Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (A+ for effort, but hard to really recommend)
Gay Inclusive? Very – it’s a dramatic gay romance
Gay Positive? Mostly – a few instances of internal & external homophobia pop up

From the same filmmaker (Jeff London) as Regarding Billy, we have Arizona Sky.

The movie opens with a scene between teenage Jake (Blaise Embry) and Kyle (Kyle Buckland). They have been having a secret romance, but now Jake’s family is moving away. They promise to keep in touch, but we all know how adolescent promises like that turn out.

Fast forward fifteen years, and we meet an adult Jake (Eric Dean). He’s a movie producer deeply dissatisfied with his life. His straight best friend (Brent King) calls him on it, and Jake decides to take a vacation to his home town, where he looks up Kyle (Jayme McCabe).

I was engaged by the first half of the movie. From the moment adult Jake met adult Kyle, however, the script took a sharp left into hokey and hackneyed. I was almost ready to buy into the foundational idea that maybe Jake and Kyle, even after 15 years, still had a powerful connection. But as soon as we meet the adult Kyle, it’s apparent that these two have grown into such fundamentally different men, I could not understand why they were so impassioned about one another that they would be driven into histrionics.

Maybe it has something to do with the self-indulgent script. Every scene is at least 10 or 20 percent longer than it should be, and the movie is incredibly talky. I like thoughtful screenplays, but even I was dying for something to happen.

The basic story is sweet. Most of the acting ranges from passable to competent. (Note I said “most”). A charming performance from Eric Dean is probably the movie’s highlight; I also really enjoyed the repartee between him and his straight best friend. Arizona Sky is gay-positive on the whole, a few instances of homophobia notwithstanding.

Everything shows potential, from the acting to the script. The movie just never gels. Its disparate parts are all off just enough that I spent the whole movie divorced from the experience. I never stopped being aware that I was watching a movie.

Overall Quality 2.0 / 5.0 (some potential, but misses the goal)
Gay Inclusive? Very – the story focuses on a gay character putting together a gay soccer team
Gay Positive? Moderately – the gays prevail, but only in the midst of rampant homophobia

The gay pathos in this movie got old fast. Maybe I’m just over it in my own life, so I don’t have much patience for it in my entertainment. I wearied of both the difficulty the main character had in coming out, and the over-the-top homophobia thrown in his face. If it had been handled better, maybe I would have been moved. I wasn’t.

The film starts with Ecki (Maximilian Brückner), a soccer (i.e., European football) player on a local team, beginning to realize he might be gay. Neither his teammates nor his father (Dietmar Bär) react well. In fact, his teammates go into homophobe-overdrive. They say all kinds of hateful and nasty things, and then they kick him off the team. Ecki says he’s going to put together a gay team, and that his gay team will kick his former team’s collective ass in four weeks.

Yeah. The whole story is completely contrived. It’s sad too – I like all of the characters, and they imbue the movie with a kind of happy charm that kept me watching. But turn after turn, the story is just forced.

As one example (out of many): the leather daddy Rudi (Jochen Stern) who suddenly turns out to have an estranged son (Marcel Nievelstein) in the 3rd grade; after the obligatory and dramatic break-up of the gay team (”oh no! what will they do now!”), the son mysteriously shows up at his father’s house and helps rally some of the team members; and then the young son shows up at the actual game, all by himself, in a completely different city. That boys gets around! His mother, almost violently antagonistic toward Rudi when we first meet her, miraculously shows up 5 minutes later, and at the end of the movie she’s cheering Rudi’s soccer success. What?

The characters (well, the gay ones, anyway) are the highlight of the film. There’s the closeted guy. The alternative gender identity person. The three leather daddies in a 3-way relationship. A hunky and effeminate gay Turk. A couple of black players (who unfortunately turn out just to be set dressing). Ecki and his down-to-earth boyfriend, a nurse.

At first, I was a bit put off, especially by the crude leather daddies, but then I thought, why not? First, all of them turn out to be more nuanced than you’d expect. Second, they’re representative of a segment of the gay community. Finally, the thing the gay community really wants – equal respect – shouldn’t just apply to the “normal” gays. If we do that, we’re missing the point of the rainbow.

Check it out if you’re a fan of gay-oriented sports films (because, let’s face it, there aren’t a whole lot out there). Otherwise, give this one a pass.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (entertaining, if light, read)
Gay Inclusive? Moderately – two secondary gay characters
Gay Positive? Very – both characters are well-rounded and important to the story

Okay, yeah, I have to admit – the plot is nothing new. Mysterious Monster Makes Mayhem; Sassy Star Saves the Day.

Specifically, the vampires are up to no good – a newly made vampire possessed by a demon begins wrecking havoc on the Mercy Thompson’s small community. It’s up to her, along with her werewolf allies and lone vampire friend, to figure out what’s going on and put a stop to it.

Once again, with textured characters and a involving alternate world, the author brings the story to life. It says a lot about the characters when they each have their own minor concerns that almost rival the main story for interest.

For example, Mercy’s gay werewolf cowboy friend (whew!) Warren returns. At one point, he’s wounded by the Big Bad of the story; and certain members of his pack – sensing weakness in a guy they never really cared for because he’s gay – try to take advantage to knock Warren from his position in the pack. It’s a relatively minor thread, but the relationships (good and bad) that exist between these characters possess a vitality that keeps me turning pages as fast as I can.

On the other hand, the fact that subplots nearly eclipse the main story doesn’t speak well of the main story. Considering Briggs’ inventiveness in her world-building, it’s a bit of a let-down to find the central plot to be relatively formulaic.

Nevertheless, Blood Bound was an immensely entertaining and enjoyable read with an exciting climax and meaty denouement (an improvement over the first book’s conclusion). A great read for a rainy Sunday afternoon.

——————-

See also my review of the first Mercy Thompson book, Moon Called.

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 1.5 / 5.0 (minor bits)
Gay Positivity 4.0 / 5.0

An incisive and biting look at the Hollywood industry. As with most of Stiller’s films, the humor is hit or miss, but fortunately hits the spot more often than not.

The film begins with several fake trailers which introduce the film’s characters.

• Tugg Speedman (Ben Stiller), a fading action star who’s hoping to reinvigorate his career with a new war movie
• Jeff Portnow (Jack Black), a drug-addicted comedian hoping for critical success
• Alpa China (Brandon T. Jackson), a musician and actor who has parlayed artistic into commercial success through merchandising
• Kirk Lazarus (Robert Downey, Jr), a method actor so serious about his craft that he literally loses himself into his roles

The film benefits from inspired casting: each real-life actor is pitch-perfect in their portrayal of a troubled on-screen actor, each haunted by his own demons. (Downey deserves special mention: he’s just amazing in the role.) In Tropic Thunder, they come together to make a Vietnam-era war movie. In order to achieve greater verisimilitude, the overwhelmed director Damien (Steve Coogan) deposits his actors (Tugg, Jeff, Alpa, and Kirk) in the middle of a real war zone. Hilarity ensues.

Satire too. I’m baffled by the disability advocacy groups who have decided to protest Tropic Thunder because of its use of the term “retard” and its portrayal of Tugg Speedman playing a mentally-challenged man (Simple Jack) in an effort to win an Oscar. That subplot is the single most cutting indictment of the Hollywood machine in the movie; the whole point is how Hollywood exploits everything from minority groups to tragedy in order to make money and win awards. If anything, Tropic Thunder is staging its own protest of the misuse of such groups of people.

As Stiller says, “It’s sort of edgy territory, but we felt that as long as the focus was on the actors who were trying to do something to be taken seriously that’s going too far or wrong, that was where the humor would come from. [The joke is on] actors reaching for roles in terms of hopefully winning awards” (1)

Much has also been made of Tom Cruise’s over-the-top portrayal of amoral executive and financier Les Grossman. It’s definitely a departure for Cruise. I found the role to be a little one-note, but no one can deny that Cruise really throws himself into it.

The movie contains a couple of items of gay interest. First, one of the actors turns out to be gay, which then leads to a chuckle-worthy cameo at the film’s conclusion. I’m delighted to report there are no negative gay stereotypes and no negative reaction to his inadvertent revelation. In fact, one character just says, “Hey, everybody’s gay sometimes, this is Hollywood.” Another character (who’s in an, um, amusingly difficult situation, then offers all kinds of sexual favors in exchange for assistance). It’s unfortunate that the gay actor is closeted, but it’s arguable that’s just the satire making another comment on the Hollywood machine. On the whole, I’m impressed with this bit of gay inclusion.

Second, one of the fake trailers advertises a fake movie called Satan’s Alley, a Brokeback Mountain-style movie set in a monastery. Robert Downey Jr. as Kirk Lazarus and Tobey Maguire play two monks falling into a forbidden relationship. I’m slightly less amused at this portrayal. Seriously, did they have to call it Satan’s Alley? What’s up with that? But the trailer is also obviously another satirical snap at Hollywood, and Downey and Maguire are pretty amusing in the spot.

Overall, recommended as a smart, funny, and entertaining satire.

————

————

(1) Access Hollywood, “Disability Advocates Call For ‘Tropic Thunder’ Protest, Stiller Responds,” 11 August 2008, http://omg.yahoo.com/news/updated-disability-advocates-call-for-tropic-thunder-protest-stiller-responds/11875 (retrieved 1 September 2008).

Overall 2.0 / 5.0
Gay Content 5.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 4.5 / 5.0

The series has hit a new low in Season 3.

The events at the end of Season 2 opened the door for the House of Shadows to return to Dante’s Cove and wreck havoc. Meanwhile, Griffen (Jensen Atwood), a representative of the “council of Tresum,” shows up to throw a wrench into everything by taking Diana’s (Thea Gill) power. Kevin (Gregory Michael) is still Ambrosius Vallin’s (AKA Bro, William Gregory Lee) sex slave, but he is desperately conniving to escape and get back to Toby (Charlie David), who in the meantime is being seduced by straight-boy-turned-gay Adam (Jon Fleming).

After the first season, Here! TV started billing Dante’s Cove as a “guilty pleasure.” I’d say Season 2 was reasonably successful in that vein. Season 3 is just bad, however. Not so bad it’s good, just bad.

Awful, cringe-worthy writing. Check. Lame special effects. Oh, yeah. (Season 2 had much better effects, for some reason). Questionable directorial choices. Yup. Clunky, wooden acting. You know it.

Even the sex and nakedness irritated me! They had a sex scene every ten to fifteen minutes. It bothers me that they used it as a substitute for story-telling. If I want to watch porn, I’ll watch real porn. Full-frontal nudity appeared even more often than the sex. Unfortunately, they really only included one “type” of guy – muscle-bound – and I didn’t really find many of the naked guys that appealing.

To tell you the truth, though, the thing that hurts the show the most: there’s no one to root for. Grace (Tracy Scoggins), previously a villain, became my favorite character this season. Thea Gill was wasted, and they didn’t reveal whether Griffen was a villain or hero until last episode or two. Everyone else turned evil, selfish, or stupid; or they were new, and I didn’t have a chance to develop an emotional investment in their character.

I understand that this is a soap opera, and it’s intended to be over-the-top. They’re aiming for so-bad-it’s-good, but they made some poor choices, and overshot.

On the plus side, Grace’s character gets the royal treatment: she has the best, most evocative storyline. Scoggins takes full advantage of it. Atwood brings a much needed low-key performance to the show. It also remains refreshingly gay-positive.

Here’s my wish-list for Season 4 of Dante’s Cove. The writers of Supernatural take over, and Dean (Jensen Ackles) and Sam (Jared Padalecki) roll into town. Can you imagine the possibilities? I can… Mmmmm.

A gratuitous picture of Sam and Dean from the CW’s Supernatural:

Original Title: Just une question d’amour

Overall Quality 4.0 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 4.5 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 2.5 / 5.0

University student Laurent (Cyrille Thouvenin) is terrified to come out to his parents. His cousin Marc came out to his own parents (Laurent’s aunt and uncle), who promptly kicked him out. Laurent’s parents, meanwhile, supported that decision. Laurent does not want to lose his parents, so he lives in the closet. In fact, he uses his best friend and roommate, Carole (Caroline Veyt), as a beard to deceive his parents.

So far, not very gay positive. We have the tired old story of the gay child in the closet, and we have parents who are rampantly anti-gay when it comes to their children (oddly, they seem amused by gay couples shopping for condoms at their pharmacy, but they resort to physical violence with their own flesh-and-blood). Laurent, for his part, is mostly okay with being gay. Except when it comes to his parents, and then he seems to feel deeply ashamed and disappointed in himself. He even tries to make himself straight for their benefit.

Yeah, it’s gay-positive-challenged.

Then Laurent meets the handsome Cédric (Stéphan Guérin-Tilli), for whom Laurent interns in the field of agronomy. Cédric’s mother Emma (Eva Darlan) is openly accepting of her son and tries to help Laurent’s parents to understand and accept their child. Cédric finds it difficult to accept Laurent’s closetedness and pushes Laurent to come out to his parents, causing their burgeoning relationship to splinter.

This made-for-TV French film is extremely well done, and the love story between Laurent and Cédric sweet to watch unfold. The two actors have real on-screen chemistry, and the movie does a great job of portraying their interactions realistically, from playfulness to passion to tenderness to tension. The acting is top-notch, and the story exceeds the scope of the clichéd coming-out tale with its involvement of Laurent’s best friend and Cédric’s mother. Laurent’s uncertainty about his sexuality is balanced by Cédric’s quiet confidence, and both characters offer the viewer enough depth and breadth that neither are stereotypes or caricatures.

“Ja Zuster! Nee Zuster!”

Overall Quality 3.5 / 5.0 (campy good fun)
Gay Content 2.0 / 5.0 (significant gay character and subplot)
Gay Positivity 3.0 / 5.0 (still a few lingering, though mostly insignificant, issues)

A quirky (to put it mildly) Dutch musical based on a Dutch TV series from the 1960s about a rest home run by firm but kind Nurse Klivia (Loes Luca), and her confrontations with her mean-spirited and high-strung landlord, Mr. Boordevol (Paul Kooij).

The story centers around the landlord’s attempts to evict Nurse Klivia and the oddballs living in her resthome. He apparently wants to set up luxury apartments or somesuch so he can rake in the dough. A subplot involving a thief (Gerrit) trying to overcome his larcenous ways interweaves the main story.

Another subplot introduces gay content to the film. It appears the villain is gay (yawn), but in an interesting twist, resuming his love affair with a long-lost boyfriend (Wouter, played by Paul de Leeuw) restores his good nature. Mr. Boordevol transforms from Mr. Scrooge (“Bah, humbug!”) into Tiny Tim (“God bless us, every one!”).

Although turning good when he gets some gay lovin’ is a refreshing twist, gay-man-as-villain is still woefully overdone. Also, a dark flip side: a gay man, when lonely, turns evil. That said, these issues pale before the cartoonish feel-good fun of this campy musical.

The filmmakers have done a great job of making the film feel like a 60s sitcom. The colors and visual set-up are reminiscent of a simpler, just-colorized era of film and television.

The music isn’t the stuff of classics, but it’s so silly and catchy it’s fun to watch. One must-see musical sequence involves Gerrit (the hunky Waldemar Torenstra) singing to a flock of pigeons on a rooftop wearing nothing but his tighty-whiteys.

The movie alternates from endearing to dumb and back again with lightning speed, but the energetic and enthusiastic cast help save the film from itself. I recommend the film as a pleasant diversion, especially if you’re in the mood for something different from the usual DVD fare.

I am much impressed with the script by Mr. Andreas (who played the protagonist Marcus, as well as directed the film). It’s an engaging cross-section of young, contemporary gay culture. There are “sluts” (Luke and Tyler, played by Jesse Archer and Jamie Hatchett respectively), romantics (Peter, played by Jeffrey Christopher Todd, and more neurotically Marilyn, played by Virginia Bryan), and in-between (such as our hero Marcus).

But rather than being two-dimensional cardboard cutouts, I found each character to be cleverly nuanced, and I thought the script did a very good job of presenting different perspectives. I know I completely saw myself in one of the characters. Ahem.

The script also managed to trick me into expecting one kind of ending, and then believably delivering another. The actors also portrayed their characters with impressive realism, although the documentary included on the DVD says the characters in the story were based on the actors who played them (mostly friends and acquaintances of Mr. Andreas), so apparently they didn’t have to stretch too much.

Story-wise, after Marcus catches his (very handsome) boyfriend Julian cheating on him, he spends the summer rediscovering the joys of single life. He starts tricking around a bit, but the film is clearly not stereotyping gay men as promiscuous, so this didn’t affect the Gay Positivity score.

The characters exist on a continuum from Luke, who sleeps around constantly, to Marcus, who has an occasional fling over the summer, to Peter, who doesn’t want meaningless sex at all. In fact, I find it refreshing that none of the characters are bemoaning their sexuality, nor suffer any homophobic attacks (verbal or otherwise). The drama in the movie arises naturally out of their relationships with each other.

The quality of the camera work is inconsistent. One frame looks like it was shot with a professional camera, the next looks like they used a camera phone. My only other complaint was one moment when Marcus acts out of character – during his final conversation with his ex-boyfriend, he is uncharacteristically mean-spirited.

The movie derives most of its drama from the protagonist’s difficulty in accepting his own homosexuality, and from the fag-bashing of his boyfriend, bringing the Gay Positivity score down.

Taking a hit on the “Positivity” scale doesn’t mean the quality of the film was bad. It’s just that most images of gay people in the media (movies, TV, and books) are negative, involving discrimination, beatings, disease, death, and other tragedies. That is not to say these things don’t happen in real life, but the sheer volume of these negative images, in my opinion, reinforces the already strong but false notion that if you’re gay, it automatically follows that either bad things will happen to you, or you ARE bad. The “Positivity” scale is intended to indicate to the potential viewer where the movie falls in this spectrum.

This movie has a sweetness to it, and ends well, so I would say it is more positive than not, but it is nevertheless one of the pool of movies that focuses on the negativity of being gay (the trauma of accepting, gasp, oh my god, how horrible, I might be gay! as well as a vicious assault on a gay person).

The acting is a bit wooden at points, but there’s an earnestness to the performances (especially the protagonist Griff, portrayed by Daniel Chilson) that make the characters endearing and engaging. In fact, despite the heaviness of the storyline (this is no comedy, folks), the script is relatively low-key in its presentation, and the film rarely falls into melodrama.

And as I mentioned, there is also a tenderness to this movie that makes it very re-watchable (I’ve seen it two or three times now). Also, although I personally tend to prefer happy gay movies (rare though they are), I recognize the importance of telling stories like this one.

I particularly enjoyed the scene when Griff (Chilson) and his best friend are on a mountaintop reflecting – the bonding between the friends, Griffs positive self-realization, and the tantalizing and brief flashback create a thoughtful scene that exceeds the sum of its parts. These factors give the film most of its points in the “Quality” category. Otherwise, the movie is a bit more pedestrian – decently scripted, directed, and acted without being truly standout.

On the whole, I like this movie. Despite its many flaws.

The film benefits from some great acting. Certainly, it enjoys a caliber of talent unusual for an independent feature. Jacqueline Bisset as Lila, despite the schlocky role, gives a performance that provides an emotional heart to the movie. Steve Sandvoss is pitch perfect as the sweet, conflicted, not-quite-naive Mormon (Aaron). Rebekah Johnson brings a feistiness that brings the stock fag-hag character (Julie) to life. Wes Ramsey as protagonist Christian does a good job as well, with the exception of a couple of overwrought monologues. But the monologues were written that way, so it’s hard to blame Ramsey too much. (Wait until he tells the story of getting left behind in the woods. You’ve got to be kidding me.)

The character of Christian irritates me. It’s like the writer (C. Jay Cox) said to himself, I want this person to be Gay Everyman. But his version of Gay Everyman happens to encompass a whole lot of stereotypical behavior. Meanwhile, the character of Aaron was very engaging: sweet, kind, and sincere. I really wanted Aaron to find happiness. Probably the filmmakers intended the central conflict to hinge on whether Aaron and Christian got together. But in watching the movie, I cared about that only insofar as it meant Aaron was able to exorcise his personal demons. Although I did appreciate Christian’s rather dramatic personal growth over the course of the film.

I have mixed emotions about the character of Keith (Erik Palladino), the gay man suffering from advanced AIDS. I always have mixed emotions about HIV/AIDS in gay-themed films: I tire of the association of disease, HIV/AIDS in particular, with the gay community, so I get frustrated easily when it seems like every other film throws in an HIV+ character for some kind of street cred.

On the other hand, HIV/AIDS is an important part of the history of the gay community, and remains a continuing concern. Especially since many young gay people nowadays don’t seem to take HIV/AIDS seriously.

But Keith’s role in the film is just over-the-top in a film already brimming with negative gay clichés. Christian finds meaning and depth by getting to know this gay man, who used to be like Christian, until AIDS enlightened him to the true meaning of Christmas.

That character is indicative of what’s fundamentally wrong with the movie. I can value having a guy in the movie who has AIDS, who has actually stopped and looked at the events of his life (including but not limited to the disease) and actually managed to squeeze out insight and wisdom. Consider the HIV+ character of Ben (Robert Gant) in “Queer as Folk.” But that’s not exactly how Keith’s character is portrayed; he’s too one-note, with too many one-liners, to have the depth needed for his role.

The movie is simply too heavy-handed without having the depth of character or thematic goods to back it up. One scene portrays an argument Christian has with some random trick that sleeping together is much more intimate than sex, and how the preference for the latter over the former is an unhealthy reversal of priorities in the gay community. That experience apparently helps Christian to appreciate the value of the depth and moral center that Aaron offers. It could have worked, had it been written and directed with any subtlety or nuance.

And then there’s the treatment of the Mormon Church.

In a lot of ways, “Latter Days” is an uncomfortable film. It benefits from an underlying sweetness, which mostly originates in the performances (especially Lila and Aaron). And the lead characters, unoriginal though they may be, are basically likeable – that helps a whole lot.

But the charm is undercut by a hateful edge: at the same time it’s trying to be a gay love story, the film is also attacking the Mormon Church (and, by extension, any organized religion which considers homosexuality sinful). The filmmakers have the right to make whatever kind of movie they want; and if they want to attack the Mormon Church, so be it. I’m not a fan of Mormonism, based upon what I know if it, so I have no argument with that. But using the medium of film to attack something lends a certain ugliness to the feel of the work. Trying to be a sweet love story and an assault on a particular group of people at the same time makes for a strange viewing experience. Even being unfamiliar with Mormon missionary work, I had the sense that certain facts were distorted or dramatized in order to highlight the condemnation of Mormonism. Ryder (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is too much a caricature of intolerant evangelism to really take seriously.

Consider the thoughts of reviewer and commentator Eric Snyder on this subject:

“Cox is allowed some poetic license, of course; he never claimed he was making a documentary. But I have to question his motives. As a former church member, Cox knows how missionaries really talk and act, and he knows how the church really operates. He is skewing the facts either A) because doing so helps his story progress, or B) because he wants viewers to dislike the church as much as he does. I hope it is option A, as that only makes him a bad filmmaker — good filmmakers use the facts of the world as they actually are to tell their stories, and don’t resort to making stuff up — while option B would make him something worse. Intentionally distorting the facts so your opponent looks more evil than he is smells like propaganda — which, again, is Cox’s right as a filmmaker, but which makes him seem like a guy with an ax to grind, not a guy with a story to tell” (1).

I did wonder myself about whether the filmmakers had an ax to grind, but I was equally confused by the mixed messages in the movie, because there’s just so much gay negativity.  And not just around the conflicted Mormon boy. Of course, Aaron is the most tortured of all the characters. Sometimes literally: wait until the scenes from the prison, er, hospital trying to “fix” him following Aaron’s attempt to “fix” himself, in a manner of speaking.

The film portrays a society which persecutes and literally tortures gay people because of unyielding, unthinking homophobia. Aaron persecutes and tortures himself because he has internalized that perspective. But what is the alternative presented, the other side of the story?

Is it someone like Gene Robinson or Mel White, well-known gay men committed to spiritual work in the world? No.

Or even someone like the aforementioned Ben from “Queer As Folk,” who certainly suffers from his own inner demons but is still a person of impressive depth and learning? No.

It’s a promiscuous (even when he’s pining for Aaron, he still brings tricks home!), theatrical, superficial flake who is held up in the film to represent openly gay life. What does that say? It’s an odd juxtaposition, at the least. Take the worst of the anti-gay world and the most clichéd of gay life, and throw them together!

As stated, I like this film. It benefits from a basic sweetness and an engaging exploration of the universal human longing for affection and understanding and the peeling away of the protective emotional layers we wrap around ourselves. Some of the scenes are fantastic. I especially enjoyed the penultimate scene, the emotional climax of the movie. Even if the plot that led us to that moment was contrived and forced, it’s still a great moment.

But keep your expectations low – the film suffers from a heavy-handed approach to theme and a cookie-cutter approach to characterization and plot that prevent the film from truly shining.

—————————

(1) Snyder, Eric. “Latter Days,” EricDSnider.com, March 2004, http://www.ericdsnider.com/movies/latter-days (17 August 2007)