Boystown (Chuecatown)(Spain 2007)

The Gist:
In a rapidly gentrifying neighborhood of Madrid, a real estate agent deals with the lack of available properties, and an overabundance of elderly people, by killing old women thus freeing up their apartments for him to sell to trendy yuppie gay couples. As old ladies are dying left and right, a gay couple, the ‘wrong’ type of gay that is (uncouth blue collar bears), attempt to deal with problems in their relationship as the overbearing terrible mother of one the men attempts to break them up.

Also two police detectives, one of whom happens to be the overbearing terrible mother of the other, are on the case to solve the murders.

Comments:
The movie is a murderous farce where gentrification is literal murder. There are also subplots involving a bear couple consisting of two goofy men, the terrible mother of one of the men, and the two cops who are also a terrible mother and her son. A bizarre mix and tumble of adjectives that should have resulted in me loving the movie. Instead I merely think it’s okay.

A minority opinion, since from what I found online, most people love it, but for whatever reason it didn’t really grab my interest. Rosa Maria Sardà of All About My Mother does a great job as the crazy mother half of the police detectives, and I did perk up when I saw Spanish performer La Prohibida briefly singing in the background of a scene set in a gay bar.  But for the most part I was mildly disinterested. Even the final chase scene, which takes place in a bathhouse filled with assorted near naked Spaniards didn’t really perk my interest.

My meh attitude towards the movie aside, the movie is arguably good. It’s funny, well-acted, and does a good job of being wacky crazy. I just didn't care.

Women:
Yes

People of color:
No

Gratuitous nudity:
Some quick butt shots

• Director: Juan Flahn
• Writer: Felix Sabroso, Rafa
• Actors: Pepon Nieto, Carlos Fuentes, Pabo Puyol, Rosa Maria Sardà 
• 101 min
• Spanish
• 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

Men to Kiss (Männer zum Knutschen) (Germany 2012)

The Gist:

Ernst and Tobi are the classic opposites attract couple. Ernst being a bit of a square while Tobi is a wild free spirit. All is well (more or less) In their lives, until Ernst's best friend Uta moves back to Germany, and she and Tobi immediately hate each other. Crazy plots, wacky hijinks, and (comedic?) threats of death to defeat their "enemy" and "win" Ernst for themselves ensue.  

Comments: 

This movie is a sequel of sorts to another one I've discussed here, Alex and Leo. "Of sorts" because the leads of the other romantic comedy, the somewhat boring and not entirely believable as a couple, Alex and Leo, have broken up and are only very minor characters here, having been replaced as the focus of story by their best friend Tobi and his new boyfriend Ernst. The two new men are also not entirely believable as a couple, though at least they have the benefit of not being boring. 

In the previous movie, Tobi was an campy queen whose major character trait was that he was  flamboyant and mean. This time around however his personality has been slimmed down, losing being an asshole in favor of merely being outrageous. 

Other differences between this movie and previous one is that this story is more interesting and marginally better. Which is not really praise since that means that instead of bad, it's only okay. It starts off well enough, amusing and engaging, but the frankly weak story very quickly runs out of steam. The insane antics as Tobi and Uta work to get rid of their opponent should be funny and keep the story engaging, but instead it started feeling like work to sit through it instead of entertainment. 

Women: 

Yes

People of color: 

One 

Gratuitous nudity: 

Some

• Director: Robert Hasfogel
• Writers: Juergen Hirsch, Andre Scheider
• Actors: Frank Christian Marx, Udo Lutz, Alexandra Starnitzki 
• 83 min 
• Note: Dialogue is in German with occasional lines in English
• IMDB 

Dream On (U.K. 2013)

The Gist:

In 1988, painfully shy, teenager Paul is dragged along by his overbearing mother to a Welsh campsite. There he meets his polar opposite, loud, brash outgoing teenager George, who has parental problems of his own. The two boys have an immediate deep connection and make a pact to return to the campsite one year later to run away together. A year passes and Paul returns in search of George. 

Comments (with minor spoilers):

This movie was adapted from a play, although unlike some other play-to-movies I've seen, this one makes the transition fairly well. It's not overly obvious that it wasn't a movie to begin with; no long heart-bearing monologues directed at the camera/audience, or other oddities that work better on stage.

So we have two teenage boys who fall in love during a summer holiday, which sounds like an overly sweet romance story. This isn't that. It's actually a somewhat depressing melodrama. Lots and lots of drama stemming from the (obvious and not too spoilery) fact that both boys, though mainly George, have a lot of baggage to deal with. 

Frankly the over the top nature of the melodrama was a bit too much for me. It quickly gets exhausting. Other negatives included not always being able to understand dialogue due to thick accents, the somewhat slow pace of storytelling, the two lead actors looking more than a touch older than sixteen, and the fact that the older I get the less I believe in the idea of true immediate, soul-mate, type love, at least not when said true love involves teenagers. 

If that last bit hasn't happened to you yet, you can look forward to someday deciding that Romeo and Juliet is not the greatest love story every written and is is actually a cautionary tale about what happens when two drama queen teenagers who fall in love at the drop of a hat, meet and disaster ensues. 

Back to the movie, on the plus side, it is more or less an interesting story of a teenager working his way towards adulthood, discovering who he is as a man. Granted an overly soap opera style DRAMA filled one for my taste, but still, in the end even if I didn't overly enjoy it, I can admit that it is, if not actually a very good movie, it is at least an okay one. 

Women: 
Yes

People of color:
No 

Gratuitous nudity: 
A butt shot 

• Director: Lloyd Eyre-Morgan
• Writer: Lloyd Eyre-Morgan
• Actors: Bradley Cross, Joe Gosling, Janet Bamford, Emily Spowage
• 94 min
• IMDB

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

The Gist:

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

Comments (with obvious spoilers):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Women: 
Yes

People of color:
One person has one line

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

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

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

Eighteen (2005 Canada)

The Gist:

Young Pip has run away from home after an incident involving his father and brother. As he tries to survive on the streets he listens to his eighteenth birthday gift from his grandfather, an audiotape where his grandfather describes his own eighteenth birthday as a British soldier in World War Two.  

Comments (with no real spoilers):

First off, despite being included in lists of "gay" movies, it isn't really a "gay flick." While it does have gay characters and some subplots are driven by homophobia (and astonishingly bad parenting), the two leads are straight. Which means the actual gays are minor characters and the focus of the movie is to parallel hetero Pip life as a homeless runaway against that of his hetero grandfather trying to survive the war.

I looked around for reviews of the movie and didn't find many professional reviews, but I did find lots of regular people gushing over it, loving this movie to death. I didn't. Which is not to say it's bad. Parts of it are good and while there are some problems here, it at least tries. More so it attempts to be ambitious, which frankly is not too common. 

One of my issues is of simple suspension of disbelief. Basically, while he more or less does a good job with the role, the idea that the actor playing Pip is just barely eighteen pushes credibility beyond the breaking point. Even characters on a TV show where young thirty-somethings play high school kids would look at him and wonder what the heck was going on. As is the guy playing hustler Clark is also far too old for his role. 

The other issues I have are a bit subjective. The movie is too soap opera melodramatic for my taste and there is a lot of story / points to cover crammed into its running time, so some if not most things don't get quite enough time to be dealt with properly. 

Women:
Yes

People of color:
One scene has one guy with a couple of lines

Gratuitous nudity:
I saw the movie last week and have already forgotten if there was any nudity, so um, maybe? 

• Director: Richard Bell 
• Writer: Richard Bell
• Actors: Paul Anthony, Brendan Fletcher, Ian McKellen (voice only), Alan Cumming
• 106 min
• IMDB

Big Gay Love (U.S. 2013)

The Gist:

Bob, a large sized man who is having a not so great day, meets handsome chef Andy and they make a connection, but will the potential new relationship survive Bob's insecurities, wacky mother, fabulous friends and handsome enemies? 

Comments (with unimportant spoilers):

In the movie we have high maintenance Bob, a quipster with low self esteem, unlucky in love but successful in his business as a party planner. A bit of a surprise as the two examples of his work we get to see both consist of nearly empty rooms we are told are large successful events. Ignoring this and returning focus to Bob, he has a circle of fabulous gay friends who while not overly concerned about helping Bob find love, at the very least want to get him laid. 

The immediate obstacle to this is that Bob is fat, the absolute worst thing possible in vain, looks obsessed Los Angeles. So one of the many, many stereotypes in the movie is the overused and tired trope of all Angelenos being looks obsessed. Which is not to say that large people don't have issues to deal with, it's just that Bob isn't the huge obese slob the movie pretends he is, in the real world he's "merely" a chubby dude, and in the real world there are many gay dudes who are into heavier men, even in vain looks-ist L.A.

But that's real world, while this is a movie where being called a bear is an insult, so okay, Bob has a huge problem. Except that the problem is quickly thrown away once he meets Andy, who instantly falls for Bob. Moving us to the next problem, Bob's low self esteem. 

The movie presents his insecurities as threats to the new relationship. Understandable and a workable story for a movie. Bob's irrational fears lead to him making mistakes and lashing out against his friends and Andy. 

This is spoiler territory now, but after making the argument that Bob is his own worst enemy when it comes to love, the movie then immediately sets out to weaken it by showing that Bob's fears aren't unfounded.

His fabulous friends suddenly switch for absolutely no reason from being supportive (if shallow) to 'mean bitches' actively working against him. They end getting "punished" for this arbitrary change. There's also Bob's "enemy," an attractive man who for dull reasons doesn't like Bob and in return Bob doesn't like him.  As a result of Bob's insecurity shenanigans, enemy boy becomes an almost interesting three dimensional character for a few minutes before settling back down to merely being a boring generic jerk. 

It is as if for whatever reason a decision was made that low self esteem isn't exciting enough to move the story forward so there was a need to force in even more drama. Because somehow high drama Bob's antics were not enough?  Thing is, the movie would have been far more interesting had Bob been forced to deal with how his issues affected all of his relationships, not just with handsome chef Andy, but with his friends (had they not been turned into cartoon villains) and family, but I'm now in how I would have rewritten the movie territory which is generally not a good sign. 

It sounds like I hated the movie though I didn't. I thought it was an average indie flick. Admittedly a large part of my not disliking it may be due to my having a 'thing' for Nicholas Brendon who plays love interest Andy.

Women: 
Yes

People of color: 
Yes

Gratuitous nudity: 
There's some skin, but no actual nudity

• Director: Ringo Le
• Writer: Ringo Le 
• Actors: Jonathan Lisecki, Nicholas Brendon, Ann Walker
• 85 min
• IMDB

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