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

Rock Hudson's Home Movies (U.S. 1992)

The Gist: 

'Dead Rock Hudson' uses clips from movies he starred or acted in to argue that the closeted actor was actually out as a gay man in his screen roles, if you knew how to  properly 'read' his roles and dialogue that is. 

Comments:

This is a rather odd movie with an odd sense of unreality, both in casting a man who looks nothing like Rock Hudson to play him, to having the actor play 'dead' Rock speaking to us from beyond the grave. 

Besides being several steps away from reality, it's also a documentary, well, maybe not so much documentary as much as filmed essay. The thesis being that Rock Hudson played with his audience by teasing he was actually gay through the roles he played, by use of plot and dialogue. This is “proved” with clips from his movies. Showing his characters having questionable relationships with women, questionable friendships with men, how he was often treated as a sex object by the camera (as women usually were/are), and of course, from his Doris Day comedies where twice he ended up playing "gay" in order to get the girl. 

It's an interesting argument, though I'm not sure how much merit it has. The movie acknowledges, in a quick throw away line, the main counter-argument that Hudson was writing neither plot nor dialogue, nor to an extent had control over which roles he was offered, so he had no real power over his character’s actions. Actions that supposedly prove he was gay. 

If the idea is valid that his dialogue or plot points in his movies have a queer subtext, I'm not sure how much of that due directly to Rock Hudson or if these queer subtexts were (are) common in Hollywood movies.  Rock Hudson is not exactly the first actor to play an arguably questionably straight role, or even the first closeted gay actor to do so. 

That said, given how well he was known and how due to his death from AIDS he became for a long time "THE" image of closeted gay actor, the movie's points do end up making some sense. At least it does until it gets to the end and the movie switches to arguing that Hudson predicted his own death, which is a bit odd.

Thesis/point of the movie aside, it's more or less as technically competent as you'd expect for a low budget cheap indie flick that consists almost entirely of medium to low quality clips of other movies. 

While I don't entirely buy into the movie's argument, I personally thought it was an interesting watch and it shows how oddly ‘queer’ hollywood male roles in action and westerns movies can get. As for recommending it? It would probably only be worth it if you were a fan of Rock Hudson or at least a fan of his movies. If not, I suspect it would be boring. 

Women:
N/A

People of Color:
N/A

Gratuitous nudity:
N/A

• Director: Mark Rappaport
• Writer: Mark Rappaport 
• Actor: Eric Farr
• 63 minutes
• Note: As it’s a documentary of movie clips I didn’t bother with my usual metric of casting choices and such
• 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

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

Sunday Bloody Sunday (U.K. 1971)

The Gist:

Alex, a divorced woman (Glenda Jackson), and Hirsch, an older Jewish gay man (Peter Finch), are both involved with the same younger man, an artist named Bob (Murray Head). They each know of the other, and both are, or at least claim to be, content with the situation, of only being part of Bob's life rather than the whole, but life can be difficult and things change.

Comments:

Unlike many of the previous movies I've mentioned here, this is not a small independent "gay" flick. This is Schlesinger. This is a Film with a capital "F."

It's also very good. These are well defined characters driving the story forward. More so, while two of the characters are gay/bi, their sexual orientation is just part of who they are rather than their sole driving motivating factor. This is something we still don't get that often in movies when it comes to minorities. People who are people rather than people who are a label and nothing else. 

They may not be the happiest of people, but that's just because of what this story is, of settling, compromise and acceptance. It is not a punishment for breaking the rules of heterosexuality. In context of time, the early 70's, it's pretty amazing, letting a gay character just "be" instead of being a clown, villain, or victim. This is some groundbreaking stuff here. Treating a kiss between the male characters in exactly the same manner as a kiss between a male and female character is still considered edgy to some extent. 

Even the focus of the movie, on Hirsch and Alex, the older people of the story rather than on younger Bob is is an unusual choice considering how youth obsessed culture was then and now. Although frankly, as written, young artist Bob is the least interesting of the trio, so that is maybe not that surprising. 

It's not a happy cheerful story, and is at times very 1970's "FILM," so may not appeal to everyone, but it is worth trying if you're in the mood for a "FILM" instead of just a "flick." If nothing else, Peter Finch's final monologue is worth seeing. 

Women:

Many 

People of color: 

One man 

Gratuitous nudity:

Some nudity, but debatable if the word gratuitous applies. 

• Director: John Schlesinger
• Writer: Penelope Gillatt
• Actors: Peter Finch, Glenda Jackson, Murray Head
• 110 min
• IMDB

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

Speechless (Wu yan)(Hong Kong / China 2012)

The Gist:

A mute, naked, western man is found along the side of a river in a town in mainland China. After being taken in by the police, he is sent to the local hospital where he and Xiao Jiang, a nurse, develop a bond with each other. When it is eventually decided to send the mysterious man to a mental asylum, Xiao Jiang decides to take a risk and flee the town with the mystery man in tow. 

Comments (with some spoilers):

The movie is rather good. The story is interesting, it is gorgeous to look at, is mostly well done, and well-acted. Not to say there are no issues with the movie. There are, mainly with pacing. 

Towards the end of the movie there is an extended flashback explaining what happened to traumatize the stranger into muteness, so spoiler, the mystery is solved. The problem with this is that the flashback is long enough that it changes the flow of the movie, and the transition from flashback back to the current story ends up feeling somewhat awkward. The final fate of the characters is also somewhat confusing, to me at least. They are just in a new situation with no explanation given as to what happened between the climax of the story and the end of the story to put them there.

Once the stranger’s backstory is shown it also made it hard to keep up the suspension of disbelief thing going. Essentially, the fact that the police can’t figure out who he is makes them seem incompetent. 

It is sounding like I didn't like the movie, which is incorrect. These issues don't negate that the movie is good and the story intriguing. It's definitely worth trying. Assuming you don’t mind subtitles (or speak Mandarin that is).

Content wise aside, the story behind the making of the movie is interesting as well. It seems that because permission to film it would be denied by the government, it was filmed in secret in mainland China. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

Yes

Gratuitous nudity:

There is some nudity in the movie, but I would argue that it is not gratuitous as it is used to help tell the story. At the beginning highlighting the mute man's sense of innocence, and during later scenes to well, esplaining that would be a spoiler.

• Director: Simon Chung
• Writer: Simon Chung, Lu Yulai
• Actors: Pierre-Matthieu Vital, Qilun Gao, Yung Yung Yu, Jian Jiang
• 92 min
• Mandarin and English (at least that's how it's listed on IMBD, actually there's barely any English dialogue)
• IMDB

Rhythm and Blues (U.K. 2000)

The Gist:

In London, an attractive man named John befriends a skinhead, Byron, and though Byron in extremely swift order: is convinced he should be become a hustler; joins a gay male escort service; and is chosen for hire by an older, eccentric, rich American called Bad Daddy for a night of debauchery. As all this is going on a mysterious serial killer hustler, "The Rent Boy Ripper," is murdering his clients.

Comments:

First off, the movie is largely bad. It's a gay, hustler, murder thriller, comedy; and it doesn't particularly "do" any of those adjectives very well. 

There are occasional humorous moments, but overall the movie is not that funny. The thriller / mystery part of the story alternates between being mildly interesting and boring. The acting ranges from bad to adequate, which is not helped by occasionally confusing dialogue. That last bit is in reference to dialogue / editing, as the movie has people occasionally referencing conservations that only take place in deleted scenes. 

Negatives aside, the movie has an odd charm to it, a sort of low budget, sad, Britishness to it that made me not mind how bad it was. Then again maybe I didn't mind that the movie sucked because I think Paul Blackthorne (John) is hot. 

Regardless of how prurient thoughts affected my judgement, the movie is not worth watching. Unless you're into comedic hustler thrillers that aren't particularly humorous, thrilling, or good that is. 

Women:

Yes

People of color:

No

Gratuitous nudity:

Women, yes. 
Men, teasingly nearly, but no actual nudity 

• Director: Stephen Lenhoff
• Writer: Michael Jones
• Actors: Angus MacInnes, Ian Henderson, Paul Blackthorne
• 98 min
• IMDB