"The Living End" is definitely not for everyone. But for those who can appreciate its audaciousness and free-wheeling spirit, this film offers bountiful rewards. The two leads are very attractive and play together with remarkable compatibility. They're right in tune with the director's amoral consciousness, and act the heck out of their roles. The "home movie" look to the film contributes to its quality. To me, "The Living End" is a gem of a low budget effort, brimming with vitality and youthful vigor.
21 Reviews
A blast from the past and if you've lived at all, a tremendous piece of gay sub-culture Americana.
eric-97412 March 2006
By chance, this movie caught my attention late-night and I was lucky enough to watch from start to finish. As much of a docudrama as it is a character study from the early gay nineties, some people may find this flick utter crap, or at the very least, sophomoric. To those people, I suggest sticking to "Eight Below" or anything starring Reese Witherspoon.
As the viewer, I felt transported back to 1992, having been 25 years old at the time this movie was released with no idea it even existed. The somewhat surrealistic, exploratory journey between the two main characters brings back so many memories from a time where such strange pairings and outrageous actions seemed to occur regularly. Whether you grew up in Dallas, LA, or New York makes no difference; chances are you knew any one of the characters from this film in some aspect.
At times overtly philosophical, others completely abstract, the exploration of two peoples' mental struggle with HIV was at least done from an unflinching perspective. This is a case study in human nature, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter. It also proves that the nature of the beast hasn't changed and that HIV/AIDs still isn't really a priority of the U.S. government...at least, not in any beneficial way to those afflicted. Be sure to stick around for the final message in the film credits and see if you can tell if anything has changed in the last fifteen years.
As a special treat, if you've ever been a fan of industrial/electronica from the Wax Trax! label (among others), you'll recognize some great stuff, from Chris and Cosey, Coil, KMFDM, and even Psychic TV.
As the viewer, I felt transported back to 1992, having been 25 years old at the time this movie was released with no idea it even existed. The somewhat surrealistic, exploratory journey between the two main characters brings back so many memories from a time where such strange pairings and outrageous actions seemed to occur regularly. Whether you grew up in Dallas, LA, or New York makes no difference; chances are you knew any one of the characters from this film in some aspect.
At times overtly philosophical, others completely abstract, the exploration of two peoples' mental struggle with HIV was at least done from an unflinching perspective. This is a case study in human nature, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter. It also proves that the nature of the beast hasn't changed and that HIV/AIDs still isn't really a priority of the U.S. government...at least, not in any beneficial way to those afflicted. Be sure to stick around for the final message in the film credits and see if you can tell if anything has changed in the last fifteen years.
As a special treat, if you've ever been a fan of industrial/electronica from the Wax Trax! label (among others), you'll recognize some great stuff, from Chris and Cosey, Coil, KMFDM, and even Psychic TV.
The first great film from The New Queer Cinema
GayFilmViewer2 December 2011
Warning: Spoilers
"The Living End" pretty much launched The New Queer Cinema and began a whole new era of gay indie filmmaking.
Unapologetically in your face, the tale of two HIV-positive lovers on the run is rough, edgy and totally LA punk (if you've never lived in Los Angeles, you might not appreciate the unreal quality of the city and its residents as presented here... the film is not as surreal as you think).
This film is Araki's most Godardian, but with a humor all his own.
Significantly cleaned-up, the remastered version currently on DVD is worth buying, even if you still have an older DVD/VHS copy in your collection.
The movie is a joy from start to finish.
Unapologetically in your face, the tale of two HIV-positive lovers on the run is rough, edgy and totally LA punk (if you've never lived in Los Angeles, you might not appreciate the unreal quality of the city and its residents as presented here... the film is not as surreal as you think).
This film is Araki's most Godardian, but with a humor all his own.
Significantly cleaned-up, the remastered version currently on DVD is worth buying, even if you still have an older DVD/VHS copy in your collection.
The movie is a joy from start to finish.
Independent filmmaking at its best...
yucel81x11 April 2001
Gregg Araki is certainly one of the strangest directors ever to emerge in the genre of independent filmmaking, and "The Living End" is no exception to his unique style, which is reminiscent of Jean-Luc Goddard while maintaining an individuality that makes it clearly a film by Araki. I've heard the film described as a "gay 'Thelma & Louise,'" but I think this to be inaccurate. This film I think is far more powerful than "Thelma & Louise." Two HIV positive gay men, one the sensible-living perfectly normal Jon, the other the free-wheeling hustler Luke, who from the very first shot in the film we can tell has totally given up as he graffitis "F**k the World" on the wall. More typical Araki catches phrases run rampant throughout the film as these two men go on a road trip around the west coast trying to find something worth their time. What makes the film so powerful is the presentation of its message, rather than the message itself. The difference between sex and real love is subtlely explored as the relationship between Jon and Luke grows more and more complicated, as Luke's hairtrigger attitude often gets them in trouble and Jon steadily wanting to give up love to continue his life for as long as he can and as responsibly as he can, though it never seems to work. Sometimes it's not so subtle, but for the most part the notion of love between these two people is so skillfully handled that the air of sadness that hangs over them just resonates, in spite of the large number of humorous moments. The ending is so brutally sad, though totally unexpected. I won't give it away but you'll have to see it for yourself, it is a wonderful movie. It certainly is not for all tastes. However, if you can appreciate good cinema, then I think this film will not disappoint you. You might not like it, but it is a very powerful film.
A very mixed bag, but a powerful in the end
runamokprods17 March 2011
A film I enjoyed far more than I 'should' have, given how many individual moments I disliked.
Full of somewhat forced, wanna-be John Waters style humor that is sometimes funny, but often just over-arch and clunky. And some of the acting is weak, the rest only pretty good.
Yet underneath it all there is something moving, honest and raw in its punky rage at the world from an HIV positive point of view.
Sort of a gay, surrealist Thelma and Louise made on a shoestring. For all the moments I rolled my eyes, I feel like it will stick with me over time.
Full of somewhat forced, wanna-be John Waters style humor that is sometimes funny, but often just over-arch and clunky. And some of the acting is weak, the rest only pretty good.
Yet underneath it all there is something moving, honest and raw in its punky rage at the world from an HIV positive point of view.
Sort of a gay, surrealist Thelma and Louise made on a shoestring. For all the moments I rolled my eyes, I feel like it will stick with me over time.
The Road to Who-knows-where...
majikstl24 May 2004
Let's see: Bad lighting. Ugly cinematography. Barely audible sound. Profanity laced dialogue. Amateurish performances. Protagonists whose bad behavior is supposed to represent TRUTH. Cameos by Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov. Yep, we are in the world of indie filmmaking, where the mere fact that a semi-coherent film even gets completed on a budget of a buck-ninety-two is considered an artistic achievement. THE LIVING END is a cult film and considered something a landmark of gay cinema to boot. Two guys, who are HIV+ positive, act out violently to protest ... well, to protest just about anything and everything immediately available. The "angry young gay man" syndrome is in play: We're here, we're queer, we're going to be annoying. It was pretty radical stuff for the time; pre-Ellen, pre-Will-&-Grace, pre-Queer Eye. Now, in the era of legalized gay marriage, this seems rather quaintly naive: more Hope and Crosby than Butch and Sundance, let alone Thelma and Louise.
The problem is that, divorced from its historical context, THE LIVING END is just painfully mediocre at best and just plain bad much of the time. Even overlooking the fifth rate production values, you still have a contrived story, badly written, poorly directed and awkwardly acted. The tale involves Jon, who, on the day he learns he is HIV+, encounters Luke, a leather-jacketed stud on the run from freshly killing a trio of gay bashers. Jon is a nerd (he writes film reviews); Luke is a thug (he apparently has also killed a cop); and they head out on the road to who-knows-where. Luke claims he has fallen madly in love with Jon, while Jon seems gaga over Luke apparently because Luke looks hot in a leather jacket (and even hotter minus the jacket). Ultimately their road trip goes nowhere and little is done that couldn't have just as easily been done in Jon's cramped little apartment. Toss in a bothersome side story involving Jon's mother hen (read fag hag) best friend whose sex life goes south as she worries about Jon being AWOL, and the already threadbare narrative is revealed to be even flimsier.
But to give it credit, THE LIVING END was something different in its time. It deals with gay rage, AIDS and gives us anti-heroes who are hardly role models, but at least aren't negative stereotypes from the straight point of view. The film is subtitled "An Irresponsible Film by Gregg Araki," and several of the scenes are provocative. Certainly director Araki is not interested in political correctness, particularly in the way he attempts to link sex and violence as a common impulse. Indeed, the film's most powerful moment comes at the end as it ties rape and suicide into one graphic image. The final scenes are jolting, especially considering the banality of the rest of the film.
I want to be generous to this film because it is sincere and it is important within the subgenre of gay cinema. But it just isn't very good; there just isn't any nicer way to say it. THE LIVING END is a dead end.
The problem is that, divorced from its historical context, THE LIVING END is just painfully mediocre at best and just plain bad much of the time. Even overlooking the fifth rate production values, you still have a contrived story, badly written, poorly directed and awkwardly acted. The tale involves Jon, who, on the day he learns he is HIV+, encounters Luke, a leather-jacketed stud on the run from freshly killing a trio of gay bashers. Jon is a nerd (he writes film reviews); Luke is a thug (he apparently has also killed a cop); and they head out on the road to who-knows-where. Luke claims he has fallen madly in love with Jon, while Jon seems gaga over Luke apparently because Luke looks hot in a leather jacket (and even hotter minus the jacket). Ultimately their road trip goes nowhere and little is done that couldn't have just as easily been done in Jon's cramped little apartment. Toss in a bothersome side story involving Jon's mother hen (read fag hag) best friend whose sex life goes south as she worries about Jon being AWOL, and the already threadbare narrative is revealed to be even flimsier.
But to give it credit, THE LIVING END was something different in its time. It deals with gay rage, AIDS and gives us anti-heroes who are hardly role models, but at least aren't negative stereotypes from the straight point of view. The film is subtitled "An Irresponsible Film by Gregg Araki," and several of the scenes are provocative. Certainly director Araki is not interested in political correctness, particularly in the way he attempts to link sex and violence as a common impulse. Indeed, the film's most powerful moment comes at the end as it ties rape and suicide into one graphic image. The final scenes are jolting, especially considering the banality of the rest of the film.
I want to be generous to this film because it is sincere and it is important within the subgenre of gay cinema. But it just isn't very good; there just isn't any nicer way to say it. THE LIVING END is a dead end.
A classic of gay cinema
preppy-311 October 2002
Two HIV+ men go on a road trip. Basically that's about it. It's not as depressing as it sounds. There's lots of humor in the movie but no pulling back on the anger they feel.
The camera-work is shaky, the sound goes from audible to inaudible more than once and there really is no plot. Also, must we have the tired old stereotypes of two lesbians being psychopaths? But the dialogue contains more truth than any Hollywood movie I've seen. For instance, at one point, one of the guys goes "Let's go to Washington and inject our blood in the President. Want to bet they'll find a cure in 30 seconds?" Sadly, I believe they would. This was WAY ahead of its time in 1992. It was angry, in your face and catch a look at a little message after the closing credits,.
Grim, funny, powerful with a sad (but truthful) ending. Also Mike Dytri is one of the most beautiful, hunky men I've ever seen.
A must-see for gay men.
The camera-work is shaky, the sound goes from audible to inaudible more than once and there really is no plot. Also, must we have the tired old stereotypes of two lesbians being psychopaths? But the dialogue contains more truth than any Hollywood movie I've seen. For instance, at one point, one of the guys goes "Let's go to Washington and inject our blood in the President. Want to bet they'll find a cure in 30 seconds?" Sadly, I believe they would. This was WAY ahead of its time in 1992. It was angry, in your face and catch a look at a little message after the closing credits,.
Grim, funny, powerful with a sad (but truthful) ending. Also Mike Dytri is one of the most beautiful, hunky men I've ever seen.
A must-see for gay men.
The Living End
CinemaSerf11 November 2023
Anyone else remember those robotic fish that you'd prod and they wagged their tails? We had one that also sang Bobby Darin's "Mack the Knife"! Here, one features occasionally, but quite amusingly, in this quite provocative drama that follows a road trip taken by "Luke" (Mike Dytri) and "Jon" (Crag Gilmore). The former guy is a gay hooker who's got by on the streets using his looks and his wits whilst contracting HIV along the way. The latter man is a journalist who has managed to arrive at the same fate - though not as a result of the same s(t)eamy existence. With nothing much left to lose, the unlikely pairing embark on a fairly hedonistic journey that pitches their two completely different personalities into a series of scenarios that ultimately, well you can guess what ends up happening. It doesn't pull it's punches this. It is gritty and sleazy and honest and illustrates well just how human beings react when faced with certainty - even if it's timeline isn't so set in stone. It's a love story, an hate story - and juggles loads of attitudinal and judgemental horrors as the two men meet homophobia and violence as they begin to rely more and more on each other (whilst simultaneously winding each other up fairly spectacularly). There's a bit of sex - nothing very graphic, and loads of ripe language - but nothing here appears gratuitous. It's a plausible road trip that Greg Araki has constructed to make us think, squirm, smile and well, endure too. It won't be for everyone, but it does remind us of how, just 20-odd years ago, AIDS was still killing people and there is a definite and engaging chemistry between the two actors charged with delivering this story of a messy and frequently anachronistic existence.
Off of the edge...
SamLowry-215 April 1999
The cutting edge of early '90's American film includes this work by Gregg Araki, a frightfully funny, harrowing tale of two HIV positive dudes who can't stand it all, blame (then president) George Bush, and take it all on the road for a final (?) spree. The film contains the typical cute gay boys, friendly fag-hag with her own hetero issues, violence, and ridiculously corny Araki dialogue. And guess what? It somehow all works! By the end the two protagonists are likeable people with relatable feelings. The closing scene is one of the most memorable in indie cinema of the '90's.
not what I interpreted
lee_eisenberg6 January 2022
Gay? Definitely. Thelma and Louise? I didn't get that vibe. To me, "The Living End" seemed more like a stream-of-consciousness story. It also seemed to me that the movie should've had more, given what all they were putting into it. Not a bad movie, but it could've been more coherent.
Gregg Araki's dedication at the end was on the nose.
Gregg Araki's dedication at the end was on the nose.
Beats any gay love story ever told on screen!
chnudsen4 June 2009
My first impression going in to see "Brokeback Mountain" when that one came out, was; "How boringly common gay love seem to be". And i thought of it being boringly common in a cinematic sense. Only rule broken in that movie was to make it possible for a large audience to have empathy with it characters without hiding the gayness of them. It worked. I salute that. And i still think that was the performance that earned Ledger his Oscar.
But Arakki does not stay within content when making his movies great (when they are). His style is widely overlooked by his "controversial" content. Even though the two are matched as should be in good art craft.
Let me just give you one example to look for. One scene, in the beginning of the movie, we see the character of Luke, who's been hustling another man, back at that mans place. Suddenly the john's wife or girlfriend appears and the acting style changes to that of badly made porn. But not only the style of acting, also the cutting. The woman and Luke never appear in the same frame and the shots of him reacting to her, could have been taken weeks apart (a common use in porn to make models appear in the same scene, although they were never on set). The woman is acting so badly, that it can only be a parody of the clichés of porn too, since, Arraki surely knows how to get good actors and know how to direct them.
Lots of other good stuff could be commented on, but let me just get back to my pronouncing it the best gay LOVE story told on screen; Even thought the character of Luke can be seen as only a projection of Jon's diagnosis as HIV positive (His way of coping with it as Scottie has to invent Madelaine in "Vertigo" facing death).... it still is a love story, sick as it may seem. And a hell of a lot closer to fulfilling what we look for in love stories, than the ones with either happy or weepy ends. This one has both and rings truer.
But Arakki does not stay within content when making his movies great (when they are). His style is widely overlooked by his "controversial" content. Even though the two are matched as should be in good art craft.
Let me just give you one example to look for. One scene, in the beginning of the movie, we see the character of Luke, who's been hustling another man, back at that mans place. Suddenly the john's wife or girlfriend appears and the acting style changes to that of badly made porn. But not only the style of acting, also the cutting. The woman and Luke never appear in the same frame and the shots of him reacting to her, could have been taken weeks apart (a common use in porn to make models appear in the same scene, although they were never on set). The woman is acting so badly, that it can only be a parody of the clichés of porn too, since, Arraki surely knows how to get good actors and know how to direct them.
Lots of other good stuff could be commented on, but let me just get back to my pronouncing it the best gay LOVE story told on screen; Even thought the character of Luke can be seen as only a projection of Jon's diagnosis as HIV positive (His way of coping with it as Scottie has to invent Madelaine in "Vertigo" facing death).... it still is a love story, sick as it may seem. And a hell of a lot closer to fulfilling what we look for in love stories, than the ones with either happy or weepy ends. This one has both and rings truer.
Could have been great . . .
mikenpeter25 March 2001
It's difficult to make an 85 movie drag on, but somehow, Gregg Araki manages to do so with his amateurish direction. The plot is inspired, the cast is competent, but Araki ruins it with draggy direction and corny dialogue. Even talented and charismatic Mike Dytri can't save this clunker. By the time it got to the end, which I had heard so much about, I was ready to just turn it off and return the tape. It's very hard to care about the characters, likeable though they are, when every line of dialogue is punctuated by unnecessary pregnant pauses (a sure sign of incompetent direction). The film had great potential, but it came out as just a bunch of scenes slapped together with a really bad soundtrack (not the music: the volume kept jumping up and down alternating soft to loud from scene to scene).
A life versus death story... death instinct and eroticism in a doomed gay couple
atlantis200620 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Gregg Araki is a brilliant director that finds in subversive and polemic subjects a complexity and richness that would pass unnoticed for other filmmakers.
"The Living End" is a story that deals with death. However, unlike most movies Araki has found a balance between Freudian Eros and Thanatos. The life drive and the death drive are equally as important for Jon and Luke, the protagonists. They alternately assume different roles regarding impeding death. For Jon, at first, is denial when he confronts the fact that he has AIDS. He trusts in his doctor's words when is told that this diagnosis does not equal a death sentence. Not just yet anyway. Luke, on the other hand, has a clear self-destructive tendency; he seems to be wandering off amidst repellent streets and dangerous highways, with no goals and no real desire.
They meet. They have sex. But here sex is devoid of the Freudian libido. Sex at first may be a consequence of the life drive but ultimately it's but an act of despair, it's the result of an undeniable lack of hope. And what is hope in the end? Is it an abstract concept or rather the force that prevent us from languishing in a situation in which our success is never guaranteed? I'd venture to say that hope comes down to one element: creation. And it's clear for the viewers that Jon and Luke will never be able to create a life together, their existence has already been forfeit.
"Afterlife is just this pathetic notion people cling to in order to avoid confronting their own mortality" explains Jon to Luke. And according to Slavoj Zizek he is absolutely right. In "The Seven Veils of Fantasy" Zizek explains that fantasy gives structure to reality. Fantasy is what allows people to confide in the symbolic order, fantasy is also more powerful than people might expect. Fantasy is the imaginary support upon which we build everything: we don't see human bodies we only see bodies through a certain fantasy; in fact, certain neurosis consist in seeing the body as it is (a disgusting cumulus of fluids, excrement, viscera and blood), and as a result there is a complete rejection of the other, or the constantly paranoid fear that contact with others will bring forth contamination or filthiness. Fantasy also structures desire ("what am I in the eyes of the other?"). Is Luke this rude, gay-macho version of Clint Eastwood or is this irresponsible, childish guy that makes Jon laugh with his nonsense? Is Jon this well-behaved gay, a productive member of society, or is he an absolute desperate person (willing to embark upon a nearly suicidal road trip with his newly found lover) that seeks out an indefinable truth that will give meaning to his remaining days? Fantasy also allows people to understand abstract concepts. What is a nation, for example? Benedict Anderson defines nations as "imagined communities", id est, arbitrary creations upon which people agree on.
Nevertheless, the most important conception of fantasy here is that which veils and hides the real. Fantasy secludes oneself from the awful truth. Fantasy nurtures mythological and theological narratives that deal with something that has frightened people since the dawn of time: death. Sometimes, fantasies that veil the horror of death are as clumsy as the nice and tidy instructions and warnings one receives in every flight concerning the possibility of an "accident" (one has but to wonder what use a fastened security belt has when most airplane crushes end up turning people into a pulp, scattered tissue, that prevents even dental records to be obtained from the wreckage), but also as influencing and historically relevant as the heaven versus hell narrative that church still proclaims to this day.
What is "The Living End"? It is a glance of what happens once we withdraw from fantasy. Araki's film shows us what happens when death is no longer an abstract concern but a certainty. It demonstrates that a once life-driven Jon can lose all hope thanks to a medical diagnosis and thus embrace a death drive; it demonstrates that for all his bravado, Luke might not be the overtly self-destructive, death-seeking guy we saw in the first scenes. Life drive turns into death drive and vice versa (the extraordinary last scene condenses a powerful eroticism in contrast with an incontestable death wish). But one thing is clear: The veil has been removed and death no longer hides from mortal eyes. It's there, looking Jon and Luke right in the face. And they are looking back with a very fearless and subversive expression.
"The Living End" is a story that deals with death. However, unlike most movies Araki has found a balance between Freudian Eros and Thanatos. The life drive and the death drive are equally as important for Jon and Luke, the protagonists. They alternately assume different roles regarding impeding death. For Jon, at first, is denial when he confronts the fact that he has AIDS. He trusts in his doctor's words when is told that this diagnosis does not equal a death sentence. Not just yet anyway. Luke, on the other hand, has a clear self-destructive tendency; he seems to be wandering off amidst repellent streets and dangerous highways, with no goals and no real desire.
They meet. They have sex. But here sex is devoid of the Freudian libido. Sex at first may be a consequence of the life drive but ultimately it's but an act of despair, it's the result of an undeniable lack of hope. And what is hope in the end? Is it an abstract concept or rather the force that prevent us from languishing in a situation in which our success is never guaranteed? I'd venture to say that hope comes down to one element: creation. And it's clear for the viewers that Jon and Luke will never be able to create a life together, their existence has already been forfeit.
"Afterlife is just this pathetic notion people cling to in order to avoid confronting their own mortality" explains Jon to Luke. And according to Slavoj Zizek he is absolutely right. In "The Seven Veils of Fantasy" Zizek explains that fantasy gives structure to reality. Fantasy is what allows people to confide in the symbolic order, fantasy is also more powerful than people might expect. Fantasy is the imaginary support upon which we build everything: we don't see human bodies we only see bodies through a certain fantasy; in fact, certain neurosis consist in seeing the body as it is (a disgusting cumulus of fluids, excrement, viscera and blood), and as a result there is a complete rejection of the other, or the constantly paranoid fear that contact with others will bring forth contamination or filthiness. Fantasy also structures desire ("what am I in the eyes of the other?"). Is Luke this rude, gay-macho version of Clint Eastwood or is this irresponsible, childish guy that makes Jon laugh with his nonsense? Is Jon this well-behaved gay, a productive member of society, or is he an absolute desperate person (willing to embark upon a nearly suicidal road trip with his newly found lover) that seeks out an indefinable truth that will give meaning to his remaining days? Fantasy also allows people to understand abstract concepts. What is a nation, for example? Benedict Anderson defines nations as "imagined communities", id est, arbitrary creations upon which people agree on.
Nevertheless, the most important conception of fantasy here is that which veils and hides the real. Fantasy secludes oneself from the awful truth. Fantasy nurtures mythological and theological narratives that deal with something that has frightened people since the dawn of time: death. Sometimes, fantasies that veil the horror of death are as clumsy as the nice and tidy instructions and warnings one receives in every flight concerning the possibility of an "accident" (one has but to wonder what use a fastened security belt has when most airplane crushes end up turning people into a pulp, scattered tissue, that prevents even dental records to be obtained from the wreckage), but also as influencing and historically relevant as the heaven versus hell narrative that church still proclaims to this day.
What is "The Living End"? It is a glance of what happens once we withdraw from fantasy. Araki's film shows us what happens when death is no longer an abstract concern but a certainty. It demonstrates that a once life-driven Jon can lose all hope thanks to a medical diagnosis and thus embrace a death drive; it demonstrates that for all his bravado, Luke might not be the overtly self-destructive, death-seeking guy we saw in the first scenes. Life drive turns into death drive and vice versa (the extraordinary last scene condenses a powerful eroticism in contrast with an incontestable death wish). But one thing is clear: The veil has been removed and death no longer hides from mortal eyes. It's there, looking Jon and Luke right in the face. And they are looking back with a very fearless and subversive expression.
Araki's living hetrosexual masterpiece
videorama-759-85939127 April 2017
Araki's first mainstream baby. I like to just say baby, meaning his first movie ever, but he made two before this. TLE rocks, as it's a totally courageous and brave, no holds barred, heterosexual journey to the world's end, for two young HIV positive gay guys/studs, one (Gilmore) a very much reserved film critic, his lover (Dytri), an opposite, wild, raucous, sociapathic, and homicidal, where we kind of have a Natural Born Killer's thing going, as these two newfound lovebirds, take off, due to Dytri's out and control and murderous tendencies (most violence here, implied) on a 90's road adventure. The film has such a great "F.ck you" attitude, and Araki's tight shots whether exterior or interior are so cool. If you notice, about half way through, the screen is minimalized some, where the screen becomes shaped as if we're watching home movies on a projector. This is something you're never see coming, but I do understand the point to this. There are some really out there moments, a comical one, involving some sick violence, when a girlfriend catches her lover in bed with Dytri, (a priceless line attached here) and stabs him, where their dog ends up, licking the blood off the now deceased, where Dytri's flies out of there, dog in tow. Another scene involves, legendary Corman actress, Woronov who's really good as one of two women who pick up Dytri, where these two unbalanced sorts, have a much shortened future planned for Dytri, after they of course, fu.k him. Again Dytri, scarcely gets away with his life. Gilmore was interested with a natural performance as Jon, while it was Dytri who was stealing his screen partner thunder, as the who I really liked character and performance. I wish Gilmore had acted in more stuff. One of his few friends in this, (Marta) as I think bi friend, was an interesting sort to complete the triangle, with a very understanding and engaging character, offbeat, who gets over emotional. Engaging is her performance too, (she's fantastic) where the gay bi woman, best friend has become something stereotypical, too the doctor, confronting patient with that terminal result, here down in an original comic way. This film is a complete, amongst some impressive Indie features, that featured in the good old year of 1993. Usually for a new up and coming, Indie filmmaker, the first is their best, and the one that's remembered. With this one, it's no exception. The film's grim if beautiful open end, plays out perfectly with the story. Tick around and take heed of Araki's little blunt message, after the end credits play. A profound gem of a film, of cult, every hetro should see.
not bad /
jayjay9513 March 2006
interesting movie. Both actors who play the leads are very leasing to the eye and Mike Dytri (Luke) verges on being beautiful. IF you like nice bodies shown off to their best this is the movie for you. The shower scene is erotic but not vulgar and has some great shots - nothing below the belt so-to-speak but very nice all the same. A bit weird in places but considering the time it was made it fits. I enjoyed most of it. I would watch it again. I would own it. I would recommend it. It could be classified as a "buddy movie" a male version of "thelma and Louise"--in a way. I think most people would enjoy it--it has a gay plot but not that gay.
A Terrible Transfer From Film
Gino-1118 April 1999
I wanted to appreciate this "male version of Thelma and Louise," and I thoroughly enjoyed the young leading actors. I think their chemistry worked very well, and I was glad the story didn't degenerate into a crime spree. I was pleased that they didn't just throw everything aside for the sake of rage and violence, too, despite their disillusionment caused by their HIV+ conditions.
BUT I must have gotten the WORST film transfer copy ever made! Was my copy the only one like this? It looked like the film caught in the projector gate during the film transfer, and the projectionist was out having a smoke someplace and didn't ever notice! This happened for at least half the film. I can't believe ANY company would distribute such a LOUSY film transfer. This completely ruined the film for me!
BUT I must have gotten the WORST film transfer copy ever made! Was my copy the only one like this? It looked like the film caught in the projector gate during the film transfer, and the projectionist was out having a smoke someplace and didn't ever notice! This happened for at least half the film. I can't believe ANY company would distribute such a LOUSY film transfer. This completely ruined the film for me!
*tears of joy*
missgraceeddy6 February 2020
Reasonable first effort.
Infofreak14 July 2001
I really love Araki's 'The Doom Generation' and 'Nowhere', but it's taken me some time to finally get around to watching this, his debut. Now seeing those other two first has probably ruined 'The Living End' for me, as I can't help but compare it to them, and it lacks the energy, pop culture saturation and surreal humour that appeals to me so much. 'The Living End' is more realistic and serious, and does what it does quite well for its obvious budget limitations, but I can't say I was all that impressed.
Still Araki is a great talent, and went on to better things.
Nice to see a cameo by the delicious Mary Woronov though!
Still Araki is a great talent, and went on to better things.
Nice to see a cameo by the delicious Mary Woronov though!
The glory of connection
philosopherjack27 November 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Gregg Araki's The Living End announces itself as an "irresponsible film," and it's certainly a defiant one, insisting that being given a "death sentence" diagnosis needn't preclude living in the meantime, without limits, without apology, without even more than grudging adherence to law and convention. Luke lives on the edge of danger, a state that seems to ramp up after he's diagnosed as HIV-positive, through some combination of his own nihilism and perhaps of the world attuning itself to him; while running from a confrontation he meets Jon, a more inward-looking, quasi-domesticated writer, also HIV-positive. The two get together, break apart, then get together again after Luke's latest plunge over the edge, getting into a car and just driving, with steadily decreasing sense of purpose. The movie's fault line is that they're never entirely equal partners in the project, that Luke's pushing of Jon, in large part liberating and freeing, ultimately becomes a different form of oppression and terror, albeit one that we, like Jon in the final moments, can understand as being based in fear, and that may point forward toward an alternative kind of coherence, a liberating new dawn. The movie is indelibly of its specific time and place, but like so many others takes on a different subtext when viewed in the time of Covid (to which the reference in the closing credits to the Republicans in the White House provides at least one glum connection) - an amazing moment when Luke cuts himself and studies his own blood, musing in twisted wonderment on how it can look so normal and yet be so deadly, might need only a small leap to become ideologically-driven denial. The Living End though is a movie free of masks and imposed distancing, vividly insisting on the glory of connection, of bodily contours, of kinetic interaction, all the more desperately glorious for being informed by truth.
Well!!!!
Brandy-286 July 1999
I thought the story was good, for what he was trying to do. I did not like Luke, the blond in this movie. I thought his acting was awful. The beginning of this movie was really stupid, leading up until Luke finally ran into Jon. By the way Jon was beautiful from the face all the way down. The best part was the last 1/2 hour leading up to the end, which is very touching and you will probably leave with a tear. A must see!!!!! Very good.
Can Ya Dig It?
newnoir16 June 2000
Well...what can be said of this film that hasn't been said already, Freddy? This is the story of two HIV positive studs who go on a dopey road trip. The plot doesn't really go anywhere and it times it seems the director was just trying to extend his movie any way he can so he can have a feature length film. The thing I've always wondered about Araki is why more Asians aren't in his films. He must have a thing for hunky white dudes. Still, this is mildly amusing for a shoestring first effort. Adios.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
