Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds (2006) User Reviews (25)

Much better than the first film

[MatttheBruinsfan · 7/10 · 25 August 2007]

This movie really pleasantly surprised me. I expected that its sole redeeming feature would be the eye candy, as was the case with the original. But it was well written, capably directed, and Verraros, Hand, and Kochan gave good, hysterically funny performances. I wouldn't have guessed the latter two had any talent based on Eating Out, but it seems that was all Q. Allan Brocka's doing rather than the fault of the actresses. Working with Bartell's words and direction they're a delight to watch. Brett Chuckerman isn't quite as charismatic as Ryan Carnes was in the same role, but he does a good job. And Marco Dapper... is very, very good looking. (Hey, just because it turned out to be a good movie doesn't mean they forgot the eye candy...)

I'd recommend it to anyone looking for a funny, sexy movie to spend some time with.

Fun Fluff on the Outside, Some Solid Statements on the Inside

[gradyharp · 7/10 · 6 June 2007]

'Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds' is a sequel that is not really a sequel - unless the common thread of social attitudes and gender dilemmas as an ongoing tale is the source. A low budget, well scripted, tightly directed (Phillip J. Bartell) little film about gay relationships, attraction blunders, and pretending to be something we aren't (mixed representations that Shakespeare used a lot!) result in a light and ultimately charming little movie.

Kyle (Jim Verraros) loves Marc (Brett Chukerman) but tires of Marc's obsession with one-night stands and the relationship is 'over'. Pining Kyle is supported by his two loony girl friends Tiffani (Rebekah Kochan) and Gwen (Emily Brooke Hands), each with gender attraction problems of her own. In an art class taught by flamboyant pseudo-straight Neil (Michael Serrato) the three meet the new nude model Troy (superstud Marco Dapper) and together they hatch a plan to repair Kyle's old damage: Troy for all his demeanor is a bisexual who wants to be straight.... maybe and supplies the key to a game of deceit. The manner in which Kyle fakes a relationship with Tiffani in order to convince Troy to join him in a 'change-over program' (read, get close to him...) leads to a series of hilarious 'go straight' classes and confrontation with parents who play both sides of the 'support our sons' game and leads to a perky ending that just happens to make some comments on perceptions of people, with reality winning.

The cast is young (with the exception of Mink Stole and Sarah Lilly, both of whom offer solid professional backgrounds to their roles) and attractive and seems to be having a great time pulling off this light farce. There is plenty of spectacular eye candy (Marco Dapper, Brett Chukerman, Nicholas James, Adrian Quinonez, James Michael Bobby, etc) and the women's roles are kept light and genuine. A great movie it is not, but a fun diversion it most assuredly is. Grady Harp

Brisk and breezy fun

[marcelproust · 7/10 · 2 April 2007]

One of the other posters here refers to "harsh and unsubstantiated" reviews - how right you are. I'm not sure what people were expecting from a film called Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds, but I found the whole thing delightful from start to finish.

There is ample eye candy in the shape of Marco Dapper and Brett Chukerman. (Although Ryan Carnes is sorely missed. The boy is a subtle and sensitive actor trapped in the body of an Abercrombie & Fitch model.) Yes, there is a totally unbelievable plot, but this is a farce, after all. Rebekah Kochan seems to be channeling Jennifer Coolidge, and I mean that as a huge compliment, and kept me laughing all the way through the film's brisk and breezy ninety minutes.

Great fun.

Wow, the sequel is better!

[Kryzak · 7/10 · 6 June 2007]

I kinda liked the first movie, if only for its premise and craziness, but the first movie had too many awkward moments (especially the piano scene). I must say, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds is a DELIGHTFUL movie, and it's a sequel, no less! I was sad to see the original Marc be played by someone new (and not as good looking), but after I found out the guy was in the short film "Crush", I definitely had a better impression of him (I loved that short film!). Troy was just... I'm speechless. =) Overall, the movie was much quicker, tighter, no serious awkward moments, still over the top as always, light hearted, and funny. There were so many funny sex scenes in this movie it's worth watching it a 2nd time! I'm definitely buying this movie soon!

There's No Such Thing As An Ex-Gay, Just Folks In Denial

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 25 January 2007]

Lovers Kyle and Marc have a silly lover's quarrel and each go their separate ways. By chance both come upon superhot male model Troy and each is looking to nail him.

For Kyle, he's even willing to go so far as to pretend to join an ex-gay campus group headed by Jacob. Troy's kind of unsure about his own sexuality. He seems one obliging dude, willing to share sex with just about anyone.

This leads to a whole lot of trouble all around, but in the end all the boys and girls in the film seem to be nicely paired off. I do so love happy endings.

There are lots of laughs in this film, but it actually takes a look at a very serious topic, the preying on impressionable kids just starting to find out about their sexuality by some very uptight people. There's a whole lot of new thinking about human sexuality over the past century and a half, but don't try and tell the fundamentalists anything in that regard.

Best performance in the film is Scott Vickaryous as the ex-gay leader of the campus group. The unveiling of the inner Jacob is something to behold, as is the disrobing of Marco Dapper as Troy.

Worth the price of admission alone.

Fun and positive comedy

[Gordon-11 · 14 October 2010]

This film is about an attractive but sexually confused new guy in town, who is pursued separately by an ex-gay couple using vastly different methods.

"Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds" is a lot of fun. It uses a light hearted approach to go about the topic. I like the script, it is entertaining, fun and radiates positivity. It even hits back at homophobia with style. Characters are clichéd but very likable, providing the cheesy and at times visually stimulating entertainment. Production is above average given the low budget, which is not very usual for a gay film. It's a delightful and fun film to watch, if you want a laugh.

Watch after the credits

[bote · 7/10 · 18 March 2007]

This movie was better than I expected, given the harsh but unsubstantiated reviews here.

The acting and dialogue were better than I expected from such a low-budget, quick shoot. The script was so-so, but I accept that. I don't need to be taught lessons, just have the story be interesting and coherent. Perhaps they could have taken a page out of Strangers With Candy and been blunt about the lessons they learned; perhaps even learned the wrong lessons?

Contrary to most, I thought Marco Dapper delivered an acceptable, but not great, performance. He was definitely cast in this movie for his looks.

I thought Brett Chukerman really mastered the role of confident guy on the prowl for his next conquest as he teased Troy while changing for art class in the restroom. Andrew Ley's brief appearance in the opening scene really impressed me as well.

The stereotypical flaming art instructor was a throw-away role, nothing to get upset over. Emily Brooke Hands was fairly convincing as being interested in her art. Rebekah Kochan fared better than I thought she might in the role of the self-proclaimed slut. A good cast, for what this movie was.

As for those who think this flick gives the so-called "gay community" a bad name, not to worry: the gay community determines how it is perceived all by itself. I don't see people bashing the "straight community" because married men cheat on their wives left and right. Men like sex, whatever their persuasion. This movie presents the lengths to which some might go to get it.

Speaking of which...if you watch this in the theater, be sure to stay all the way to end after the final credits roll. There is a gratuitous titillating surprise for you, although you might have trouble standing up when the lights pop up.

Accurate title

[craiglendyl · 1/10 · 1 September 2006]

Finally, the question that has been nagging cinephiles for two years has been answered -- will there ever be a film that's worse than Eating Out? The answer is an unqualified "Yes, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds."

The script is completely predictable at every turn -- the opening even has two guys ripping at each other's clothing that dissolves into a fantasy sequence featuring one guy and his annoying girlfriend -- I didn't see that one coming. The direction by Philip J. Bartel is, well, sloppy and the actors appear to recite their lines of dialogue rather than deliver them in a believable manner that suits the characters. The sets look like they were put up an hour before filming and could collapse at any moment. Production values are nonexistent. The awful, awful director of the first film, Q Allan Brocka, even appears as an extra in this one in the scene with the nude male model. Brocka is seated right in front of him to get a good look at his genitals. Perv.

How do films like this get financed when there are so many good screenplays languishing on shelves? Avoid this at all costs.It's not even bad-movie good.

Who would have thought? A sequel BETTER that the original!

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 20 January 2007]

Kyle (Jim Verraros) understandably falls in love with nude model Troy (Marco Dapper). However Troy is ashamed of past gay experiences he had and wants to be str8. So Kyle pretends HE'S str8 and used to be gay to lure Troy into bed. Meanwhile Kyle's ex Marc (Brett Chukerman) finds this out and now HE wants to get Troy into bed...

OK--I HATED the original "Eating Out". It was boring, stupid, unfunny and kept teasing the audience that we were gonna see some hot man on man action--but we never did. The acting was dreadful too. As you can see the plot of this one is ridiculous too--but this movie is so entertaining who cares? It moves quickly (it's only 80 minutes), looks great and is much funnier than the original. Also we see plenty of hot guy on guy kissing, gay sex (not explicit) and frontal nudity on Dapper and Chukerman (both of who are very handsome with great bodies).

The acting is (for the most part) good. Verraros (the only holdover from the original) is a little bit TOO nerdy and needy--but he tones down his performance as the film progresses and actually is very affecting by the end. Dapper is unbelievably handsome with a great body and--surprisingly--is a very good actor. I was impressed with how talented he was--he perfectly shows his characters confusion. Chukerman is even better as Marc. A very easy-going, relaxed and believable performance. All the other actors are OK--the story basically centers on these three guys.

This is no great milestone in gay cinema but it was fun, breezy and entertaining. Also the casual frontal nudity and gay kissing just made it better. Worth catching--especially for a gay audience. An 8.

Better than the first

[rivertam26 · 6/10 · 26 August 2020]

A gay man and his two girl friends hatch a plan to discover a sexy male model's orientation. Kyle the male member of the trio takes the model to a seminar about "going straight" and hijinks ensue. This is a bit more entertaining than the first and like that one it's funny and sexy with a bunch of eye candy. Although it's all quite predictable its more than amusing and is another somewhat successful entry in the growing queer sex comedy franchise.

6.5/10

Stink bomb

[mendozalouie · 1/10 · 13 September 2006]

Let's put it this way:

Variety writes: "Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds" -- and the film-making continues to be just as sloppy.

You can't argue with Variety, the showbiz bible. This film probably has two more laughs than the first film, Eating Out, which means it has exactly TWO laughs. Trouble is I can't remember what they are now. What I remember is some really bad acting -- just like in the first film. I remember a stupid script that could have been written by a horny gay high school student. I can't comment on the direction since there isn't evidence of any. My problem with films like this is that they create such a negative image of gays and lesbians for the straight community. The characters are stereotypes. I don't know people like the characters in this film and I don't want to. Why can't the producers of this movie use their financing powers for good?

Eating Out a surprise hit, hope more people get to see this years sleeper comedy!

[ozswim23 · 8/10 · 6 January 2007]

I had read two bad reviews prior to viewing, I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this movie. I think it easily matches up to the first Eating Out, though they are very different films. Each character held there own, though there are a few standouts, including the reprehensible luminary Mink Stole. Marco Dapper as Troy proved he is not just a pretty face. Was that his over-sized appendage in the modeling scene, seemed like some airbrushing? The trio: Jim Verraros (Kyle), Emily Brooke Hands (Gwen)Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) stole the show with candid and off the hook deliveries. The notion that the characters in this film were traditionally rooted in stereotypes of the W.& G. variety is wrong. This film turns stereotypes on their heads.

Laughed really hard at this movie!

Take your friends!!

Anemic farce

[jamisonpalmer · 2/10 · 7 November 2006]

Although the title references a meal, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds leaves the viewer starved for something resembling entertainment.

Phillip J. Bartell -- remember the name. This hack has written and directed (for want of a better term) possibly the year's worst film. It even makes Open Cam and Sideline Secrets seem like masterpieces. There is not one funny scene in this film, not ONE. He directs the cast to recite their lines exactly the way they did at the table read.

The insultingly banal plot follows Kyle (poorly acted by American Idol's Jim Verraros) who gets dumped and then is turned on by a nude male model in his art class, who claims to be straight. Kyle's pals Gwen (Emily Brooke Hands, surely the shrillest actress on the planet) and Tiffani (Rebekah Kochan) aim to find out so Kyle takes him to a "going straight" session. Ugh!

Why can't gay filmmakers and producers write films that don't insult us? Why are the quality gay-themed films all made by straight writers and directors? This is 2006 and saddens me.

Quite accurately the title points out this is a sloppy film. Do yourself a favor and skip this cinematic meal.

Get this through your heads: It's OK to see a movie for the skin

[bribabylk · 8 July 2007]

I'm not going to bother to try and sell this movie to other viewers by pretending it's anything other than what it is, a light farce meant to appeal to guys who like watching other guys make out and take off their clothes. I saw the first one at a film festival and remembered actually laughing quite a bit, but then I was kinda drunk at the time. The humor in this sequel is a little more strained (or I was a little more sober), but the film has other virtues that make it not a bad way to spend 80 minutes on a Saturday night with some friends before you go out dancing. Get off your high horses, all you other commenters who complained about the "near constant semi-nudity" and decried the notion that people would choose to see this movie rather than other "quality" offerings. Men, and especially gay men, like skin! We like to see beautiful guys in various states of undress! And we don't always want to have to resort to out-and-out porn to see it! Has the gay population been overrun by a bunch of prudes, almost as bad as the "ex-gay" group depicted in the film? Have you become as neutered as most of "respectable" gay cinema is these days, produced by filmmakers who would rather cut off their you-know-whats before showing a naked guy and run the risk of being labeled frivolous? Watch this movie with your GAY friends if your straight ones are too uptight to deal with the stomach-licking and full frontal nudity. And try and wrap your heads around this, weenies: you can watch serious, quality films AND silly, sexy, fluffy ones. You can go see "The Queen" or "The Departed" one night and "Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds" the next. See how easy that was? The only thing that really detracted from this movie is that Marco Dapper obviously shaves his groin; men should be men, not plucked chickens. Thank you.

Just another sadly superficial portrayal of the gay world by those types of superficial people

[HollywoodMusic · 1/10 · 8 September 2006]

Just like the first movie under this name that was made,"EATING OUT" this is merely a sequel to the kind of insipid superficial gay movie that gives the gay community a bad name. The total polar opposite of first class writing/directing. If you like all the superficial and unrefined elements of a culture, then this is for you. If you are looking for something more sophisticated and that even attempts to approximate 'art', then look elsewhere. Real Insipid, superficial gay junk movie. Not worth the time or money. I can never understand how this kind of stuff can get made or where these writers or directors heads are when they think this stuff up. It is really the type of movie that has become the bane of existence of the gay community.

Fun Guilty Pleasure Farce

[martyboy00 · 8/10 · 1 October 2006]

I saw this on October 1st, 2006 at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I had the chance to briefly meet the writer/director and he is amazing! (and very humble)

I've read the negative comments on this movie and I could not disagree with them more. The judgments they have made on the film are based on it being a realistic comedy when in fact it is a farce. It is sad the we have homogenized the categories of film so much that we really don't get to see outstanding examples of the diverse genres out there. "Desperate Housewives" (another guilty pleasure and a national hit) almost didn't make it to the airwaves because Marc Cherry was selling it as a farce and people did not know what that was. Sad, because Shakespeare did very well with the genre. "DH" had to be categorized as a soap opera before the networks would pick it up. Here is the definition of "farce":

1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character. 2. humor of the type displayed in such works. 3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.

That said, this is a great movie that is hilarious to experience. I was one of many that despite the reviews and comments LOVED the first movie. It was not without flaw, but overall, it was wonderful. This one was in my opinion slightly better. Yes, it had stereotypes and ridiculous situations (see definition of farce above). That structure allowed some very clever dialogue, some hilarious scenes, and some mockery of society's need to categorize "gay" into any specific pigeon hole. This movie makes fun of those stereotypes, and in the process gives you the chance for introspection after the film.

I think the actors (male and female) do an incredible job. Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) has done a body transformation since the first installment. She looked good in the first one, she looks amazing in this one. Both Emily and Jim are fun to watch. The hot guys... well, they are very enjoyable to watch. I was a little afraid that I wouldn't like the character of Marc in this sequel (he was played by Ryan Carnes, now famous for his role in "Desperate Housewives" as Bree's son's boyfriend... in the sequel he is played by Brett Chukerman). By the second scene Brett was in, I was hooked. He did a great job of taking over an existing character.

Overall, if you go into this film seeking reality, you will walk away disappointed. If you go in looking for a good time and realize it is supposed to be a farce, you will leave with a smile on your face from the laughter and poignant moments in the film. Mink Stole's final scene in the movie actually brought a tear to my eye. What gay son wouldn't want to hear her comments? :)

I would say, check it out.

mind numbing junk

[doingitforthedh · 1/10 · 4 December 2006]

Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds.

You have to hand it to writer/director Philip J. Bartel, the Uwe Boll of the gay niche market, for giving critics such easy ammunition in the title. This wanna be raucous sex comedy is sloppy all right - the screenplay contains dialogue that made me wince, the actors are unbelievably bad (poor Mink Stole, is she aware that she's being used in such a nefarious way? John Waters loved his subversive characters, Bartell only loves the idea of debasing them), well, I could go on with the poor quality of the tech credits but the people who lack self-respect and want to see claptrap like this won't be dissuaded by any criticism. I can only urge anyone reading this to do yourself a favor and rent a porn instead. trust me, you'll have more dignity afterward.

I Laughed so hard I cried

[missmistyeyez · 8/10 · 29 September 2006]

I saw this film at the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival this week and I totally loved it!!!!! Even more than the first.

If you are ready for a Cliché, stereotypical, and yet totally hot and fun gay comedy then sign yourself up for Sloppy seconds. This sequel is very much that, all the while pushing the envelope so much further than the first chapter, Eating Out . Be warned this time its full of much more shocking and crazy situations, yet guaranteed more laughs than the first, so in fewer words if you liked the first you will love this one even more. On an exciting note this is the first ever American gay movie sequel. If you remember in part one Kyle convinces his straight roommate to pretend to be gay to get the girl he was attracted to. Well in this journey Kyle is the one who is pretending, in order to get the surprisingly hot, model Troy. Kyle fell in love or should I say lust with Troy when he modeled nude for Kyle's art class. The funny thing is Kyle pretends to be an Ex Gay to get to spend time with Troy. While doing so he gains self confidence and esteem. To be honest the acting in this movie is clearly not the best, but you soon forget about the over acting once the movie gets started. Even right from the opening scene which basically sets the mood with a homo erotic scenario where two guys were getting ready to go at it, of course with a gay guy seducing a straight guy.

This movie is full of hilarious one liners like when Tiffani says that she wishes a guy would say "I love you" instead of "Take it you tight little ..", that and many more.

I will however say that the most interesting twist is the whole ex gay ministry segment with their homo no more movement lead by Allen who obviously gets off on the other ex gays telling of their sexual slip ups with men.

This movie was Brilliant and funny, yes cliché as in it portrayed the stereotypical gay characters that we usually think of for gay drama. However I honestly know many people like this. They are often shallow and manipulative on their journey to get sex, sex and more sex. So to be honest this movie was not only full of super hot, some of which get fully naked (yes inclusive with cock shots), but it was also believable, enjoyable and ridiculously funny to the point that I was screaming.

PS. Some may say that this movie gives gays a bad name. Well if the shoe fits wear it, why do you think bath houses, and the adult book stores with glory holes are so popular? Most men have a one track mind and its sad but true, but it doesn't mean its not funny to watch

Stop Bartell from directing again!

[wheretheresawilson · 1/10 · 15 December 2006]

P. a. i. n. f. u. l.

Absurd, insultingly banal sex farce that attempts to make some obvious statement about reformed gays but the screenwriters and director are too superficial to accomplish this simple a task. The film is chock full of character with names like "Marc's Trick," "Hot Shirtless Guy" and "Hot Clothed Guy" - I'd rather receive a hot glue enema than sit through this a second time, but this film does raise so many questions: Why do people see movies like this when there are so many quality films out right now? After watching this, do people immediately rush home to take a shower? Will any of these actors ever work again? What can we, as a civilization, do to stop Phillip J. Bartell from directing another film?

Just as silly. Somehow still just as enjoyable...

[paulclaassen · 4/10 · 28 June 2021]

And so the saga continues. In 'Eating Out', Kyle's dream of having a relationship with Marc became a reality. However, 'Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds' starts with Marc (now played by Brett Chukerman) dumping Kyle. Gwen and Tiffani are back as well, with Tiffani now also one of the leading characters. Once again, the female characters are annoying, but thankfully not as overbearing as in 'Eating Out'. I must be honest, I enjoyed the Tiffani character a lot more this time around.

Regarding the plot, they simply reversed the 'Eating Out' plot. Now, it's Kyle's turn to pretend - yup, he has to pretend he is an ex-gay (aka straight) in order to get close to Troy (played by the deliciously handsome Marco Dapper), who is a confused straight guy. Plot sound familiar? Oh boy, here we go again. Yawn. Are there any gay gay-themed movies out there without gay straight or straight gay guys?? And then there's Kyle's mother, who was happy with her son being gay, but overjoyed when she saw him kissing a girl, and exclaimed "that's what she's always wanted".... ugh, seriously?! (They later tried to redeem this silly remark by her wining that she wants her gay son back, but the damage had been done, sorry writers!)

When they started throwing religion around I almost stopped watching - thinking it would turn out to be another 'Latter Days' - but thankfully it was short-lived. Also, the word GAY is shoved down the viewer's throat so many times in this movie, I wanted to puke. Almost every sentence used the word 'gay'... enough already.

The best part about the movie, was Troy. With Caleb from 'Eating Out' absent, Troy more than compensates for Caleb's departure. Wow, Marco Dapper is gorgeous, with a great body - and there's so much opportunity in the film to show off his (entire!) body - to the viewer's delight, off course.

Despite the film being corny, silly, stupid, and with the same forced, crude dialogue, I did find it entertaining as a whole. Mainly thanks to Marco Dapper....

Would I watch it again? Yes, to see Marco Dapper in all his glory once more.

Disagree with Hollywood Music

[mattbrat · 9/10 · 18 December 2006]

The previous poster had a real disdain for this movie because it was superficial and insulting and not considered 'art'. He then goes on to insult the director and the writer and that's when I stopped reading. The intent of movies like Eating Out and this superior sequel is to entertain and tittilate. It's not even considered a 'no-brainer' because there is actually a lot of wit packed into the screenplay. Why on earth would someone expect anything less from a film title 'Eating Out' in the first place? Give me a break! This movie is sexy, funny, offensive and silly. Exactly what what we should expect. What we SHOULDN'T expect is the wonderful comedic performances from the cast especially from Rebekah Kochan as sex pot Tiffani and American Idol castoff Jim Verraros (who is way too cute to be playing the 'average' guy). The only thing that saved this film from getting a perfect score from me was the running time was much too short, perhaps when they release the DVD they could give us a director's cut of more Tiffani and more gratuitous nudity by the terrific looking Marco Dapper and Brett Chuckerman!

Better than the first, but still not good

[Groverdox · 5/10 · 8 April 2024]

At least "Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds" is better than the first movie, which is small praise indeed. It's actually fairly competently made. There are no takes that go on for too long this time, where you expect the actors to look at each other confused, and nor is there an obnoxious soundtrack over every scene, drowning out the actors.

"Eating Out 2" also has one legendary scene that I have never forgotten. It's a CFNM scene where poor Rebekah Kochan (the only actor unfortunate enough to appear in every movie in the franchise) gets up close and personal with the beautiful Marco Dapper's penis.

The movie also limits the amount of homophobia and misogyny that was bizarrely present in the previous flick. Kochan's character, Tiffany von der Sloot, is still mostly just comic relief for her sex drive, but at least Gwen (Emily Styles) isn't the homophobe she was in the previous film.

The movie still does kind of have a problem with homophobia though. It has been praised for showing the so-called "ex-gay movement", ie. Cultists who try to brainwash same-sex attracted people into thinking they're really straight. The director and co-writer Phillip Bartell has said that he thought homophobes' minds might be changed by seeing this "movement" exposed for the sham anybody with half a brain knows it is. But why would they be watching this movie in the first place?

I thought the inclusion of the Christian far-right into a goody LGBT sex comedy was a little awkward, and detracted from the fun atmosphere the movie cultivates.

If you can stomach the out of place nudity, the movie is hysterical

[king_slakker · 9/10 · 7 January 2007]

Eating Out 2 maintained the off-the-wall dialogue and ridiculous characters that made it's predecessor hilarious. However, the near-constant semi-nudity was a significant detraction to the film, with some scenes approaching soft-core cable pornography. My straight friends were visibly uncomfortable during several scenes and even my gay friends could have done with less nipple biting and stomach licking. That said, there were several fantastic comedic moments in the film and, unlike other raucous comedies (think of the "American Pie" series) there was no endless parade of fart jokes and tired one-liners. Overall, it was a fun movie to watch, but probably should be one to catch on DVD so as to utilize the "fast forward" button.

Choose Your Own Adventure

[baileycrawly · 4/10 · 13 December 2023]

Sloppy Seconds... well, the leftovers are definitely better than the first time around, but that's really not saying a whole lot.

There are some very attractive men in this movie, and they're doing more than enough together to get a gay man's attention, but the scenes in between this are spotty, underdone and often feel rather boring to watch.

Helmed by a different director than the first film and bearing just a few returning characters (and even fewer returning actors), Eating Out 2 proves to be another case of, quite literally, eating out: you're not getting a good meal, and certainly nothing that would ever sustain you long-term... it's fine in the moment, but it really doesn't offer anything of substance beyond that.

Perhaps the one thing that sets this film apart from the original (aside from its willingness to showcase the male anatomy that was not present in its predecessor) was that this film does not maintain the faux comedy feeling the script of the original film did. This one knows when it's funny and it's not trying to be funny any other time.

It's difficult to see how Eating Out received a sequel, let alone a 5-film series, but perhaps there will be a shift along the way to showcase why this series is worth the effort, I don't know. This one is certainly one with a positive message at its heart, but it feels really out of place in such a sloppy (no pun intended) and half-done film.

I also would be remiss if I didn't throw out my obligatory Mink Stole shoutout. She never fails to make the most of even the most terrible of films. It's always a joy to see her on the screen again and I look forward to seeing more of her in the upcoming sequels.

Part 2 is better than 1.. SO HOT! loved it!

[dion_pangallo · 9/10 · 1 February 2021]

This is such a good sequel. Enjoy with your significant other ;) !!!!!