Change Your Image
startlepoint
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
The Falls (2012)
A Love Story Full of Laughs, Profundity, and Pain
From beginning to end, THE FALLS is an engaging tale of two Mormon missionaries who discover something greater than they had expected.
The handsome and engaging RJ Smith, who is also the narrator, begins his journey as a novice, meeting his fellow elder Chris Merril with a humble and accommodating attitude, even agreeing to share in what would become a romantic ritual of consuming Lucky Charms.
As the story progresses, Chris becomes the more vulnerable figure, as the tenets of his "Latter Day Saints" faith start to falter, and RJ emerges as the stronger of the two as he lends his emotional support. The two personalities diverge more as their attraction grows stronger, but something keeps them together regardless.
All the years of indoctrination, telling them their feelings are "wrong" and "sinful," get capsized. There are moments of joy, introspection, great conversations with a traumatized Gulf War veteran who ends up converting them to his philosophy rather than the other way around, and lots of pain as one lover gets more paranoid while the other gets stronger in asserting his sexual identity.
By the end, THE FALLS offers both a quirky and touching romance, with actors who establish a genuine mutual chemistry, and a plot that challenges religious doctrine in favor of what Lord Alfred Douglas once called "the love that dare not speak its name."
Good Riddance (2011)
"Good Riddance"? -- or "Sorry You're Gone"?
This is one confusing documentary. It starts out with anti-O'Hair sentiments as nasty as the caricature of her on the DVD cover. O'Hair biographer Ann Rowe Seaman seems especially fragile and triggered about her subject's aggressive personality, especially when reading out some mean portions of what was, after all, O'Hair's private diary. (Maybe Seaman was better off writing about someone like J.K. Rowling or Oprah).
When the time came to address O'Hair's lawsuit in San Diego with the Truth Seeker publication, I would have appreciated a bit more background information on what had happened. What did she mean when, after lawyer Roy Withers asked her how she got her money, she retorted by asking if "dancing boys in sequin jockstraps" is a living? Was she implying something about Withers himself, or the Truth Seeker owner? She uttered a poetic set of words here, but they had no context.
The previous reviewer is correct regarding O'Hair's pronunciation of god as "gawd." That's the way many from Baltimore talk. Phil Donahue, though a Catholic, had been mostly supportive of O'Hair and called her a "friend." Like many, he had reservations about her combative style but defended her message.
My favorite parts of the documentary were the interviews with Tim Young (the T.J. Young who directed the film) and Ed Martin. These two investigators provided some information about the circumstances of Robin O'Hair's death that were shocking.
Going back to the documentary's confusing viewpoint, the film starts out with a negative view of the famous atheist, but by the end, it lauds her efforts. Even the delicate Ms. Seaman admits that O'Hair's blistering style was likely the only way the message of church-state separation would have gotten any public attention.
Back in the sixties through the eighties, there were few (if any) other prominent atheists; most of them stayed confined to ivory towers, or like Carl Sagan, mentioned it casually. (Some leading atheists today like Sam Harris put me to sleep with their academic lingo.) O'Hair was the only people's atheist who, after getting numerous death threats and having her children threatened as well, developed a harder shell. But her ability to articulate an unpopular viewpoint (and hold her own against the holy rollers) is stunning to watch.
This is worth viewing, but if you're sympathetic to O'Hair, be patient: the film gets better as it moves along.
Starship Troopers (1997)
Hail to the Good "Fascists"!
I watched this movie again recently, and while finding darkly humorous moments, I still don't get the so-called "joke." Yet I have to laugh at the groupthink that this film is somehow a parody of American militarism and "fascism."
The bugs were ugly and real! The humans from America (and Buenos Aires) were beautiful, fought to preserve their existence, and deserved to win!
But I guess America was "fascist" when it entered the European theater during World War II. (Charles Lindbergh advised us against this, after all!) We were also "fascist" by putting an end to the Shinto-based fanatics of Japan!
Verhoeven is a silly man: one more agent of a dying Europe (at least countries that still choose to stay in the E.U.). Nowadays, he still sits cross-legged at press conferences, making digs at President Trump, and trying to weasel his way out of the fact that he made (I guess inadvertently) a movie that is essentially pro-military and pro-war!
God's Own Country (2017)
I Enjoyed Most of This Movie -- and I'm PRO-BREXIT.
A charismatic man travels from the East to heal and to spread love: this Christ-like variation set as a secular gay love story is appealing. The Romanian gentleman is like a savior of sorts who cures the dying lambs -- both the animals and John Saxby.
The love scenes are among the best I've seen in a gay film. Also, the story, though possible, is less than plausible, particularly because the Romanian happens to be the only applicant for the temporary job on the Saxby farm, making the union of the two men more miraculous than likely. This mystical overtone might explain why the Romanian's saliva can somehow heal John's stigmata wound.
These factors are why I enjoyed the film. However, the director Simon Lee, who admits to not thinking about Brexit at all when making the film, now uses the issue to make anti-Brexit statements -- as if Brexit would have barred the Romanian from entering the country at all, which is not what Brexit is really about. With or without Brexit, the chance encounter of these two gentlemen would have been just as possible and/or improbable.
The movie is at its weakest in the scene at the pub when Saxby just sits there and lets the pub owners give him and his friend dagger eyes. It is so unconvincing that I wonder if there is more to it than what the final cut provides. Take a look at the deleted scenes: one in which Saxby stops at some park to cruise. A man he pursues wears the identical jacket as the man in the pub who splashes beer on Saxby's boyfriend, and he does so after Saxby whispers something in the man's ear before going off to the toilet to indulge in his old anonymous sex habit.
Could the man in the pub be staring wickedly because he might be jealous? Could the woman be looking so nasty because she is just sick of Saxby coming to the pub and getting so drunk that they have to pour him into a cab on a regular basis? Who knows how much puke she might have had to clean up on previous evenings during his visits?
Simon Lee gets defensive when people assume that the farm community in Yorkshire is homophobic. Homophobia is not an issue at all, according to him. But the idea of the pub owners being so xenophobic that they cannot stand the thought of a handsome, well-behaved, paying Romanian customer on the premises -- and accompanied by a regular local customer -- seems much more far fetched and patronizing.
These issues get in the way of my enjoyment of what I believe Simon Lee intended as a love story about two lonely misfits. But he and Josh O'Connor seem intent on giving it an anti-Brexit spin that ultimately cheapens the film's impact. They should both shut up and just let the movie play!
HyperNormalisation (2016)
Adam Curtis' Perception Management
Adam Curtis is a master at great montage, using music, images, and hysterical narration to illustrate points that are often valid but sometimes boldly deceptive and downright misguided.
"HyperNormalisation" is one of the best of examples of both the good and bad of Curtis' documentaries. Parts about the manipulation of popular perceptions by politicians and corporations are effective and make great sense. One of the best moments is when Curtis juxtaposes the assassination of Romania's Mr. and Mrs. Nicolae Ceaușescu with images from Jane Fonda's workout video, illustrating how the old world of the Cold War was being replaced by a new one, where individuals are distracted by trivia, and where new enemies either emerge or are created.
The tension builds as Colonel Qaddafi gets remolded from an international pariah into a temporary good guy -- only to be vilified once again and killed. The problem with the film really starts here: nowhere does Curtis stress that Obama and Hillary were in charge at the time of this hypocritical about-face. Hillary's infamous "We came, we saw, he died" remark would have added so much more power to Curtis' point and to his narrative. And it would have made him seem much more evenhanded in his judgments.
This film came out, however, just when Donald Trump won the Republican Presidential nomination. And by the tone Curtis takes when speaking of Trump, viewers can assume Curtis favored Hillary's victory. So, he appears to have manipulated his film with the pending U.S. election in mind.
Reagan and George W. are generously faulted throughout the film for their roles in international mischief, but the slight presence of Obama and Hillary, and the continual castigation of Trump (who was yet to prove himself on the political stage) makes this film -- despite its many poignant moments -- an ultimate failure. Curtis is himself guilty of the "perception management" that he tries to fault throughout.
Kater (2016)
A Cat Tale for the Dogs! -- Spoiler Alert
I thought that a story about the struggle between two gay lovers after their cat dies would be engaging as well as a novel idea. Mind you, the cat is beautiful and the most engaging part of the story, for the short time that he is allowed to live.
My impression is that the two men adopted the cat, named Moses, as a stray, which might explain why they continue to let him run wild outside in the night against the elements. During one of his nocturnal explorations, Moses runs into a small fox; the two animals engage in combat, and Moses ultimately wins but picks up some kind of disease or distemper in the process. This, to me, explains what happens to him soon after.
Some reviewers of this film assume that Stefan, one of the lovers, purposely kills the cat, but Moses seems to die spontaneously as a result of the fox fight. Stefan, however, feels guilty that the cat died in his hands, a problem that gets worse when his lover Andreas suspects Stefan killed the animal.
From there, the plot deteriorates into some of the clichés that *dog* other urbane gay films about urbane gay life: the relentless classical music and smooth jazz, the soul-less dinner parties, the wine, the plush lifestyle, the affluent pretenses, and of course, the sex, which comes across as soft porn and, in one instance, involves a friend who likes to sit beside the bed and watch Andreas and Stefan go at it. Accompanying all of this is mediocre photography and a plodding narrative that needed better editing -- or in this case, gelding.
Only when Andreas and Stefan agree to take care of a friend's adorable white kitten does the story take on genuine horror and tension -- but not because of the director's skill. I just found myself terrified at what might happen to this poor animal in the hands of these two morons whose relationship seems ridiculous and unconvincing and who seem reckless about many things in life.
We are left uncertain about the poor kitten's future, but I wonder what the reaction of the viewing public would be if Moses had been a canine. Would there have been an outcry? Would audiences care so much about whether these two guys end up happy?
A previous film about two gay lovers called "Hawaii" refers to the two men joking about killing a cat in their youth. Still, we are supposed to care about these guys. Something's wrong: cats beware!
Hawaii (2013)
It's a wonderfully romantic film, but...
This film has beautiful colors, music, and atmosphere. The men are attractive yet don't have that artificially buffed-up gym look, which makes them all the more compelling. Sometimes, I wish the inevitable romance had moved along a little more quickly. Letting it linger (with predictable sexual innuendo) helps keep the audience in suspense, I suppose, but the delay is sometimes annoyingly coy. And I cannot understand why the character who had initiated the physical intimacy in the first place had to recoil after receiving that first kiss.
Yes, I enjoyed watching the evolving romance of these two guys and their childhood reminiscence -- that is until they both smugly refer to the time they stoned a cat to death (and don't seem to feel any remorse). Somehow, this put a damper on my appreciation of their "sensitivity" and made me care about them less. If I could edit out those lines, I'd like the film much more. But come to think of it, the cat reference in the film might be a sinister narrative trick to make us realize that these two guys are, in reality, a couple of self-centered creeps whom we should care nothing about!
Terror Firmer (1999)
Great Film but Disappointing DVD Commentaries!
TERROR FIRMER is, by far, the best of the Troma films. The editing (including Troma's trademark continuity gaffes) and pacing are excellent, the dark humor and gross-outs are relentless, and there is even some intellectual fodder for those brave enough to "theorize" about a Troma movie.
The behind-the-scenes murder mystery theme is funny and surreal. The lead actors are also good and command a strong screen presence. But TERROR FIRMER is also great for having about as much male nudity as female nudity. I think this is because the film's writers appear to be making astute comments about the sometimes-confounding nature of sexual desire. This Troma production seems tailored to shock the jocks by pushing lots more than the usual T&A in their faces! The jokes and visual metaphors about penises fire out like bullets -- and the vulgar lines are akin to John Waters at his raunchy best.
The only problem I have is with some of the DVD commentaries. There are three to choose from; the one from the actors is decent, but the one from the film's editors is disappointing. They make a film that out-shocks all others, is extremely violent and "weird," and is (in some ways) gayer than any Troma film I've seen -- yet they seem to be almost apologizing for it all, making sure the audience knows they are "straight," and coming off as far too "normal" for such a brilliantly twisted movie. What a buzz kill! Then again, maybe their fear of being (or seeming) gay might also speak for the film's subversive power.
Still, the final result -- the movie itself -- is good and worth repeated viewings. Just don't let some of its creators ruin the mystique of their creation.