Hawaii (Argentina 2013)

The Gist:

Martin has returned from Uruguay to his old hometown in Argentina to spend the summer before his job in Buenos Aires begins. Unfortunately through circumstances beyond his control he ends up homeless. While looking for temp work he meets Eugenio, an old childhood friend who is house sitting the home he grew up in while writing a novel. Eugenio offers Martin work and as summer rolls on they reconnect. 

Comments: 

It seems that while many people love the movie and think it excellent, there is a vocal minority who find it dull and pretentious. Some because it takes a calm slower pace to tell its story of two men bonding. I don't agree with this position, but I do understand it. The complaint I don't quite get is from people annoyed that the two leads do not immediately leap on top of each other and play out a "sexing up the hired help" gay porn scenario.

Frankly it's a better movie because of this. Instead of immediate satisfaction, we have the equivalent of fore play. Actually that isn't quite right. The feeling of the movie is more pre-fore play. It's intentionally extending the moment right before you touch a lover for the first time, when everything is possible. So despite not turning into quick and easy porn the movie is still very sensual and filled with sexual intensity and the ache of desire.

If not clear I'm one of the people who love the movie and think it is very good. The acting is excellent, the story interesting, it is well told in use of sound and dialogue and lack of dialogue. The movie does not ignore that things would not be that easy for our protagonists. There are class and socioeconomic issues they need to work through. Eugenio is an experienced upper middle class writer, while Martin, essentially an unemployed immigrant, is very much not. 

It has enough depth that it can handle multiple viewings and I think it's worth trying out. But with the qualifier that it may not be worth it if you can't deal with slower paced movies. 

Women:

Technically yes, though barely. Then again, it's a very minimal cast, little more then the two leads. A two hander as the movie folks call it.

People of Color:

Showing the oddity of this category (or at least the oddity of what exactly Latino can mean) if this were an "American" (i.e. USA) movie, I'd be inclined to count the cast as Latino and say yes. But given the movie is Argentinean, I'd still count the cast as Latino and say no. 

Gratuitous nudity:

There is some slight nudity, but given the way the movie is filmed and the story told, I would argue that it is not gratuitous.

• Director: Marco Berger
• Writer: Marco Berger
• Actors: Manuel Vignau, Mateo Chiarino
• 102 min 
• Spanish (Argentine / South American Spanish, so slightly different than the Spanish most North Americans, at least those of us in California or the Southwest, are used to)
• IMDB

2 Minutes Later (US 2007)

The Gist:

After insurance investigator Michael Dalmar's twin brother, a famous photographer, goes missing, he partners with private detective Abigail Marks, pretending to be his own arrogant brother in order to find out what has happened to him. 

Comments with minor spoilers:

We have a movie playing around with mystery movie cliches and expectations by giving us a womanizing lesbian detective and a relatively passive gay man as her partner. Although reversing gender expectations is about as far as it messes around with the mystery formula. All the other expected cliches are still there. Monologue voice over narration. Private eye who used to be a cop. Guns with unlimited bullets. Good twin, evil twin. People making stupid decisions. People acting oddly in odd ways to ensure clues are had (such as carrying around a stamped, self addressed envelop in order to mail yourself the MacGuffin). A detective in very thin stiletto heels that make you cringe in sympathetic pain as she runs towards a shoot out.

Okay. Maybe not that last one, especially since a real lesbian, "lipstick" or not, would have taken those shoes off before running into danger. Regardless, for the most part this is a standard mystery movie, although not a fair play one, and one painted over broadly in "gay," so throw gay flick cliches into the mix as well. Most notably lots and lots of male nudity. Seriously, a lot. The missing brother's job as famous *sshole photographer allows for far more floppy penises than usual in a gay flick. 

Cliches and penises aside, the movie is neither particularly good nor bad. but rather just ok. The acting is adequate and the story is told more or less competently. The movie was obviously designed for sequels, although as far as I can tell there have been no further adventures of our queer detective team. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes. Lots

• Director: Robert Gaston
• Writer: Robert Gaston 
• Actors: Michael Molina, Jessica Graham 
• 78 min
• IMDB

Food of Love (Spain/Germany 2002)

The Gist:

18 year old Paul, an aspiring pianist with a promising future, is hired to be a page turner at a concert for a world famous pianist where he becomes an instant object of attention for both the pianist, Kennington, and Kennington's agent/boyfriend. Six months later while on holiday in Barcelona with his mother, Paul once again meets Kennington, where after some astonishingly cheesy pickup lines are said, they begin an affair that will impact their lives.  

Comments (with spoilers important and not):

Our young Ganymede is apparently so attractive that older gay men fall into such strong lust with him they easily ignore the fact that he's a self-absorbed cruel brat. A good thing for Paul considering he has a thing for older guys he'd never have a chance with if they paid attention to his personality. 

Beyond Paul, his mother is written as a hysterical willing victim (her husband having left her for another woman, and her son continually berating her for the crime of existing), and the Kennington and his agent/boyfriend are both little more than scared jerks. The end result of all this angst and people acting badly is that I never got around to caring about any of them.

I was instead distracted by a minor detail. Paul goes to New York for schooling. Once there he comes out of the closet and starts building his identity as a gay man, right at the same time as he goes from gifted, promising, upcoming musical talent to being merely competent with limited future. I assume there is not supposed to be a correlation between the two, but it's easily read that way, and the idea that being openly gay and happy destroys his musical talent seems... odd. 

Regardless of my issues, it's a good movie. The story is well told and well acted (more or less). I just didn't care about it. 

Women: 

Just two of any importance, Paul's mother and his music teacher. 

People of color:

No

  

Gratuitous nudity: 

Some quick butt shots

• Director: Ventura Pons
• Writer: Ventura Pons
• Actors: Kevin Bishop, Paul Rhys, Juliet Stevenson
• 112 min
• Based on the novel The Page Turner by David Leavitt
• IMDB

The Wishmakers (U.S. 2011)

The Gist:

A dancer goes to West Hollywood and moves in with two friends from college. All three make a wish to find love, then more or less ignore this as they instead try to find success in their careers. People talk, talk some more, then two men dance. 

Comments (with unimportant spoilers): 

The movie is sort of "meh." The acting is okay, and production values adequate (except for a lone cheap looking green screen scene that is). The main problem seems to be that there just isn't much here. 

The dancer is given the most "plot." Meaning that he is saddled with a quick blink-and-you'll-miss-it coming out story combined with dating shenanigans. Unfortunately it's all old territory, nothing new, and ends up being the dullest of the three storylines. 

The other two friends have occasional scenes that hint at a much more interesting movie, but they aren't really expanded upon. One friend is only interested in sleeping his way to success, but his character is never developed beyond being a jerk. The third friend is genderqueer? Asexual?  It is never made clear, and as he is written as a performance artist "weirdo" who is never NOT performing, the value of whatever he says is largely negated by his outlandish appearance.

These hints of a better movie are just that, short bits and pieces, leaving the majority of the movie a boring slog as it rehashes old jokes about bad dates and how "everyone in Los Angeles is a horrible person," and fills up the running time with montage after montage.

Women:

One overbearing crazy actress played by Sally Kirkland, who apparently is the only woman living in Los Angeles

People of Color:

Everyone in Los Angeles is white except for one person

Gratuitous nudity:

A butt shot

• Director: David Grotell
• Writer: David Grotell
• Actors: Justin Martindale, Ari Sorrentino, Vincent de Paul, Sally Kirkland
• 88 min
• Note: The movie is occasionally referenced online as Wish Makers of West Hollywood. This appears to be the original (if not final) title of the movie as well as the title of a short film by the same director made in 2010. The Wishmakers is presumably the short film expanded upon.
• IMDB

Between Something and Nothing (U.S. 2008)

The Gist:

Small town boy Joe goes to a famous art school in Providence on scholarship and befriends fellow student Jennifer. They cope with the ever growing ridiculous demands of school by constantly partying. Also, Joe has a secret life where he is obsessed with a local hustler and becomes a hustler as well. 

Comments:

It seems that art school is filled with self indulgent, rich, pretentious, asshole kids who are terrible people, who are taught by self indulgent, incompetent, pretentious, asshole teachers who are terrible people incapable of actually teaching. Also, Providence is filled to overflowing with male prostitutes who are assholes. The only sane response to all of this assholery is to drink heavily, do drugs, become a hustler, have sex with as many men as possible, act like a jerk, and use these experiences to fuel your art. 

From reading up a little about him, director Todd Verow tends to create somewhat aggressively stylized movies featuring stories that are neither hollywood standard nor gay / romance / drama cliche. He also revisits themes such as sex and injects autobiographical elements from his life into his movies, such as when he attended art school and apparently worked as a hustler.

Many "hustler movies" tend to feel forced and emotionally manipulative and while this doesn't quite escape all of the traps of the tragic gay hustler trope, the autobiographical feel (that it has some sort of resemblance to reality) combined with the use of digital video (which makes it feel more "personal" than film would have), and the somewhat drifting narrative helps makes this a better movie than many of its brethren. 

It's an interesting movie, well done, and I must admit rather sexy (once Joe gets a Mohawk and loses his ability to wear non-ripped shirts he goes from cute boy next door to smoking hot). 

While I think it's good, actually recommending it would depend on your reaction to experimental movies. While not totally "out there" (it does have a plot and is told in a fairly straightforward manner), it could seem boring and rambling if you're uninterested in the story or the way it's told. 

Women: 

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes

• Director: Todd Verow
• Writers: Todd Verow, Jim Dwyer
• Actors: Tim Swain, Julia Frey, Gil Bar-Sela
• 105 min 
• IMDB

Pooltime (US 2010)

The Gist: 

A 40-something gay man claiming he is bored with his stereotypical life of partying and one night stands, invites three friends over (his best friend, an ex-boyfriend, and a former hook-up) to see if one of them would make a good husband. He then remembers why they wouldn't. As this happens, bizarre people drop by, and a dubious lesson on how to get laid is given to a straight teenage nephew. 

Comments: 

The opening credits feature swimming speedo clad men and it's arguable that this is the highlight of the movie. Well, perhaps that's too mean. Although from all the underwater crotch shots and scenes where the camera is focused on their bodies rather than say, their faces, as the principles talk, it seems like the movie mainly exists as an excuse to watch skinny barely dressed men. 

"Mainly exists," because beyond the skin, there's not much else here. Just a mix of adequate to strangely bad acting, the standard boring jokes about how everyone in West Hollywood is a terrible person, and the idea that after a couple decades of meaningless partying, protagonist David is finally ready to settle down. Although that last bit is questionable. If he really were ready to settle down, why would his tactic to find a husband consist of revisiting old failed relationships? As is, the movie has already decided which of the three prospects is his perfect partner. They both know it as well, but are too wussy to do anything about it. 

In addition to his half hearted husband quest, there are some questionable lessons provided, that romance is foolish, that if you're gay only anal sex counts as "real sex," and that people never change. 

There is also a lesson for a young teenage nephew, who gets lectured by the gays on dating girls and how to get laid. He needs to become the straight version of them, a vain metrosexual concerned with looks and money and style over substance. They also teach him that girls are manipulative creatures and will get pregnant just to get a man. Poor sad nephew, being straight sucks. Then again, if these guys are any indication, being gay isn't much better. 

So yeah. Maybe the opening credits of swimming speedo clad men really is the best part of the movie. 

Women: 

A few: a party crashing mom, one mean sister, and a neighbor 

People of color:

A couple 

Gratuitous nudity:

No actual nudity, though there is lots of skin showing thanks to skimpy "gay" swimwear

• Director: Mike Donahue
• Writer: Mike Donahue
• Actors: Marcus Harwell, Jeffrey Patrick Olson, Mark C. Hanson, Junes Zadhi
• 87 min
• IMDB

Perdona Bonita, Pero Lucas Me Quería a Mi (Sorry pretty, but Lucas loved me) (Spain1997)

The Gist:

Three gay roommates, best friends, are in danger of being kicked out of their Madrid apartment for delinquent rent. To raise funds they sublease a room to sexy mystery man Lucas and they each immediately fall for him, straining their friendships as they turn on each other over the new man in their midst. After Lucas is found dead, each one tells his version of events to the police, with only one thing in common, each proclaiming that Lucas loved him.

Comments:

The movie falls into the category of an over the top Spanish farce, though it it is not the best example of the genre. Average is more like it. 

The story consists of a Rashomon effect style set up where everyone is an unreliable narrator as they are lying not only to each other, but also to themselves about their supposed relationship with dead sexy man Lucas. 

The acting is okay, and the plot tends towards ridiculous soap opera drama level as would be expected in this kind of movie. It could be annoying that to one extent or another all three roommates are hand flapping bitchy queens, but then again everyone, straight characters as well, are over exaggerated and ridiculous. Except for sexy dead Lucas that is, though all he has to do is be sexy and dead. 

The movie is cute fluff, but little more than that. Not a waste if you see it, but also not a waste if you never do. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

No actual nudity, though Lucas is viewed by everyone as a sexy open shirted object of lust

• Directors: Dunia Ayaso, Félix Sabroso 
• Writers: Dunia Ayaso, Félix Sabroso 
• Actors: Jordi Mollà, Pepón Nieto, Roberto Correcher, Alonso Caparros
• Spanish
• 87 min
• IMDB

Some Of My Best Friends Are... (U.S. 1971)

The Gist:

Patrons gather in a Manhattan gay bar on Christmas Eve 1971 for what will end up being a tumultuous evening of high drama. 

Comments:

The movie has a reputation of being a depressing artifact of the time it was made. A position that is hard to argue with. After all, consider its famous last line, spoken when two bartenders shutting down the bar for the night realize they have locked someone inside and say: "Leave him there until morning. Where else does a faggot have to go?" 

Fun times. 

This may be post Stonewall Riots New York, but no one has told anyone in the movie. Many, though admittedly not all, of the gay characters actively believe they are somehow damaged and deserve oppression. Part of that attitude though is that everyone in the bar is some sort of stereotype or another, and boy are there are a lot of them. There are too many characters and story lines to develop very deeply, although character growth doesn't seem to be a very high priority in this jam packed bar. 

Interestingly, the movie is filled with well known or upcoming (for the time) TV and movie actors, which gives the bar an odd sort of familiarity, as if the people here were one cab ride away from being in a "very special episode" of All in the Family. We have:

• A straight mafioso who owns a gay bar
• A fussy sissy waiter who speaks in an affected voice so high that the man he's been speaking to on the telephone doesn't realize he is not a woman
• A bisexual airline pilot (Gil Gerrard) with a heart of gold (more or less) who is feuding with a vindictive fag hag (Rue MccLanahan)
• A belligerent self-hating hustler (Gary Sandy)
• A tortured, married, closeted man who takes hot showers to try to wash the homosexuality off of him after he has sex with his hot Swiss ski instructor lover (who for some reason goes around wearing thick blue eyeshadow)
• A woman with a secret (Candy Darling of Warhol fame) 
• A bar hostess (Fanny Flag) whose job duties includes dancing with gay couples (because in this time it is illegal for men to dance together).  

This is only a partial list of characters. There are so many people and a lot of stuff going on here. Much of it arguably sad. Perhaps because of that sadness, the movie comes off as a plea for sympathy. Not because homophobia is wrong, but rather because these poor twisted people's lives are so screwed up that they deserve the viewers pity.

'Don't hate the fags, the poor wretches got enough troubles of their own' is not exactly a positive 70’s pro gay liberation rallying cry, and the movie is definitely not a high point in LGBT pride, but it is an interesting look at a certain view of late 60's / early 70's queer culture. 

The stories are messy and sad (and if you have issues with feminine men, likely annoying as well), but I think it is worth watching to see how we were once viewed and how far we have or have not come since then. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

Very brief nudity, though in a very 70's realism way, so natural may be a better adjective than gratuitous 

• Director: Mervyn Nelson
• Writer: Mervyn Nelson
• Actors: Fannie Flagg, Rue McClanahan, Candy Darling, Gil Gerrard, ...
• 110 min
• IMDB

Vampire Boys (U.S. 2011)

The Gist: 

According to the rules of vampirism (as presented in the movie) our main vampire guy must find a lover to spend eternity with before his hundredth 'deathday' or else he and all those he 'turned' will die, or whatever the term is for when an undead creature croaks. He only has a few days to decide between a young woman eager to become murderous creature of the night, or a clueless young man who doesn't even know vampires exist. Oh, who are we kidding, this is a gay horror flick, of course he's going to choose the pretty young man. A choice that will have (obvious) consequences. 

Comments with what amount to major spoilers, but don't really matter:

Seemingly there is a lot happening here, from several (boring) murders, to roommate angst, to the sudden odd injection of the first few minutes of a bisexual porn scene before the movie finally reaches a climax where for a couple minutes it almost, nearly achieves actual action; but in truth, there's barely any story here. Pretty much all that happens is a vampire chooses a twink as his new boyfriend and there's a disagreement regarding if he could have made a better choice. The end. 

Granted there's an hour of material before "the end" happens, but most of that hour is dominated by terrible acting, horrible dialogue, scenes referencing Twilight, shirtless sunbathing vampires, and weird story conventions where our murderous vampires are treated as "good guys" because they're attractive and have great abs or something. 

Unusually the expected 'sex equals death' horror movie trope scene involves a bisexual threesome, with a young woman and two guys who for whatever reason decide to get it on in the middle of a hiking trail. It's an odd scene. Almost explicit, at least compared to the way sex is treated in the rest of the movie. There might be an interesting idea here that transgressive sex in a gay movie means sex involving a woman. Then again there could have been no more thought to it than just allowing the two actors willing to go full frontal nude an opportunity to do so. 

I'm not a big fan of the horror genre and it is possible that I'm just not "getting" the movie.  That it is more than just a poorly made, cheap grab at cash from gay fans of Twilight style pretty boy vampires, who presumably would fork over money for a flash of tight abs and a couple of visible semi flaccid penises.  I doubt it though. 

Women:

A couple, though both barely have lines

People of color:

A couple 

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes

• Director: Charlie Vaughn
• Writer(s): Jeremiah Cambell (screenplay), David S. Sterling, Jeremiah Cambell (Story)
• 70 min
• IMDB 

Angora Ranch (U.S. 2006)

The Gist:

Justin, a young guy who does not get along with his father ends up having to stay over night at the home of Jack, a man old enough to be his father (who in turn also has father issues he is dealing with). They fall into instant love despite the half hearted protests of the older man. Drama ensues. 

Comments:

Unfortunately the movie has problems. A common outcome in many low budget movies where the writer, director, and lead actor are all the same person. In this case Paul Bright, although unlike Altitude Falling, his other May / December gay romance movie between an older man (him) and a guy young enough to be his son, the pairing in this movie is not creepy, just dull. Which is the main issue here, the story is just not interesting. 

Younger gay Justin has issues with his overbearing father and things happen. Older gay Jack has issues with his father who is in the first stages of dementia and things happen. Things get soap opera level silly at the end of the movie, but for the majority of time it's just a rather sedate story with occasional flashes of butts as the leads get in and out bed.

Beyond dullness there are also issues with poor acting, stilted dialogue, horrendous singing, and strange story decisions, such as having everyone in a small, podunk, deep in the heart of Texas town be not only super gay friendly, but also aggressively eager to hook up a young kid with their middle aged friend. The other oddity is in casting with Jack and his father looking more like brothers than parent and son, Apparently the actor playing Jack's father was his real life partner (who died after the movie was made).

Technical issues aside, the basic idea is not necessarily bad: a flawed man meets a younger guy and they make a go of it. It's just that the movie makes the story uninteresting. 

Women:

A couple 

People of color:

No 

Gratuitous nudity:

Occasional bare butts

• Director: Paul Bright
• Writer: Paul Bright
• Actors: Paul Bright, Thomas Romano, Tim Jones
• 96 min
• IMDB