino as Maria Callous is also amusing as the drag queen mafiosa. 

There's not much to the story, at least to the main story of holding Malcom against his will. While there's a bit more to the Clementine romance subplot, actual plot seems besides the point here, which is letting Quentin Crisp just be his fey self, interspersed with humorous scenes of lesbian dramedy and gangster drag queens.

The movie is quirky and doesn't entirely work, bouncing back and forth from loud and wacky to smooth and creamy, and yet I'm really fond of it. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

A couple of drag queens 

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Sara Moore
• Writer: Sara Moore
• Actors: Quentin Crisp, Lea DeLaria, Stephen Sorrentino 
• 92 minutes
• 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

Walk a Mile in my Prada’s (US 2011)

The Gist: 

An obnoxious homophobe and a gay man switch sexual orientations due to “christmas magic,” teaching the former straight man a much needed lesson about not being an ass, and the former gay man an unneeded lesson about love. Will they be able to change back before the straight dude gets married or will the change be permanent? Why should the audience care?

Comments:

The movie is terrible, almost painful to watch at times. While it has some lower budget movie issues, the real problem is with the plot and how it’s handled. 

In order for “switching places” stories to work there needs to be a balance, a sense of symmetry between the “lessons learned,” wherein the switched people discover sympathy for the hardships the other person faces from life. 

There is no symmetry here. Straight dude was a homophobic asshole. Being “gay” for a few days teaches him to release the hate and be a decent human being. 

A symmetrical story would require the gay dude to be an equally massive jerk who is shocked to discover that it’s okay to be straight. A ludicrous lesson, so instead he finds out he loves his boyfriend, which he already knew. Because there's nothing to his story he only pops up occasionally in the movie for dumb pointless jokes about straight men. 

Dumb pointless jokes being another annoying thing about the movie. That switching orientations doesn’t merely mean being attracted to a different sex but rather fulfilling outdated stereotypes. Presumably jokes where the punch line is that straight men drink beer and love to leer at women's breasts, while gay men drink cosmos and know how to cook, were meant to be funny. They aren't. 

Despite whatever good intentions the creators may have had, the result is a "gay" movie that feels somewhat homophobic and insulting to the audience. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

Sort of 

• Director: Joey Sylvester
• Writer: Rick Karatas (aka Rick Sudi Karatas)
• Actors: Nathaniel Marston, Tom Archdeacon, Tom Arnold
• 87 minutes
• 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

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

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

Leather Jacket Love Story (U.S. 1997)

The Gist:

Young eighteen year old, privileged, pretty boy Kyle decides that his 'artificial' West Hollywood lifestyle is hampering his ambitions of becoming a poet, so he moves to the bohemian neighborhood of Silver Lake where life is "real" and poets abound. Once there he promptly meets and falls for an older leather man named Mike. Will Kyle succeed in becoming a "real" poet? Will he convince commitment-phobe Mike that romance and monogamy are worthwhile pursuits? 

Comments:

I saw the movie many, many years ago on VHS after it first came out and had totally forgotten just how "porn adjacent" the movie was. Meaning that there is a lot of casual full frontal nudity and many sex scenes. So many sex scenes. Apparently it's a major selling point, that it was the first gay movie to treat nudity and sex the same way straight movies did. I'm not entirely sure that's accurate though. Both in not being the first gay flick to feature naked dudes sexing each other up everywhere, nor that this level of nudity and sex was really that common at the time in non-gay movies.

Beyond the sex, the movie was both better and worse than I remembered. 

The better than I remembered part of the movie is that the production level is pretty good and there's a drag queen trio who are pretty cool in action, if not acting skills. 

The worse than I remembered part is the story of Kyle and Mike's romance, or rather Kyle's idea of romance, that the two men should immediately become boyfriends in a committed monogamous long term relationship after spending one night together. In a movie where nothing comes off as particularly realistic, their destined fate is total fantasy. The characters don't have anything in common so the romance doesn't come off as particularly believable. 

Another issue is that they conveniently ignore that Mike is already in a relationship. Granted an extremely open and casual one where both men get to do whatever / whoever they want. A fact that apparently nullifies its existence, since after being mentioned once, everyone, even Mike, forgets he is not actually single. 

Romance aside, while largely fluff, it isn't that bad a movie, and it does offer a look at what gay life in Silverlake in the past aspired to be, if not what it actually was, making the movie a sort of fictional-historical documentary, since changing populations, economics, and gentrification has made the 'raw' and funky, non-affluent, leather - bohemian - queer world our leather lovebirds live in a thing of the past. 

Women:

A few. 

People of color:

A few.

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes, very much so. Gratuitous sex scenes as well.

• Director: David DeCoteau
• Writer: David DeCoteau, Jerry Goldberg
• Actors: Sean Tataryn, Christopher Bradely, Mink Stole
• 85 min
• Black and White 
• IMDB

Curious (Australia / U.S. 2006)

The Gist: 

After a huge fight with his fiance Beth, Ryan accidently ends up in front of a gay club and enters to satisfy his curiosity, and now must decide if he is perhaps not actually straight. 

At least that's more or less the synopsis of the movie I've found online. A more accurate description would be: Dude goes to a gay bar, does drugs, gay soft-porn sex happens, people are jerks, then he leaves the gay bar. 

Comments with unimportant spoilers:

The reason spoilers are unimportant is because there is no "real" movie here. While advertised as a movie about a man realizing he's gay and what that means for him and his fiancé, it is actually just an essentially plotless, gay, soft-porn flick, consisting of a series of overly long porn scenes featuring men touching each other's chests and arms while moaning and making strained orgasm faces. The closest it comes to a story is through the use of voiceovers at the start of the movie explaining the dude had a fight with his girlfriend, then again at the end once the sex scenes are over explaining that yes he is gay. 

While I don't have an issue with porn, the misleading description of the movie made it a disappointing / annoying view. Beyond the misdirection, the other major problem is that it's bad. The acting is terrible and there's an over dependence on voiceovers to explain what is happening rather than just showing it. Worst of all, it's dull. A problem faced to an extent by all soft-porn movies I guess. An hours worth of men doing nothing but rubbing each others chests and arms and not much else gets boring rather quickly. 

The best thing in the movie is a scene where you get to hear a go-go boy's thoughts as he makes lusty faces at himself in a mirror, rubbing his chest and arms, while thinking about how much he loves being ogled by his customers. You can tell the scene is artistic because it's shot in black and white. It's so over the top serious, it ends up unintentionally hilarious. Unfortunately it, like all the other porn scenes, goes on for too long and so quickly becomes as boring as the rest of the movie. 

So in the end, as a regular movie, there's nothing there. As porn it's dull. Not worth watching. 

Women:

One 

People of color:

Maybe? 

Gratuitous nudity:

Is nudity gratuitous in a porn movie? Surprisingly, or not, while there is a lot of skin, butt shots are about as risqué as it gets

• Director: Jaime Hendrix
• Writer: Jaime Hendrix
• Actors: Tristian Hamilton, Libby Butler, Paul Peredes, Kieth Hamilton
• 74 min
• Color, and Black and White
• Note: The actor playing the lead, Tristian Hamilton, is apparently better known as porn star Rogan Richards
• 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

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

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

I Want To Get Married (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

It's six days before the 2008 presidential elections. In California this includes voting on Prop 8 which will decide the fate of marriage equality in the state. Against that backdrop we have a nerdy man who despite being successful in business, friends, and home, is unsuccessful in love and so decides he wants to get married. 

Also his mother leaves his father, the nerdy guy has to decide if he wants to betray his community to make money, and a drag queen (playing a woman?) repeatedly sings a terrible song.

Comments:

Some movies are so bad that they swing around the scale back into being good or at least worth watching. This is not an example of that. It's just bad. 

The most obvious of the issues is Matthew Montgomery's acting. I normally like him, but here he either decided or was directed to play his socially inept nerd role with spastic tics, OCD quirks, and barely comprehensible mumbling that makes Jerry Lewis at his most exaggerated seem subdued. His acting is so bizarre that it nearly distracts from the movies other problems. Nearly but not quite. 

His character of a highly awkward adult who can barely speak is somehow also supposed to be a dynamic successful business owner which strains credibility. Aside from his contradictory character, the other roles are so thin as to barely exist. His story and that of his parents (conservative wife leaves her husband and ends up stuck in a casino becoming friends with a singer that coincidentally her gay son adores) are so disparate they don't really work together. The movie can't seem to decide what it wants to be. The songs, or rather the singular song that's repeated over and over again, is terrible. 

The very basic idea of a small portion of the movie, a person has to decide what is more important: money or integrity should have been enough for a good story, but with all the problems going on it never had a chance. 

Women:

Yes

People of Color:

Yes, by way of a single minor Chinese character that is arguably racist. Embarrassingly so. 

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: William Clift
• Writer: William Clift
• Actors: Matthew Montgomery, Rebecca Wright, Mathew Martin 
• 107 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

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

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

Scenes from a Gay Marriage (U.S. 2012)

The Gist:

A newly single man, Darren, obsesses over the gay couple who live in the apartment above his, as he tries to sort out his own life.

Comments with minor spoilers: 

This is kind of a low key movie. Which is not a bad thing. Compared to how "aggressive" some movies can be in telling their story, low key can be a good thing. Then again it can be bad if it leads to inaction and dullness. This movie manages to avoid that and keeps the balance of calmness and interesting. The acting is fine, and the story as Darren learns to live his life on his own, is engaging enough.

There is a strange bit though, in that being kept, where one partner in a relationship has all the money and power and "keeps" the other person, is oddly normalized here. A couple of examples are given in the movie and while they are not shown as ideal or particularly healthy, they are not treated as being unusual either. This happens again in another of director/writer/actor Matt Riddlehoover's movies: West Hollywood Motel, where one woman is "keeping" her girlfriend. 

While not the theme of the either movie, it ends up being notable because it contrasts strongly with how not common it is in real life. Well, at least in real life as I've experienced or have knowledge of it. 

Unlike other movies with the words "director, writer, and staring in lead role as actor" this is not a bad movie, and while I would not say that everyone has to immediately go see it, I would say that it is interesting and pretty good. 

Women:

One. It's a fairly limited cast, so not quite as bad it may seem

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

No

• Director: Matt Riddlehoover
• Writer: Matt Riddlehoover
• Actors: Matt Ridlehoover, Jared Allman, Tashana McQuiston, Carson Nicely
• 83 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