Overall 0.5 / 5.0 (don’t bother)
Gay Inclusve? Very – mostly gay, some hetero secondary characters
Gay Positive? No – I don’t think they meant to be homophobic, but jeez…

Wow. I actually watched the whole thing, and in hindsight, how did I manage that? I feel like Superman now, able to watch awful movies in their entirety.

Here is the most positive thing I can say about this movie: the performances seem very earnest and enthusiastic, so kudos to the cast for bringing that energy to the show.

Unfortunately, it is far, far… far… from enough to save the film from its choppy editing, godawful camera shots, and aimless plot.

In theory, the movie is supposed to be a satire of a gay man (Jaime, played by Brian Campbell) looking for love and self-understanding via a search for a “straight lover who will be gay just for me.” The movie’s own blurb states, “In the end, Jaime is amazed to discover the one person he never thought he would – himself!”

That’s a stretch. Jaime comes from a background of casual, anonymous sexual encounters in the back of an adult bookstore. One gets the sense he’s never had a real relationship based on commitment and intimacy.

Meanwhile, at his job at an auto shop, he’s closeted. He develops a “bromance” with a (straight) fellow employee (Ray, played by Matt Edwards) who turns out to be a homophobe who tries to get Jaime into deep trouble in a completely contrived plot twist.

Somewhere along the course of the movie, the self-loathing Jaime tries to convince a peer from his backroom sexcapades to move to the suburbs with him and a pair of lesbians to pose as straight couples, so they can try to seduce married straight men. They detour on the way, however, with a series of bathroom encounters with gas station attendants. The film also includes an odd subplot involving a young man (Monty, Michael Gonring) with a self-professed fetish for “trolls” (older gay men). Monty is engaged to be married, and he leaves at the end of the movie for his bride.

I think I’m so disappointed in the movie because its foundational ideas are actually interesting to me. The fetish for straight men (and certainly for straight-acting) is prevalent throughout the gay community, so a satire about a gay man looking for a straight man who will be gay only for him suggests the possibility of both a lot of comedy and a lot of insight. Similarly, youth is highly fetishized in the gay community, so Monty’s subplot could have been woven into the story to enhance and reflect the main story’s theme. Alas. The script is a mishmash of barely coherent scenes and nonstarter plot threads.

My recommendation: Skip it.

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
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 Quality 3.5 / 5.0 (recommended)
Gay Content 4.0 / 5.0
Gay Positivity 3.5 / 5.0

The Curiosity of Chance is an 80’s flashback movie. The titular character Chance, played by Tad Hilgenbrink, has transferred to a new international school in Europe (his father, Chris Mulkey, is apparently stationed overseas). Chance must defend himself against the bully jock (Brad, played by Maxim Maes).

Yeah, the film suffers from several weaknesses that prevent it from truly shining. Most of the characters are completely one-note, and the plot is both contrived and meandering. “Edge of Seventeen” (1998) did this genre with a deeper, more moving script. (As a side note, Hilgenbrink bears a striking resemblance to Chris Stafford in “Edge of Seventeen“).

A couple of minor twists help: Chance is already out, and his father’s reaction is repeatedly unexpected. I kept expecting his military dad to fall into stereotypical “No son of mine is going to be a fairy,” but he never does. Refreshing.

On the whole, I like this movie, though. It’s entertaining and pleasantly positive. Tad Hilgenbrink is fantastic: he carries this film. He breathes life into a cardboard character, and he has the absolute best sense of comic timing of anyone in this film.

I also like Brett Chukerman as good-guy jock Levi … or maybe I mean I like looking at Brett Chukerman … He ably imbues his character with crucial likability, but he did stronger work as Marc in “Eating Out 2″ (2006).

Having said that, Chukerman’s character represents a great and innovative twist in the movie. The viewer spends most of the movie wondering if he’s gay, and if he’s going to get together with Chance. For myself, I was torn.

On the one hand, I like the idea of a really cool straight jock who’s totally gay-friendly. On the other hand, I wanted Chance to get together with the hot jock. I don’t want to give anything away, but the movie tries to have it both ways – and largely succeeds! Some viewers might feel the ending was a cop-out, but I found the ambiguity well-handled.

The Curiosity of Chance is an entertaining and amusing diversion with some really great, and gay-positive, twists. Don’t expect great cinema, but it’s good fun.

This movie can’t decide what it wants to be. The script tackles serious, heavy topics like abortion, divorce, children dying, and infidelity as though they’re sources of humor. In fact, the movie bills itself as a comedy, and while it elicits a few chuckles here and there, it’s largely unfunny. Meanwhile, Everyone fails to probe the dramatic issues enough to yield any meaning or purpose.

Ryan (Matt Fentiman) and Grant (Mark Hildreth) are having a commitment ceremony, attended by family members, all of whom bring their current relationship foibles to the event. The title seems to suggest that “everyone” suffers relationship woes, including the couple tying the knot. In one scene of pre-wedding jitters, Grant asks Ryan if he knows any happy couples. Ryan retorts, do you know any happy single people? And that seems to be the central message of the movie: everyone is miserable!

Here’s an interesting juxtaposition: After Everyone, I watched Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). In that, the protagonist Frodo (Elijah Wood) wishes that the terrible circumstances of that fantasy tale had not come to pass. The wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) replies, “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

This powerful message easily applies to the misdirected couples of Everyone. In great movies, the stories place their characters into terrible or challenging situations and then depict what they do with what is given to them. But this movie ends where it begins, without any sense of growth, evolution, or insight. Only one couple seems to find any healing: Grant’s brother (Andrew Moxham) and his wife (Anna Williams). Even that felt forced.

The movie enjoys high production values and passable performances, but I felt disengaged from all the characters, and plot-wise and thematically the movie just doesn’t take the viewer anywhere new.

Overall: Tepid. At first engaging but ultimately unsatisfactory.

Positivity-wise, the movie started off strong. Grant and Ryan seem at first to have the strongest relationship of any of their siblings. Unfortunately, the movie heads in the direction of several negative stereotypes, and those incidents fail to contribute any value to the story. Very disappointing.

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.

I love the Muppets, so I am pre-disposed to enjoy their movies. That said, I recognize that there’s a wide range of quality in their films. “Muppets From Space” (1999), for example, while cute, was also dumb and relatively forgettable. Yet I think the filmmakers did a superb job with this movie. The script is a surprisingly clever and adept adaptation of the classic novel. They skillfully juxtapose the human actors and the muppet characters, as well as family-friendly humor with the gravitas (not a word you expected to hear in reference to a muppet movie, eh?) of the Dickens’ original story.

Michael Caine did an excellent job as Scrooge. Wisely, he played straight man to the muppets. He acted as though he were in a serious adaptation rather than a cartoonish version aimed at children, with the result that the movie manages to convey the depth of the story while making it appealing to the intended audience.

I think the novel “A Christmas Carol” lends itself well to children’s versions because it relies so heavily on the sense of magic that embodies the season for kids. But most children’s versions, while they may be cute, fail to convey the deep philosophical and moral questions the novel raises. And so they lose a fundamental aspect of the book.

On the other hand, many of the “grown-up” adaptations seem colorless to me, lacking in the sense of fantasy, magic, and wonder that really embodies the season. “The Muppet Christmas Carol” is weighted toward kids but still manages to strike an enjoyable balance of the two sides to the story. Highly recommended.

For those who are interested in such, there is zero gay content to the movie. None was expected; it is an adaptation intended for kids of a Christian-oriented book from the late 19th century, after all. Maybe some day a show like Sesame Street will pioneer portraying the “Heather Has Two Mommies” kind of diversity, but this movie easily steers clear of such territory.

(Note – this review covers the theatrical widescreen showing.)

Full disclosure – I am not predisposed to enjoy this film because Will Ferrell’s usual manic performances put me off. And Will Ferrell is both foundation and focus of this movie. Were I a fan of the actor, my impression of the film would be much different. If you are a fan, keep my disclosure in mind as you read my comments.

Having said all that, I genuinely believe “Elf” to be overrated as a Christmas movie. Most reviewers seem to take its gushing, good-natured, earnest, surprisingly un-cynical and un-ironic approach to the holiday and go, “Ahhhh,” as if swooning over an adorable little puppy.

But not grinchy me.

I’ll start with the good stuff. Though perhaps not a laugh riot, it is successfully chuckle-worthy, and the film’s sweetness is endearing … at least until the end, when it turns nauseatingly saccharine.

Oops, sorry. I meant to talk about the good stuff.

The movie begins in the North Pole, where orphan baby Buddy (Will Ferrell) finds himself after crawling into Santa’s bag. The North Pole has a decidedly retro look, populated by kindly elves and a Burl Ives-inspired snowman. The design strongly recalls Rankin and Bass’s classic “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer” (1964).

The basic premise of “Elf” adheres to the fish-out-of-water paradigm. In the North Pole, Buddy is too human to fit in. In New York, he is too elfy. It works better in the North Pole. His time in Santaland is definitely the film’s highlight, and I wished he had lingered there longer. But alas! His adoptive father, Papa Elf (Bob Newhart) reveals that Buddy is really human, and his father lives in New York. Naturally, Buddy must begin his liminal adventure to find and embrace his heritage.

Speaking of Bob Newhart, the film benefits from some great casting. Newhart is an inspired choice for the role, and he makes a brilliant turn as an elf. Zooey Deschanel (Jovie) and Peter Dinklage (as cynical children’s author Miles Finch) are wonderfully entertaining.

The script also contains some good lines. My favorite: Buddy, who knows the real Santa (played by Ed Asner), tells a department store fake, “You sit on a throne of lies!”

Unfortunately, the film also suffers from some serious weaknesses. The fish-out-of-water story is formulaic and forgettably lightweight. Once Buddy reaches New York, the storyline becomes painfully predictable and just moves in circles. And the naïveté that was so endearing in the North Pole turns irritating in New York. Ferrell’s performance, which felt fresh and unforced in the North Pole sequence, grows wearying the longer he stays in New York.

I mentioned something called a liminal journey a moment ago. Many myths and legends depict a hero(ine)’s rite of passage through three stages. In the preliminary stage, the hero must leave home and journey to unfamiliar regions, like Buddy leaving the North Pole and traveling to New York.

In the liminal stage, the hero is poised between two worlds, between the old sense of self and a new, more mature selfhood. Typically, the hero’s previously inflexible understanding of the world begins to shift with exposure to different ideas and perspectives. The film’s story begins to fail here: Buddy remains resolutely, forcedly naive, even after repeated exposure to New York’s culture.

In the final, postliminal stage, the hero has fully incorporated new understandings and developed a more mature and fully developed persona. This doesn’t happen in the movie. I would have appreciated this film much more if Buddy had developed some new wisdom or understanding that marries the best of both worlds, but the final scene makes clear that Buddy ends where he begins. As a result, “Elf” is a superficial foray into clichéd territory. Without thematic depth, it must rely solely upon its humor for its success.

Unfortunately, it’s just not funny enough. Ferrell’s acting, the script, the editing, and the direction are all competent enough, but none shine, and they don’t come together to make a stellar movie.

Overall, I recommend you check it out at least once if you like cutesy, fluffy holiday fare. Younger audiences will appreciate it more. Just don’t let your expectations get the better of you.

Many modern gay-themed films seem to feel the need to disparage the gay film canon as portraying gay life in stereotypical and derogatory ways. They’re right. Then they succumb to the exact same problem.

The script of “AOTG” slams “In and Out” (the Kevin Kline vehicle) for presenting a stereotypical, self-hating gay man, and then proceeds to present a stereotypically self-destructive, promiscuous drunk (a hard-to-like Tom, played by the likable Richard Ruccolo). Tom meets Eli because their respective best friends are getting married. In theory, romance and hilarity ensue.

But the movie failed to make me believe in the romance between the two leads. Why did Eli (Dan Bucatinsky) keep trying after Tom was such an ass to him? Why would Tom keep pursuing someone who was so self-righteous and critical of him? Why would either character care about the other when the actors portraying them had so little chemistry?

The entire film is predicated on their on-again, off-again relationship, but I never understood why they kept trying. It doesn’t help that Tom is more caricature than character. I applaud Ruccolo for actually giving Tom some humanity (which helped the Gay Positivity score), because the script just presents him as Drunk-and-Unable-to-Commit Gay Guy.

Tom comes from an emotionally abusive background, raised by alcoholic parents, and now he himself is an alcoholic. The movie suggests his problems make him incapable of serious commitment. His best friend Jackie (Sasha Alexander, one of the highlights of the film) points out that he’s so self-hating he falls out of love with anyone who falls in love with him.

Meanwhile, the other problems that plague true alcoholics are absent or glossed over. Tom drinks throughout the film, but not only does the rest of his life seem unaffected, he still tends not to emote. He’s not an angry drunk, not a loving drunk, not a sweet drunk, not a quiet drunk. Wait! How do we even know he’s drunk? Oh, right, he’s in Alcoholics Anonymous, and he has a drink in his hand. Ergo, he’s a drunk.

In other words, his drinking is a plot device without the goods backing it up to make the drama believable or emotionally moving.

While I compliment Ruccolo for making an irritating character into an engaging role, the flip side is the character becomes less credible. I wanted to see some rage, which is hinted at, but the film never delves too deeply – being a comedy and all.

I wanted to see his life falling apart around him so that he would pull himself together, and then I could cheer for this basically good guy overcoming some serious personal problems. But at the end of the movie, the characters are more or less where they were at the beginning.

On the positive side, the movie does have its funny moments (mostly provided by Sasha Alexander and Adam Goldberg) and features some great acting talent. And yeah, it’s better than a lot of the trash that’s out there. It’s a good watch if you’ve exhausted the slim library of other gay romantic comedies. And while I won’t say this is a gay-positive movie, neither is it overtly gay-negative. Fortunately, there’s no “I’m gay, woe is me” subplot, no homophobia.

In the end, this movie irritates me because it could have been so much better. It’s a potentially credible drama posing as a romantic comedy. But the script’s uneven attempt to make light of something so serious bleaches the story of realism and impact. The result is a tepid and mediocre film.