I had high hopes for this movie as someone who has had my share of struggles reconciling my Christian faith and my being gay. The writer missed a good opportunity to address some Biblical issues when talking to his female friend but failed to take advantage of them. Also, the editing was atrocious as it was way too slow making the movie drag painfully in places. The biggest complaint was an ending that was a major letdown in two ways: not actually showing the coming out conversation with the mother and failure to establish a relationship with Gerald and forgetting the loser. On the positive side, the masters thesis made some valid points, the acting and writing were pretty good. I hope this writer/director will continue to make films on gay subject matter, taking into account constructive commentary anywhere he can get it.
Add a Review
-
relaxguy4 April 2015
-
aretel1 March 2014This film lacks the luster to captivate it's audience right from the start. The story line of a gay closeted seminarian student Ryan (Mark Cirillo), working on a master's thesis based on love, relationships and hypocrisy, in order to get into a post graduate Ivy League school makes very little sense in the evolution of this film. The story makes an attempt at character development, but falls short in its execution. Ryan's character is bland and unexciting with extended close up scenes that's are without dialogue or expression which makes you want to press the "fast forward" button. The cinematography and editing was sloppy and unimaginative, and does nothing to enhance the film's objective which is to allow the audience to identify with Ryan's struggle on theologies and personal experiences.
The gratuitously long nude scene with Mark Cirillo and Matthew Hannond seemed awkwardly out of place at the end of the movie and had no purpose other than to sensationalize Cirillo's well endowed member and to provide a hook for potential future audiences. There is nothing in this film with substance or character identification; making this film very difficult to watch in its entirety. This is perhaps due to the shortcomings and lack of vision that Joshua Lim has for movie making. -
The trailer portrayed the film very promising but as I sat at its premiere I could not wait to get out of the theater. The audience agrees as you can hear and see their reaction to its slow paced development that lead to nothing and/or the awkward script.
I am not sure why a lot of people are raving about this film. Perhaps it's production quality is slightly better than other homosexual-base films, or maybe just certain viewers only enjoyed its male frontal scenes?
PRODUCTION: Above-average, simple sets.
ACTING: Unimpressive and most of the actors did not commit to their characters. Therefore, it's harder for the audience to connect
DIRECTING: See all above. Enough said. -
michaelrthomson17 October 2015I'd not read the reviews, or indeed anything about this before downloading it to watch, I thought it could be an interesting storyline - although one we've heard before.
The opening ten minutes was enough to prove that one should not bother with this sort of content. I turned it off and went and watched some paint dry which was more interesting than this stinker.
Two days later I'd run out of paint so I thought i'd try again, being tenacious and all. What I was rewarded with was the most awful acting, and complete clichés everywhere in terms of the 'gay' storyline. This mixed with an awful presence of religious judgments was enough to do my head in.
I didn't really find anything original in this at all, the stories have been told better by plenty of film makers. I'm not surprised I've never heard of or seen these 'actors' elsewhere - their only real expertise was how to remain wooden and expressionless throughout, even in the occasional moments that might otherwise elicit a response.
Ultimately this is a good 90 mins of my life I'll never get back, I cannot for the life of me think of any aspect of this movie that redeems it.
Oh one last comment, I think the film maker threw in several penis shots just to create interest (or enthusiasm), all it served to do was highlight that this movie wasn't the only flaccid thing going on on my TV screen.
I would say if you have 90 mins up your sleeve, and you can't find any drying paint or grass growing to watch, then you could bore yourself with this debacle of a movie. -
For reasons passing understanding, virtually every scene in this movie was too long. If the guy's phone rang, the camera would linger on it for what seemed like days. The back and forth of an ordinary telephone conversation was punctuated by extra long periods of nothing. No matter what scene began, there was an extra long establishing shot. Otherwise, it was a decently acted story that was more or less believable.
-
bgthomaswriter11 November 2015Is it a spoiler when I say this movie left me depressed?
If you want to watch a seemingly endless rambling movie that is depressing, then I highly recommend The Seminarian. If on the other hand you don't want to waste one hour and 41 minutes where when you get to the end you sit there wondering why anyone would even make such a film—then I don't recommend it. My guess is that the author of this piece is a very unhappy man and wants you do be as well. Like, "Love is a curse from God and why should I be the only one that suffers? I want my audience to suffer as well." This film was not for me and I am pretty angry that Josh Middleton of GPhilly recommended it. I wish I could sue to get my time back. I obviously won't watch anything else he recommends or that Joshua Lim, the writer and director, makes. I don't need my every movie to have a happy go lucky happily ever after ending...but God. It's a good thing I'm not suicidal! -
I bought this movie somewhat on a whim after reading reviews on several sites, and I'm glad I did. "The Seminarian" is a thoughtful -- and thought-provoking -- study not only of main character Ryan's quest for love, but of how each person has to find his or her own path to happiness. Some people try to find this through religion, others through friendship, others through romantic relationships, others through purely sexual encounters. Ryan is trying to balance all of these, and sometimes his intense focus on one makes him lose sight of the importance of the others. The other characters represent these different parts of Ryan's existence -- Eugene & Kelli are God's love; Gerald & Anthony are friendship; Bradley is romance; and Kevin is sex. As an allegory, then, these interrelationships worked well for me. Other reviewers have commented on the slow pace, and they're right that this isn't exactly an action flick. But it wasn't meant to be. Some reviews mention the brief nudity in a couple of scenes, and yes, it was probably put there by the director solely to titillate certain audiences. But it was also realistic... No one wears clothes 24/7, so why should the characters in a movie? Bottom line: Take "The Seminarian" for what it is, accept it for what it's not, and I think most people will find it worth their time.
-
arizona-philm-phan29 October 2012Thinking himself only good enough to fall for and cling to an emotionally broken wreck of a man ("Bradley"), this work's Anti-hero lead actor (Mark Cirillo, playing an increasingly irritating and progressively boring "Ryan") will, at film's end, deny...reject...and break the heart of an emotionally stable fellow seminarian ("Gerald"), who actually loves him.
Along the way through this "goes nowhere mess", our Seminarian calls / texts us to death with a myriad of cell / computer messages---which never amount to much of anything. And don't forget to add in the several "feeling-sorry-for-myself" visits home to Mom.
The 3-Stars are for fairly good production values and some decent side-character acting.
*Evidence of Self-Loathing: "Bradley".....and Ryan's impulsively changing (dependent on his emotional state) Thesis Conclusions.
Final Warning: For your own sanity's sake..avoid this film...um, like something Biblical.....oh, The Plague!
**** -
Coralknight10 September 2016Full disclaimer; I actually started watching this believing it was another movie with the same title, yet within seconds of the opening sequence and hearing that whiny "gay voice", I knew exactly what this film would be about; a self-indulgent, boring gay-themed movie where type-cast Mark Cirillo proves (yet again) that full frontal nudity in a gay indie does wonders for any actor's career (he keeps his towel on for a full 50 seconds this time). If anyone really had the writing skills to explore this theme (i.e. a gay evangelical Christian in seminary) there would be ample fodder for entertainment, but of course the writer/director relied on Mark's willingness to essentially do anything in front of the camera, hoping that someone would find it titillating enough to forget the script and acting is complete crap. Too many cases of long pauses, contrived dialogue and meaningless scenes to count. Surprisingly, out of a cast of horribly bad actors, Javier Montoya stood out as being exceptionally bad; I didn't believe he had a pulse, let alone that he was gay seminarian. In fact, other than some theological quotes and questions thrown in here and there, this is just another low-budget, badly made film about gay angst. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.
-
I found this to be a refreshing film and very satisfying. I watch many gay movies and find many to be mindless. I am forgiving of many flaws, but not poor writing. This film delivers excellent writing. I wondered for a while whether this was originally a play. Material starting life in another medium has usually been well thought out. I read one of the other reviewers who found the action too slow. Perhaps like many people, that reviewer is too impatient. They cannot wait around for character development and their impatience is their loss. I did not find this slow-moving at all.
I found the relationship between Ryan and his mother believable. There was one scene where Ryan is ending his visit with his mother that I wished the camera had lingered just a little longer on his mother's face as she watches Ryan leave. We could have read in our own thoughts. No doubt some would have complained, though. Perhaps some were put off by the fact that the majority of characters were Evangelical Christians who were not easy cardboard targets.
This film does not pretend to be anything but what it is and I found it to be immensely satisfying. This is one for repeat viewing. -
stef-decloe15 September 2012I am agnostic since more than 25 years but I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church. I thought there was a difference between "seminarist" (someone who studies to become a priest) and a "seminarian" (as I found out, exactly the same - dixit internet dictionaries).
I respect everyone's beliefs as long as they respect me.
There must be a difference in sensibility between Europe and the USA regarding this, I think. I thought having been married to someone belonging to an Evangelical (Protestant) confession had learned me more, bit - as it seems - it didn't. The marriage didn't last either. Anyway, I looked a lot up while watching this movie (stop movie, wiki, continue movie, stop & wiki...) and learned a lot.
I too found this movie to be a little slow... There were to many close up's on non moving faces. The actors waited very patiently until the other had said his lines and then replied. What I think this movie lacks the most is spontaneity. The acting seems sometimes unnatural.
I can understand it was made to make think people about some things (and it worked for me): can we justify our suffering by God's suffering? Providing you believe there is a God, this is a very interesting question. The so called "free will"... The questions "why are you still on seminary" and "why are you still a Christian"...? Is falling in love - be it with a man or with a woman - free will? Some interesting points to discuss with friends (and a bottle of good wine) when we will talk about this film.
Apart from the specific situation of the troubled Bradley, we see situations that happen in both gay & straight situations. So, after all we are all the same when it comes to feelings, aren't we? Mark Cirillo is a pleasure for the eye and I think we haven't seen yet what he has in petto. The other actors are OK, but I would have liked a little more spontaneity.
Hence, 6/10. -
coflorida13 May 2020Watching this movie was like Watching a hamster run around on a wheel going nowhere.... I kid you not....from beginning to end...
-
robtaday14 August 2016I am a product of the Harvey Milk Days and this film illustrates a new kind of 21st Century gay. Oh sure, the "good 'ol days" had their share of pathos and heartbreak - drama - but I find it curious that in this day and age, after 40 years of come out, come out and teaching in schools that homosexuality is okay and everything, that this kind of shallow, passive-aggressive, timidity among young gays (particularly on campus) still exists.
Early on our hero poses to his Academic adviser (he attends a top religious-based school and refs to himself as a seminarian) that his belief is that if God is "good", then why does he make "love" so difficult to achieve? He fails to complete the thought, however, in that he stops short of saying, why does God make it so difficult for homosexuals? If he had gone that far and perhaps examined his own life and all those he surrounds himself with, he might find his answer.
He has two or three equally closeted co-students and they have to be the most boring crowd anyone can imagine. They are all cute in a nauseating way, concerned about their physiques, etc. They get online and cam-sex. They all give varying rationalizations for even being at seminary, none of which have anything to do with having faith in Jesus. I would feel better if they just admitted that they came to meet guys.
In what has to be some of the most stilted dialogue ever and equally dull performances, this film is the flip side to the flamboyance of say Bear City, although both illustrate the desperation and hopelessness of pursuing the homosexual "lifestyle." And all of this couched in that magic word that has been so bastardized - love.
Hey seminarian, lust is not love; sex is not love; you are not making love in the back seat of some trick's car nor in the tea room at college - right there, where anybody could walk in and see you, Mr. in-the-closet!!!!
Love is not difficult if you do it the way God designed. It isn't. Only when you go outside of His plan, do the complications occur. Likewise with any of Jesus' prohibitions: drink too much, smoke too much, fool around on your wife, steal a car, lie on your taxes, etc. There is a REASON God says don't do it. Because it will hurt you!!!
Usually, in these gay Christian vs. the Bible flicks, homosexuality wins, mainly because the subject finds some way to justify their "love" for another man through the so-called love of Jesus. No where have I ever seen one of these that acknowledges the existence of Satan or the possibility that sodomy itself is a product of evil intentions on the part of Satan. Jesus talks about Satan a lot so he must exist. We know that men can love one another with no hint of homosexuality whatsoever too. So, if the belief is that God created man and woman to be together and not the proverbial "Adam and Steve", if we acknowledge that God does not "make mistakes", then like the fall of Adam and Eve at the slithering of the serpent, it can also be true that sodomy was part of the curse inflicted upon mankind as part pf that Original Sin. In other words, were the serpent to say to a man of another man: God says do not put that into your mouth but He just wants you to be miserable; He knows you will like it, i.e. forbidden fruit, and you fall for that line, then guess what?
You wanna tell these poor slobs to just get a life. Sitting around waiting for the phone to ring from some guy who is even sicker than you are, even more guilt-ridden than you are doesn't sound like much fun, particularly when all of you are such beta doormats it isn't even funny. Makes you wonder what would happen to any of these twinks were they to find themselves in a rough leather bar. All, however, would make excellent prison fish.
Heck, I am straight and even I would smack them around and make them do what I wanted. -
Truly, I went into this movie with curiosity, interest as the film deals with a seminary student, I had attended a seminary for a time, and I too have been watching a number of gay films recently.
When the film was over, I was joyful, I was satisfied with regard to my curiosity, and I was able to relate in many ways with the ups and downs experienced by the main character.
Because I could relate to the character, because I believed the actor was portraying a gay character, because the other people were like people I have encountered so far in life, and because the film pretty well answered and addressed some of my questions as a gay Christian, I give this film a 9 out of 10. -
mdnjr7024 June 2013This movie may not be for everyone. It isn't fast past and there are a lot of long shots and sequences. The acting it about what I would expect from an Independent film. I thought the story was good and interesting as I know a couple of people who went to Seminary School (I guess that's how you say that). I really enjoyed Mark Cirillo in this (he is adorable I don't care what anyone says) and I thought he did a good job and was a very likable character. I liked the idea of following one person on their personal journey that's what made it relatable and enjoyable to me. It's a shame that it is so poorly rated because they really did do a good job.
-
I usually stay well away from religiously biased films. In this case the film title, The Seminarian, piqued my curiosity as I thought it may either be a unwatchable, cliché ridden, full-on, sex and insensibility, gay scene romp or a philosophical exploration of religious hypocrisy and the oppression it creates for humanity. Thankfully, this film dishes up few of those socio-sexual clichés.
The script is intelligently written, with good, if not great, accompanying cinematography. As the subject matter is of a personal, inner nature, no Lean or Powell majesty was required. The claustrophobic atmosphere of a Seminary was suited to the predominantly fixed angle shots.
The only weakness of The Seminarian was the actors (especially Ryan, the protagonist). His gentle, considerate and emasculated, though, not effeminate, personality would have been better cast by using a less gay mannered man. Ryan's best male friend, also a seminarist, seemed to have not a clue about his sexuality even though his best friends' girlfriend/fiancée appears to have suspected...all along.
I thought Bradley, the focus of Ryan's seemingly wasted affections, was a great character; deeply damaged, Bradley is cruising through a pot-holed life perpetually in the wrong gear and selecting anguish, self-pity, evasiveness, neediness and self-avoiding nymphomania for fuel. Though viewers only get to see him for several seconds throughout the entire film, his actions (don't blink, you'll miss them) are crucial to The Seminarian's thesis.
The cast of seminarist's, armed only with their own delusional focus of belief, has certain of them playing right into the hand of another of their God's vile and cheap tricks. The result being natural humanism conflated with a perverse supernatural Abrahamism.
I gave it 8/10 purely because the protagonist is so well endowed... No I didn't, silly! Score is because I thought it was a unique and intelligent take on self-oppression coupled with religious dogma.
P.S. Nose aside, I hazard Ryan's not a grower, more a shower.