Heaven's A Drag (aka To Die For) (U.K. 1994)

The Gist:

After his drag queen performer lover dies of AIDS, a man is set on moving on with his life of meaningless hook ups as soon as possible. His drag queen performer lover's ghost on the other hand disagrees. 

Comments: 

The stereotype of "AIDS" movies is that they are dreary and depressing, but this is about a ghost using tricks to interfere with his lover from, er, tricking with other men. It should be a version of Topper, where dead Cary Grant is gay and teaches Cosmo to fully live life. It should have its sad moments yes, but in the end be fun and up-lifting.

It's not.

Instead it's a movie where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he will soon die from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

The drag queen half of the couple dies, leading to the second half of the story where:

1. A gay couple avoids dealing with their issues.
2. The drag queen half of the couple is sad because he has died from AIDS.
3. The non-drag queen half of the couple acts like a jerk.

Well, in truth, there is more to it,  lessons are learned, and amusing ghost tricks are tricked, it's just that instead of fun and uplifting it ends up being kind of dreary and depressing. In addition, it's dark and muddy looking, the sound quality is iffy, and the comedy relief neighbor is anything but funny.

All in all, this is only really worth watching as proof just how depressed everyone was in the day, so that even comedies were sad and dark, or better yet, just go watch Topper instead. 

Women:

Two. A mom and the unfunny comedy relief neighbor. The joke being that she's desperate to marry her boyfriend, because a woman wanting a committed relationship is apparently hilarious. 

People of color:

Nope

Gratuitous nudity:

Minor

• Director: Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Writers: Johhny Byrne, Peter Mackenzie Litten
• Actors: Ian Williamsn, Thomas Arklie, Dillie Keane
• 101 min
• IMDB

Long-Term Relationship (U.S. 2006)

The Gist:

X = Mr. Slutty Gay

Y = Old fashioned romantic gay man new to town. 

Looking for a relationship Y takes out an ad in a gay newspaper. Yes, considering it's actually not that old, the movie is already badly dated. Anyway, tired of his slutty life X answers the ad. X meets Y. They date and fall in love, but have a problem. Can they make a relationship work when X + Y = terrible sex?

Comments: 

The silly equation of X + Y = terrible sex is an over simplification. The two leads have many other issues beyond sex. In fact so much time is spent showing us that these guys are not a good match that no amount of counterpoint "we are so cute together" montages can overcome the negatives. 

Despite an unrealistic romantic comedy "everything will work out in the end" attitude, a mutual love of Douglas Adams' work is probably not the core value needed for a successful relationship to work. In the real world they would make much better friends than husbands.

Questionable romance aside, The acting ranged from ok to fairly good, I liked that it was pointed out that our slutty protagonist uses condoms, and overall the movie was good enough that while not great, it wasn't exactly bad either, just a little boring.

Women:

Two and a half. The half being an off screen voice. 

People of Color:

One female best friend. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Full frontal within the first five minutes, so yes.

• Director: Rob Williams
• Writer: Rob Williams
• Actors: Matthew Montgomery, Windham Beacham
• 97 min
• IMDB

An Angel Named Billy (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

After his drunk homophobic father kicks him out of the house, gay teen Billy goes to the big city, where he finds both a job as a live-in caretaker for an older man who has had a debilitating stroke, and the possibility of love with his boss, the older man's 30-something year old son James.

Comments (with spoilers because just saying the movie is bad doesn't quite cover it):
So yes, the movie is bad, bogged down with bad acting, and featuring an icky love story where a man falls for the runaway teenager he hired to take care of his sick elderly father

Looking at actual reviews, I'm not the only one to think a man stalking romancing his 18(?) year old, penny-less, essentially homeless, barely out of the closet, emotional wreck, unskilled, totally dependent on this job, employe as being creepy.

Even if you don't have an issue with the James/Billy romance, there's also the issues that large parts of the story make no sense and people are just strange. Billy's mother for example. She keeps trays of milk and cookies just sitting around her hotel room, she is thrilled that her son is involved with a much older man, and admits to having always known that Billy was gay, and knowing this, bizarrely left him with her homophobic, bible-thumping, angry drunk, ex-husband when she took off after their divorce.

Bad acting, bad romance and wacky story details aside, it's also, at two hours, far too long and in need of heavy editing.

Not recommended unless you're into bad gay flicks, and/or wanted to make a drinking game of it, such as taking a shot every time someone recognizes Billy's inherent goodness and refers to him as an angel, every time James does something stalker-ish to Billy such as staring at him while he sleeps, or (if you want to get stinking drunk) every time someone cries.

One final note, given the movie is about the James and Billy, It's amusing to me that the couple on the poster/dvd cover art is not actually James and Billy, rather it's Billy and another teenager, the need for "cute" boys on the art outweighing the need for meaningful representation of the story.

Women:

Billy's mom and her sassy African-American coworkers.

People of color:

The above mentioned sassy African-American coworkers.

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope. While fulfilling many a stereotype of bad gay flicks, gratuitous nudity isn't one of them.

• Director: Greg Osborne
• Writers: Kevin M. Glover, Eliezer J. Gregorio, Max Mitchel, Greg Osborne
• Actors: Dustin Belt, Richard Lewis Warren, Hank Fields
• 120 min
• IMDB

Surprise, Surprise (U.S. 2009)

The Gist:

A middle aged, closeted, TV actor deals with his recently disabled (and much younger boyfriend), his very weepy best friend, and the discovery that he has a teenage son.

Comments (with a couple of minor unimportant spoilers):

Considering that large sections of the movie are long monologues, where an actor bares his or her soul to the camera/audience while crying crocodile tears, it's a bit obvious that this was a play turned movie. One that can be summed up by a line of dialogue, where the actor, in talking about himself and his boyfriend, yells at his son: 

"We are lovers, no threat to you or anyone else!"

In other words, overly melodramatic, yet oddly timid in its defense of being gay. 

Ignoring the weirdness of timid melodrama, this is more or less a standard "Gays plus kids make a family" kind of movie. One element of this kind of story involving a kid who starts off a jerk, but turns into a good kid by the end. Unfortunately the movie went overboard with making the son an ass. By the time you get to the section of the movie where you should be sympathetic to the child, you still think he's an obnoxious idiot. Well, at least I did. 

In the end, it's the kind of movie where you spend more time wondering if the lead actor is also the writer/director/producer than you do paying attention to the movie.

Women:

Two. Best friend, and the kid's grandmother. 

People of color:

None. 

Gratuitous nudity:

None... well, at least I think it was none. I started only paying half attention to the movie halfway through so I guess there could have been entire monologues done in the nude that I only listened to instead of watched as I dealt with bills. 

• Director: Jerry Turner
• Writers: Travis Michael Holder, Jerry Turner
• Actors: Travis Michael Holder, Deborah Shelton, John Brotherton
• 83 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

Arizona Sky (US 2008)

The Gist:

Deciding that he needs a break from his hectic unfulfilling life, Jake returns to the small Arizona town he grew up in. When he had left 15 years prior, he and his best friend Kyle were teenagers in love, but too afraid of the consequences of being gay. When they meet again as adults, will they still have the deep connection they once shared, and if so, will they be able to do what they could not as kids and build a life together?

Comments with minor spoilers:

I liked the movie though I'm not entirely sure why, since when examined it's not so much good as barely ok. 

The basic premise could be interesting, two people not quite able to get over their fears of coming out when teenagers, meeting again as adults. Throw in some commentary on what it means to be gay in a small town and it should be good. But instead of good, this is heavy handed and weepy. 

Despite liking it, the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is a sweet natured story, and that the acting and execution isn't terrible.  

However, start looking at the negatives, and problems quickly pile up. Why do the actors playing young Kyle and adult Kyle speak nothing like each other? Young has a generic American accent, while adult has a mumbling heavy "Hick" drawl. 

The movie has one of the worst stage punches I have ever seen, and secondary characters appear to exist not to add to the story, but instead merely so the main characters would not be talking to themselves in long monologues. Also, unfortunately for a romance drama, the adult actors have next to no "chemistry" with each other. Which does not help my (admittedly cynical) suspicion that despite the movie's attempts to portray them as soul-mates, after 15 years apart, these two guys have so little in common they would not last long as a couple.

On the other hand, going back to positives, while the adults have no chemistry with each other, the teenage actors play very well off each other and are believable in playing love/desire/angst.

After writing this and trying to think it out, I'm still unsure of the exact whys of why I liked the movie. Regardless, it is not something I would exactly recommend, at least not without a warning to approach it with low expectations.

Women:

Two. An advice giving aunt (and one of the better actors in the movie), and a woman who as mentioned above seems to exist solely so the leads don't spend the entire movie talking to themselves. 

People of Color:

None. 

Gratuitous nudity:

No actual nudity, just occasional flashes of skin as characters change clothes.

• Director: Jeff London
• Writer: Jeff London
• Actors: James McCabe, Eric Dean
• 92 min
• IMDB

BearCity (US 2010)

The Gist:

After accepting that what he really wants in life is a big hairy bear, a young man embraces the bear community, and is welcomed into a group of friends, each dealing with their own lives and issues. As he becomes more comfortable with his new life, our young gay (not especially bear-ish) protagonist works on getting a boyfriend, specifically the hottest, most popular (read: sluttiest), silver fox, "daddy" in town.

Comment with no important spoilers:

I wanted to like the movie a lot more than I did, but unfortunately there were a few too many issues for me to fully get into it. 

Mainly that there is just way too much going on. There are a couple movies worth of material here if not a short run TV show. In addition to the main story of protagonist chasing after his silver fox daddy; there is also an out-of-work chub guy deciding to lose weight by surgery, only to lose his hot chaser boyfriend instead; as well as gay couple deciding to try non-monogamy despite their concerns of what it may do to their relationship.

There are hints of interesting threads to follow, but not enough time to deal with them so things are dealt with only superficially or ignored. Why is the silver fox daddy so afraid of relationships?  Why is he so mean to the young guy? Will the young guy and the silver fox daddy deal with the fact that they are at least twenty years apart in age? These are just a few examples, and only from the main storyline, which is actually the least interesting of the three stories presented.

Another negative was that there were a few distracting technical/ low budget issues (jumbling day and night in the same scene always tends to throw me when noticeable).

On the other hand, the acting is relatively good and these are NOT the same stories that are told over and over again. 

At the very least this is worth a try… as long as you aren't bothered by naked, stocky, hairy men in sex scenes that is, because this movie abounds in sex scenes a la Queer as Folk (i.e., show everything but penis). 

Actually, I'd add another caveat, if the word husbear makes you cringe, this is probably not the best bear movie for you.  

Women:

Not really.

People of Color:

A couple

Gratuitous nudity:

Lots and lots of nudity and very hairy sex scenes.

• Director: Douglas Langway
• Writer: Douglas Langway
• Actors: Joe Conti, Christian Dante White, James Martines, Stephen Guarino
• 104 min
• Spanish
• IMDB

Visions of Sugar Plums (US 2001)

The Gist:

Closeted protagonist dude and his boyfriend happily prepare for their first Christmas together. Unfortunately for them things quickly break down when closeted dude admits that not only are his conservative religious bible-thumping parents coming over for the holiday, but that they don't know their closeted son is gay. So he needs to de-gay the apartment. Starting with the boyfriend. 

Will the relationship survive? Will the parents find out their nelly, unmarried son is a nelly homosexual? How badly will they react? Will the boyfriend have an affair with a random guy he meets while sulking at a bar on Christmas Eve? Does anyone care?

Comments with a couple of spoilers that don't matter since you're never going to see this:

Strip off the Christmas tinsel and you are left with a simple gay coming out movie. Unfortunately not a very good one. Extremely not good. Which leads to the question "Is it so bad that it becomes good again?"

So, reasons not to see this in no particular order:

1. It feels like the movie was shot on a video camcorder, only using the built in microphone and ambient lighting. Every time conditions are even slightly less than ideal (the majority of the time) it is muddy looking and the dialogue is barely understandable. 
2. For a melodramatic coming out story, this is REALLY melodramatic.
3. The sassy black drag queen neighbor, who depending on your attitude to the gay movie stereotype that the lone African-American gay man present must be an effeminate queen, is either boring or offensive or both.
4. Terrible overacting.

On the other hand, reasons to see the movie include:

1. The terrible overacting is funny when the mom discovers that her son is gay and yells out: “No!" "NO!" "Oh Jesus NO!" "NO!" "NOT MY SON!” Sadly, unintentional hilarity only happens the one time and the rest of the movie is just regular bad acting.
2. The movie is only a little over an hour long.

All in all, not worth watching.

Women:

Landlady and weepy conservative religious mother who weeps a lot.

People of Color:

The aforementioned landlady and a sassy black drag queen neighbor who hosts a drag show at what appears to be someone's living room disguised as a gay bar.

Gratuitous nudity:

No nudity. Just a boyfriend who appears to have been cast for his looks, so is somewhat shirt-phobic. If skin is the reason to watch a gay movie, the DVD cover art with a present strategically placed over the boyfriend's “junk” (and the closeted guy screaming at the present (because it's badly wrapped?)) is the most you will see.   

• Director: Edward J. Fasulo
• Writer: Anthony Bruce
• Actors: Edward J. Fasulo, Mark W. Hardin
• 78 min
• IMDB

Patrik, Age 1,5 (Sweden 2008)

The Gist

Göran and his husband Sven move to the suburbs in preparation for adopting a baby and living a life of Swedish family values. Unfortunately no country is willing to let a gay couple adopt a child. When an opportunity to adopt unexpectedly comes, they jump at the chance, only to find that due to a typographical error, 1 ½ year old Patrik is actually a 15 year old homophobic hoodlum. The rest of the story is fairly predictable, and yet…

Comments with a technically major spoiler or two

In an earlier entry I joked about the plot points that a  “gay couple + kid makes a family” story must cover and this movie hits nearly every single one. Kid is a homophobic ass? Yup. The gay couple’s relationship is strained by the stress of adapting to the kid? Yup. Happy ending? Yup.

The movie is very predictable, and yet, it is also good.

The production as a whole is well done. It is nice to look at, showing us a Swedish summer that is sharply colorful. The acting is good as well. In some of these gays with kids movies, you never buy into the idea that the adult actors even like children. However in a scene where Gustaf Skarsgard looks at a man with his young son you truly believe that he is someone who longs for fatherhood. 

  

Even though large chunks of the story are predicable, there are pieces that are somewhat surprising, as the movie touches on both the positive and negative aspects of suburbia, and doesn’t shy away from the casual homophobia the men face, both from their community and their “liberal” government.

Definitely worth a watch. As long as you don’t mind subtitles (or speak Swedish) that is.

Women:

Family, co-workers, neighbors, bureaucrats; these men do not live in a world where half the population is conveniently missing.

People of Color:

I tend to not find a sea of all white actors quite as annoying when taking place in a stereotypically homogeneous place such as Sweden. Interestingly, a line of dialogue makes it clear that the “other” for these people are Polish immigrants. Even so, the movie is not quite 100% blue eyed blond Swedes, just 99% or so.

Gratuitous nudity:

Nope.

• Director: Ella Lemhagn
• Writers: Michael Druker, Ella Lemhagen
• Actors: Gustaf Skarsgard, Torkel Peterson, Tom Ljungman
• 103 min
• Swedish
• 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