Fun Down There (U.S. 1989)

The Gist: 

Buddy, a young gay man, leaves his small-town home in rural upstate New York to make a new life in New York City.

Comments:

Depending on your attitude, this is one of two movies:

• An almost plotless, not very well done, boring movie about a not too smart guy leaving home to move to New York City, that just stops with no real end to the story, or
• A raw art film done a realist style unconcerned with polish, consisting of scenes for each day of the week. Specifically the week that a naive man-child leaves his rural home to establish a new life in New York City. 

Then again, maybe it's both. I'm not entirely sure. 

What I do know is that only using available lighting means that night scenes are a bit hard to see clearly, and that a scene consisting of a mini-safe sex lecture firmly sets the movie in the 80’s (actually, for a safe sex lecture it feels extremely natural). Also, long silent shots of New York work to establish a strong identity for the city. Interestingly one of these scenes is of the abandoned elevated rail line that will eventually become High Line Park. 

Plotless or not, art film or not, the lead is a good actor, good enough that it felt like he wasn't acting at all, that this could have been a documentary and he really was an innocent young man. Even though it is an odd, uneven thing that admittedly is yes, not overly exciting at times, and has a mix of acting from good to poor, overall I liked the movie, but as for recommending it? 

If you like movies with a defined story with clear cut beginnings and endings, where "interesting" things happen, and everything helps push the plot along, then this is not a movie for you. 

If you like movies with long shots where "nothing happens," and the only plot/story is life rolling on and on, then this may be worth a watch.

Your call. 

Women:

Family, boss and co-workers, in other words, yes. 

People of color:

One waiter

Gratuitous nudity:

There is one shot where you sort of kind of see something in shadow and dark, but then again, it ends up "feeling" natural, so gratuitous is not quite the right word. 

• Director: Roger Stigliano
• Writers: Roger Stigliano, Michael Waite
• Actors: Michael Waite, Yvonne Fisher, Martin Goldin, Nickolas B. Naggourney
• 89 min
• IMDB

Cowboy Junction (U.S. 2006)

The Gist:

A closeted married man has an encounter  (i.e., hooks up) with a young gay man, the cowboy of the movie, and brings him back home to work as a handyman. While he's off at work, the young man and wife become friendly, which threatens to reveal dangerous secrets. 

Comments:

I'll play nice and not reveal the details of the big secret of the movie other than to say that the secret was so obvious that by the the end of the movie it was not so much shocking as a relief the story was finally over. In other words the movie is unfortunately not really good. 

The story is "whatever," the acting just ok, and overall the production was, well odd, but the question is if the oddness was intentional or not. 

For example, the set up of a married man hiring a live-in handyman implies a large home, but instead of that there's a small cramped house on a busy street, which adds to the sense of desperation on the husbands part and the obliviousness of the wife as to what her husband is up to.

If deliberate it would be an interesting way to deal with characterization, but considering the poor quality of other aspects of the movie, it feels like the oddness was more than likely just an accident of budget constraints. 

The best thing I can say about the movie is that at least the folks involved tried to make something interesting, it's just unfortunate that the basic story couldn't sustain a movie. 

Women:

One, the wife, given that this is in essence a three person play, not as bad a ratio as it sounds.

People of color:

None.

Gratuitous nudity:

Yes, or no, depending on your definition of gratuitous nudity when it comes to sex scenes.

• Director: Gregory Christian
• Writer: Gregory Christian
• Actors: Gregory Christian, Elyse Mirto, James Michael Bobby
• 80 min
• IMDB

Violet Tendencies (U.S. 2010)

The Gist:

Violet is the "last fag hag in New York," or at least the last woman left in her crowd of friends, all gay men. Rapidly approaching 40 and still single, she is facing the prospect that in order to find a boyfriend she may need to quit her "boys" cold turkey and leave the gay world behind, because it's not like she's going to find a straight man hanging out at gay bars. Also, there's two subplots where two gay couples don't do very much, but drama happens anyway.

Comments (with a couple unimportant spoilers):

Mindy Cohn plays Violet, so the expected joke in writing about the movie would be something about how Natalie from the Facts of Life grew up to be a middle aged fag hag in New York. Although oddly she's not the only familiar face in the movie. I recognized a few men from other indie gay movies, so my viewing went like this: 

"Hey, I remember him. He played a gay writer in another gay movie. Huh. He's a gay writer in this one." 

"Hey I remember that other guy. He played a slutty gay in another gay movie. Huh. He's a slutty gay in this one."

So the lesson is that not only can you be typecast as gay but as a specific kind of gay? Or maybe the lesson is that roles available in indie gay movies are a bit limited, or maybe I'm being too harsh.  

Regardless, the movie is neither good, nor bad, just average. It's also a bit over long, and unfortunately spends a bit too much time on the secondary (and uninteresting) gay characters instead of Mindy, er, Violet. 

Actually, there is something interesting about the her gay boys. The idea is thrown out that they take her for granted and to a certain extent sabotage her attempts at relationships. In the end this is supposed to be untrue because they "love her," yet, pretty much all the movie does is show them taking her for granted and to a certain extent sabotaging her attempts at having a long term relationship.

There is a caveat to my saying the movie is just average, which is that this is obviously not a good movie to watch if you object to the term "fag hag" (or jokes about women's body parts, or lewd humor).

Women:

The protagonist, a co-worker, and a couple other minor roles. 

People of color:

A couple

Gratuitous nudity:

Not technically, though there are some rather revealing gogo boy outfits.

• Director: Casper Andreas
• Writer: Jesse Archer
• Actors: Mindy Cohn, Marcus Patrick, Jesse Archer
• 99 min
• IMDB

Issues 101 (U.S. 2002)

The Gist:

Joe is man (aged 18? 36?) who in quick succession comes out of the closet (more or less) and goes off to college (as a freshman?). Once there he meets, and falls in and out of love with a straight frat dude in less time than it takes to drink a beer. This feat accomplished, he rushes a frat and quickly ends up sleeping with his "older" frat mentor Christian. Despite Christian's habit of sleeping his way through fraternity pledges, he is "straight," or at least "straight with issues." Then again considering  Christian sets up Joe with his openly gay younger brother (despite obviously wanting Joe for himself), dumb is probably a better descriptor than straight with issues.

While all this is happening, Joe runs for student body president (as a freshman?), people are angst filled (or at least as angst filled as their acting abilities allow), male actors flash their bare butts at the camera for no reason, and you as viewer end up wondering why you're watching such schlock in the first place.

Comments: 

This movie is bad. No, that's too kind. It's terrible. This is "gay movies suck" stereotype kind of horrible. 

There's a lot wrong here. Nonsensical story, ridiculous sets (one of the frat houses seems to consist solely of a bare wall with Greek letters taped onto it), non-existent acting skills, this movie has it all. 

Even with all this going on, one of the strangest things about the movie is the protagonist Joe. It's not clear just old he is supposed to be. The story is more or less written as if he were 18-ish, yet the actor playing him is a thin haired man who looks to be in his mid-thirties (and at least 15 years senior to his "older" frat brother mentor) so it feels like he's an almost middle aged adult who've decided to go back to school to join a fraternity. His characterization is also wildly inconsistent. Depending on scene, he is unbelievably naive or a sage elder, a wide-eyed brand new baby gay or jaded old bitter queen. 

To be fair, it's not all bad. A good thing about the movie is... well, if you're into skinny white guys, there are occasional flashes of skinny white butts. Then again considering you can see much better looking bare male butts on the internet for free, this is not really a selling point. 

There's also... I guess you could watch it as a lesson on what not to do if filming your own independent movie. 

Sadly, the best thing I can say about this movie is that there are even worse ones out there.

Women: 

If you count roles with any lines at all, a few. 

If you count roles with more than a single line, then two. A mean woman running against Joe for student body president, and Christian's girlfriend who by movies' end apparently still doesn't know that her boyfriend is a total power bottom who constantly cheats on her. Somehow this is supposed to be a happy ending.

People of color:

Nope. 

Gratuitous nudity:

Yup.

• Director: John Lincoln
• Writer: John Lincoln
• Actors: Michael Rozman, Dennis W. Rittenhouse Jr.
• 90 Min
• IMDB

Shelter (U.S. 2007)

The Gist:

Zach, a young man from a working class background living in San Pedro California, has put his dreams of art school on hold to help his sister raise her son. What little free time he has is spent dealing with his off-and-on again girlfriend and hanging out with his best friend Gabe, who lives in a rich part of town. When Gabe's older brother Shaun returns home for a visit, he and Zach start hanging out, surfing, becoming close, and setting up a situation where Zach must not only face truths about himself, but also decide between his apparent inescapable family obligations and what he really wants for himself in life.

Not too Spoiler-ish Comments:

Poking around online it looks like this is a very well liked movie, and deservedly so. It's well executed, the acting is good, and the connection between the two leads is palpable. They do a great job of portraying falling in love. 

Additionally, the surfing shots are beautiful, and the movie doesn't avoid the fact the guys would face some issues, not only with Zach dealing with being newly out and the pressures he faces with his family obligations, but of class as well. That is, that growing up in a beachside mansion vs. living in "the ghetto" as they jokingly refer to San Pedro, would lead the two men two have different outlooks on life.

All in all it's a good movie.

Which is not to say perfect, though in truth perhaps the issues I have reflect more on me than the movie. I kept having suspension of disbelief problems, a race/reality thing. As presented in the movie, San Pedro is a nearly deserted, rundown, white working class city relatively close to the monied white enclave of whatever South O.C. / North San Diego beach town it is Gabe and Shaun parent's mansion is located at. Thing is, in reality San Pedro is not only nowhere near the monied parts of Orange County/San Diego, is also actually a relatively average neighborhood of the city of Los Angeles with a large Latino population. 

So yeah, not exactly real life. Regardless, the movie is good, and an example that a "Gay movie" doesn't have to mean mediocre or bad. 

Women: 

Two. Cranky sister, and an on & off again girlfriend.

People of color:

Nope.

Gratuitous nudity:

Not really. 

• Director: Jonah Markowitz
• Writer: Jonah Markowitz
• Actors: Trevor Wright, Brad Rowe
• 97 minutes
• IMDB

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