Change Your Image
GlennCT
Reviews
Angels in America (2003)
Poetry of an Imperfect World
I'd have to say that nearly all of my straight friends (and many of my gay ones) were deeply unsettled by HBO's "Angels In America." Their gripes were that the sexual content was too deliberate, the AIDS symptoms too graphic. Heck, even a writer below even expresses their shock at witnessing an angel having an erotic experience with the living.
Big news to all y'all: it's all part of life, living and dying... or at least as one exceptionally talented writer sees it. And, like it or not, Tony Kushner's "gay fantasia on national themes" chucks it squarely in all of faces with a ferocity and tenacity that they just don't put in movies anymore.
Unpleasant? Yes, the film can be exceptionally unpleasant. Kushner has such a fire in his belly that you can nearly feel an empathetic burning in your chest as the film progresses. But there's also an immense passion and beauty to "Angels in America." For once, the filmmakers don't try to hold back the emotions of the piece, and don't allow some dipstick producer to dilute their visions for something more sellable. The result is a work of art... and that means that it's open to interpretation, and as likely to offend people as move them to tears. Fortunately, I was one of the latter.
Okay, there are some downsides to HBO's six-part adaptation of Kushner's plays "Millennium Approaches" and "Perestroika." First is that some of Kushner's artsy prose (far more like poetry than conversational language) can get a bit long in the tooth. It's understandable, actually... if I knew how to write so eloquently, I'd have a hell of time editing my own work too. A few of the scenes dragged a bit in all those layers of talk. And, call me escapist, but I could have dealt with a hair more humor... although the few, spare funny moments of the piece were scorchingly funny without being glib.
After that, well, I was just swept away by the beauty and starkness of "Angels in America." I guess I just understood the piece, and I could understand why some people wouldn't.
Kudos at every last one of the actors. Perennial scene-chewer Al Pacino kept the "Scent of a Woman"-style outbursts to a respectable minimum. Meryl Streep does her best work in years as a repressed Mormon mother, Ethel Rosenberg AND, especially, an aged rabbi. Jeffery Wright (he's straight? really??) is remarkable as hospital nurse Belize, and Mary-Louise Parker simply nails the role of Harper. Patrick Wilson? Awesome. Justin Kirk? Amazing. I could go on and on.
Someone who didn't "get" the movie entirely asked me what the moral of the story is. I think the best response to that comes from a proverb that's noted in the stageplay script on which the movie is based. It says, "In a murderous time, the heart breaks and breaks, and lives by breaking." It means that our weakest moments show our strongest character traits. It means that the world can be a sad, relentless, amazing place. It means that angels are extension of a heaven that is filled with as many contradictions as our own real world. It means that we live, we die... and we live again.
"Angels in America" IS disturbing. I'm so glad it is too. Maybe I'm of the minority, but I'm never disappointed by a film that tries to wake it's viewers up.
All Over the Guy (2001)
Read this review! I think I nailed it...
I've been searching and waiting patiently for the perfect gay film to come along. Something with a real plot and real characters. Something that doesn't pander to the straight audience, but doesn't play exclusively to gays. Something with bite AND a heart. Julie Davis' `All Over the Guy' comes close. so close. And then tanks.
The story in brief: while shopping in a furniture store, Jackie (Sasha Alexander) meets furniture designer/salesman Brett (Adam Goldberg). The sparks are instant. After realizing that they both have a gay male best friend, they decide to fix the two of them up. The first date of Eli (Dan Bucatinsky) and Tom (Richard Ruccolo) goes down in flames, but on a second meeting something ignites. But Tom's alcohol fueled insecurities and Eli's need for order makes their ensuing relationship rocky. Essentially, they just can't seem to get it together. Will true love prevail?
Look, I really, REALLY wanted to love this film. In the end, I liked it a lot, but it missed that being-a-classic benchmark by a good distance. Here's why:
There aren't many films with opinions are widely and clearly polarized as those regarding `All Over the Guy.' That's a nice way of saying you either loved it or hated it. Me, I can understand both points of view. if you aren't into snappy, overly-glib, `Friends'-like dialogue you are going to definitely hate this film. I happen to love that sort of stuff. Okay, call me shallow, but the movie made me laugh out loud on several occasions. (Example. BRETT: `Be there or be square.' ELI: `I hate that expression. Even when I'm there, I'm square, so where's the incentive?') Overall, I thought the dialogue was sharp, and the juxtaposition of a gay relationship against a straight one was handled nicely.
I also really liked the acting in this film. All of the supporting characters do a nice job bringing in a level of quirkiness to their small parts (I mean, c'mon. how funny was Andrea Martin as Eli's analysis-obsessed mom?), and the four leads handle what they're given with tenacity and appeal.
Likewise, the first three-quarters of this film are structured well and interesting. I hate to say it, but it really drew me in. The non-linear storyline doesn't feel choppy or forced. So what went wrong? Why does that final quarter of the film take such an incredible nosedive?
The primary blame has to be placed on the character of Tom. As much as the filmmakers try to make this Eli's story, the crux of the action centers around Tom's behavior when faced with a potentially fulfilling relationship. We're asked to believe that Tom is a nasty drunk, and his addiction is why he endlessly treats poor Eli like a yo-yo. And although we never really see Tom even remotely plastered, we can see that he's overflowing with anger and bile.
What the script doesn't do is completely justify Tom's wild swings from wanting to be near Eli to harshly and nastily (really nastily) pushing him away. And it all reflects poorly on the character of Eli, who never truly tells Tom to get lost. I wanted so badly for someone to just level this jerk. when it does sort-of happen at the film's climax, Tom's reaction is to DEFEND himself. What is all this saying? `Oh, poor damaged me. my lousy upbringing gives me the right to treat others like ca-ca.' Sorry, I don't buy it.
Similarly, I don't buy Tom's seemingly happy-go-lucky decision to end up at AA. The fact that alcoholism is simply wrecking his life is woefully unexplored. Most of all, that angle of the story completely lacks any grit and bite. Alcoholism is ugly. It's a disease that can kill, just like AIDS or cancer or any other unpleasant illness. Here, it's handled like a plot device, giving it sufferers a reason to be verbally cruel, and nothing else.
Please note that I can't blame Richard Ruccolo for any of his character's failings. He does an amazing job with what the script gives him. He plays his winning smile and boyish good looks to the best of their ability. Likewise, his control onscreen is superb. he's one of the rare breed of actors who can flash a single facial expression and it says pages worth of words. (Just imagine Keanu Reeves in the part and you'll see the complete opposite of what I'm talking about.)
Nonetheless, I was exhausted with the on-again-off-again nature of Tom and Eli's relationship by the end of this film. And as much as Tom has something of an excuse for his yo-yo-like behavior, Eli doesn't have one for not just telling him to shove-off. We're asked to believe that it's because he sees something greater in Tom, but by the final quarter of the film it looks more like Eli hasn't an ounce of self-respect. The ending seems entirely forced; any two everyday gay men in Los Angeles would have called it quits long, long before these two.
It's too bad, because there was so much in this movie that I really enjoyed. I'd love to see this group try again with something meatier. How about this: explore the alcoholism angle with depth and sincerity by adapting Augusten Burrough's hilarious, self-deprecating book `Dry' into a film? And please cast Rich Ruccolo in the lead!
The Truth About Alex (1986)
We've come a long way, baby.
With so much gay hub-bub in the news lately, I couldn't help but think back to some of the first bits of gay-oriented entertainment that were considered landmark for their time... "Making Love," "An Early Frost," even "Boys in the Band." I recall how stunning and important "The Truth About Alex" was back in 1986; this was an afterschool special about a teen being gay, for goodness sake. Or was it? The story here was really about Scott Baio's character, whose best friend is the one doing the actual coming out. And, if you look at it now, the script of this piece handles that process really, really poorly. Every time poor Alex, our gay character, touches on anything to do with the gay world, it turns out to be a miserable, stereotypical experience... a trucker hits on the kid in a public bathroom; nearly the entir worlds rejects him once he comes out; and, worst of all, his trip to a decent enough gay pub prompts an INTERVENTION (!!!) by his so-called caring friends. For cryin' out loud... the kid was just having a beer and making some new gay friends. Leave him be. The producers definitely had their hearts in the right place back in '86, but couldn't they have gotten somebody gay to write the script? Look at this show today and it doesn't come across as gay-positive at all.
And Then Came Summer (2000)
And then came mediocrity.
I have to feel a bit of sadness for the producers, cast and crew of 10% Productions "And Then Came Summer." I mean, their hearts were all in the right place... they wanted to make a nice, light, coming-of-age story about two boys who, very naturally, fall in love. The idea is sweet, and the intentions are good. The outcome, however, is a vastly different matter. Unfortunately, "And Then Came Summer" falls into just about every trap that face amateur filmmakers face. The script is an unsubstantial mess, with no build, no interesting dialogue and non-existant character development. The acting is really poor all the way around - either totally wooden or completely overdone, often times both in the same scene. The camerawork is attrocious; certain scenes were filmed so ineptly that it literally made the film difficult to watch. The inclusion of Anthony J. Domingues as the younger brother is perhaps the worst casting mistake in the history of Hollywood... this kid looks not a the thing like his father and older brother (was he adopted or something? If so, the script never gets around to mentioning it.) And, most of all, the film's treatment of women is borderline offensive... the caring aunt is a pie-baking marm so sweet that I almost lapsed into diabetic shock, and the brief appearance by the gossipy neighbor is so dense it's nearly laughable. It used to be enough to simply make a "gay movie." But (thankfully) there are more and more films in the gay genre being made. This ups the ante, and slapping together a film like "And Then Came Summer" just doesn't cut it anymore. Budget be damned, a film needs to be ABOUT something. It needs to still be well-acted and directed professionally. And it needs to draw in the audience with a script and characters that are pertinent and revelatory. This films tries, but, sadly, achieves none of these benchmarks. It's too bad... I really wanted to like this film!
Mac and Me (1988)
"Mac" = Cheese.
I know it's a little silly to write a review of a film 15 years after its release. But this poorly done film made its way onto one of my cable movie channels last night, and I feel the need to have a violent, outward reaction outside of the projectile vomiting I experienced.
People, this film is bad. Really bad. Bad like "Showgirls" bad, where it's so bad, it's both insulting and laughable simultaneously. And forgive me, but anybody who finds this 95-minute commercial for McDonalds and Coca-Cola to be warm-hearted or well done in any way knows not a thing about what makes a movie good, and needs a great deal of emotional counseling.
First, let's reiterate that point about this being an extended commercial. Folks, it is. The product placement in this film is shameless.
Next, there are basic things that make a film "good," like strong acting, a well-written script, superior camerawork or quality special effects. "Mac and Me" has none of these. Wooden posts would have made for better actors. The script clunks and thuds with every ridiculous, uninspired line. And the alien creatures of the film, with their bug-eyes and protruding bellies, look about a life-like as melted candles.
I also have to make a point of just how much of a rip-off of "E.T." this film was. Not only is the plot just a poor carbon copy, but even the title of this attrocity becomes an act of thievery when it's revealed that "Mac" stands for "Mysterious Alien Creature." I'm not even the biggest fan of uber-cutesy "E.T." either, but at least there the attempts at manipulation are somewhat subtle. Here, the filmmakers fell just short of subtitles at the bottom of the screen that said "LAUGH HERE" and/or "CRY NOW."
And the cherry atop Stewart Rafill's bile sundae? The scene inside a McDonald's (Our aforementioned sponsor) when normal, everyday patrons suddenly and spontaneously spring to life into a choreographed dance sequence. Yeh, that happens at the Greasy Mac's on Route 1 near my house every freakin' day.
Saps only will buy into laughable hunk of junk... for the rest of you out there, I recommend this movie only if you're looking for new additions to your Ten Worst List.
Drift (2000)
"Drift" would, if it could.
So here's a nice, little indie film made on a shoestring budget with no monstrous, gaping flaws. That alone sets it above most other nice, little indie films made on a shoestring budget. Ironically, though, what "Drift" seems to lack the most is a sense of bite... one of the things that the tortured intellectuals of the film note about their lives. The film is basically a more complex, less commercialized take on the Gwynneth Paltrow vehicle, "Sliding Doors." In this incarnation, gay Ryan has gotten the 3-year itch now that his relationship with lover, Joel, has gotten comfortable. He meets eager young writer-wannabe Leo, and begins to question his "marriage". This is all justified nicely as we see the artistic, passionate Ryan trying, but failing, to connect with Joel on a more enlightened plane. This is when "Drift" shows us three possibilities of where Ryan's life may take him: off with Leo, back to Joel, and none of the above. While the film never lost my interest, it is, at its core, a talkfest. (And if you're the type of person who finds the angst of day-to-day living to be dull, then you are certainly going to hate this film.) Yes, it's a heckuva lot deeper emotionally than "Sliding Doors" will ever be, but it's also less fun and far less charismatic. And I found myself waiting for some sort of big, dramatic confrontation that never really showed up. Alas, quiet and thoughtful is more what the film aspires to be... and really, there's nothing wrong with that. It just won't make your heart race. One final positive: gay men and their sexual relations are handled both realistically AND erotically. The film manages to be neither disinfected of sex nor a pointless bump-and-grindathon like, say, most of the second season of "Queer as Folk."
Passenger 57 (1992)
Passenger 57, Rating 0
People joke and call this film "Fly Hard"... if only it could live up to its namesake. Poorly acted, spottily directed and completely unfeasible... did you know that an airline has more hidden rooms and compartments than your typical haunted mansion? Furthermore, the terrorist villain is about as scary as my Aunt Gail. My advice: cancel this flight and leave the gate!
Lie Down with Dogs (1995)
Rabid & flea-bitten.
Ok, I know just about everyone claims that the most recent bad film they've seen is the worst movie ever made. Well, it's been a while since the 1995 release of Wally White's ode to self-absorption "Lie Down with Dogs," and the film still ranks as the worst gay movie devoted to celluloid, and an atrocity on all levels. Here's 10 reasons why the film makes more sucking noises than a Hoover upright: ***1. Our "protagonist" (and I use that term VERY loosely) waxes unpoetically at the beginning of the film about how sucky New York City is, so he packs up and moves, haphazardly, to Provincetown, MA for the summer. Once there, he does nothing but berate the place for not being New York. Go figure. ***2. The film was obviously shot during P-Town's off-season; the summer resort looks more like an old-west ghost town. ***3. We're supposed to feel a sense of connection and brotherhood with Tommy, the lead character. Yeh, right. It's probably unintentional, but White's alter-ego is a whining, self-obsessed doink who is about half as attractive as he thinks he is. I'm supposed to root for this guy to fall in love? I found myself rooting for this guy to be hit by a bus. ***4. The film is extremely offensive to minorities. White tries to be funny, but instead manages to insult everyone from recovering alcoholics to men over 40 to Jamaicans. Even the latino pretty boy is (gasp!) lazy... one of a bazillion stereotypes perpetuated by this wreck of film. ***5. White's summer vacation is boring. I had more exciting stints at summer camp as a kid. ***6. The writing of this film is amateurish through and through. What's meant to be funny is just obnoxious, and what's meant to be touching is cloying. The characters are flat, the plot is nil and there's no dramatic rise to what little story exists. ***7. The director makes the assumption that all gay men aspire to be pumped-up pretty-boy airheads, dancing in their speedos. No, thanks, I'm driving. ***8. Cinematically, the film is poorly constructed. The editing is bad, the camerawork is bland. The movie looks like someone grabbed a camera for the first time and thought, "wow, I'll make a movie." ***9. Did I mention that the lead character is self-absorbed and obnoxious? ***10. The worst offender of all: the utter horror of the "Square State Theory" scene. This little gem sees Tommy as he unfolds his hypothesis that you can tell a guy from a square-shaped state by his tacky wardrobe, lack of dancing expertise or general ugliness. To make matters worse, he actually points out several of these hapless losers out while pontificating from on high in a crowded dance club. ***Can you tell how offended I was by this movie? As a guy from a relatively square state, I have news for Wally White... first, you might be part of a minority, but this kind "better than thou" behavior isn't far off from what fueled such lovely historical eras such as Nazi Germany. Secondly, those square-state guys are PEOPLE... they may know how to point and laugh, too, but things like self-contentment and decency usually stand in their way. Me, I guess I'm not so decent, so I have no shame or reservation when I tell you: your film is mean-spirited and just plain bad.