Angora Ranch (2006 Video) User Reviews (21)

May December Romance on a Texas Ranch

[gradyharp · 5/10 · 18 March 2007]

No, this is not another version on the Brokeback Mountain theme though the title might give that impression. This little Indie film made on a shoestring budget is more like an updated Farmer's Daughter story and as such it has some charm.

Justin (the very hunky Thomas Romano) is an ad executive whose father sends him on his first solo run to a place in Texas. While driving to his appointment Justin swerves to avoid a rabbit in the road and his car gets stuck in a ditch that just happens to be in front of the home of Jack (Paul Bright, who also wrote and directed the film) and his loony senile father. Jack's life partner died a few years back and he is determined his plight in life is to live in solitude as caretaker for his father. Justin is invited to spend the night while his car is fixed by the local tow truck/mechanic. And the story unfolds from there into a May December romance that while it may not be acted very well at all, has its moments of warmth. The plot has enough twists to keep the attention span enduring the amateur acting status (both fathers figure significantly in surprising ways) and the cast of animals and eccentricities maintain attention. But the eye candy provided by Thomas Romano is the strong point - if only he could act.... Grady Harp

When the director, writer and star are the same guy, it's a triple threat but not always in a good way.

[Havan_IronOak · 4/10 · 13 May 2018]

I wanted to like this but it was simply NOT worth the watching time. I've seen thousands of gay movies over the years and while this one is far from the worst. I generally rate all the films I see on IMDb and I checked. This one did make the bottom 50. It's really too bad because there are the elements of a good story here, and that's part of the reason that this one's so bad. It keeps you hanging on (like Charlie Brown hoping that maybe next time Lucy's not gonna move the ball) the dialogue is often cringe-worthy and you actually would feel bad for the actors but its pretty clear that their abilities are part of the problems as well.

One thing that should have clued me in earlier... the director is also the writer and is also the main character. All of those jobs require skill and many truly skillful individuals can handle one or two of those roles but it's the rarest of things to find a film where all three roles are handle by the same person and handled well.

Being earnest is important

[ghbbrown · 6/10 · 24 July 2007]

Okay, admittedly the acting, pace and dialog are not up to par with some high budget movie. That's part of the charm of "indie" films, isn't it?

Putting aside the merits of the the physical attractiveness of some of the actors, the story is good on. Not only is this positive about overcoming fears/anxieties/hangups about age differences; it emphasizes the good and bad aspects of the family responsibilities and relationships and tensions between parents and children. These are realities, just as the awkwardness of some dialog and acting reflect what actually happens between and among people, whatever their sexual identity.

ANGORA RANCH is not a great film but it's at least a passably good one and worth watching. I felt better after seeing it than when I watched EATING OUT.

Good First Draft

[jt-164 · 3/10 · 6 February 2007]

First off, it seems that Tim Jones, the executive producer and a actor in this film, passed away in August of 2006. May he rest in peace, and thank you for having made the film. Critiques are fine, but I also want to point out that, regardless of constructive criticism, that these people made the film at ALL puts them a far sight ahead of most people. Congrats and cudos to the entire cast & crew!

That said...

This has some good potentials, but suffered from pace issues in several places. Pregnant pauses that should have been picked out by a decent editor made the film drag. The audience would certainly have preferred a shorter film that moved at more brisk a pace. Some of the dialogue is trite, some of it awkward, and too often the blocking looks as though it was made for stage. The best scenes are between the two leads when they forget to act and just have conversation, while they're getting to know each other.

The filmmaker intended to have fun with it, and it does demonstrate a somewhat surreal whimsical feeling, but we could have had more constant reminders, whether via some mechanism, lense coloring, or something to remind us not to expect reality. Then the departures might not have been so taxing.

Did I enjoy the DVD? Yes, despite the flaws (and myself) I did. But I wouldn't wittingly have parted with $27 for a copy, except to support the work.

It's a good first draft. I'd have re-edited, re-shot some scenes... but that would mean remaking the film altogether in this case. The expenses were obviously minimal by Hollywood standards. With some fine-tuning and rewrites, maybe some more outside help, this could have been a much better movie.

I applaud the effort. It's good to see gay independent filmmakers not falling back on cheap sex sells. Now to lose the clichés.

To The Writer/Director: Paul, there ARE some homo men who don't have gay mannerisms. They may even be a substantial portion of the population. They're just inherently unseen. It might have been nice to show this as well, and set another example of tolerance in the process, as you did by this remarkable town you've created. Get ahold of me before you start your next production. I'd be glad to pitch in!

Surprisingly observant "indie"/amateur film

[eschetic-2 · 4/10 · 12 October 2015]

The comments of a number of other reviewers on this site on ANGORA RANCH are worth noting for the issues they raise with some accuracy while missing the greater point of this film which achieves a surprising amount of credibility and satisfaction if you're willing to go with it despite obvious technical shortcomings.

Yes, the fact that it is set in a small town in the state which these days sends the more outrageous bigots to Congress (and presidential primaries) than any other, yet which is unexpectedly accepting of the "exotics" (read gays) in its midst might be presumed to be a fantasy, yet in my experience it DOES happen (and the smaller the town the more likely).

Similarly, the appeal of a thin, fit, handsome older man for another man young enough to be his son would ALSO likely be presumed to be a fantasy to those of limited experience, but the best marriage I know of (although admittedly between two straight people) was a second marriage of 30+ years duration where the bride was younger than her husband's youngest daughter. I've been with my own partner of 33 years (husband of 3) for all these years despite his being 7 years younger than I (we're BOTH woefully out of shape). He still claims I was standing in the way of the man he was really cruising that first night, but he did make the first move.

These presumed fantasies reflect the real world better than many children composing other reviews might suppose and the writing in this film sets these and other issues (the handling of the possible onset of Alzheimer's in a parent or the revelation of a distant parent's own personal secrets) with surprising sophistication and even grace.

As has been noted elsewhere, this film is an early (first?) effort of a group of Texas film makers with a modicum of talent, a high degree of ambition and a remarkable amount of drive. It was shot and marketed digitally on a literal shoestring with a budget smaller than many first rate urban film schools might be able to provide. The budget and lack of experience does show, but if one goes into viewing it understanding that, it may even add to the surprise of the film's ultimate emotional success.

The level of acting from the available cast (the writer/director Paul Bright as the owner of the titular ranch, and his partner/screen father Tim Jones, excepted - they are good by any standard) is not going to be breaking down agent doors for most of those involved, but it should be acknowledged that the actual lead of the film, Thomas Romano as the young advertising agent, gives a performance of considerable more polish than several eventual stars in their first professional outings (does the line "Yonder lies de house of me fadder" ring any bells?).

By the standards of a film intended for merely Festival release and then "straight to video," my "Four Stars" may even be on the conservative side. ANGORA RANCH is not a polished professional release, but it is a decent story remarkably well told under the circumstances and worth checking out if there's nothing more pressing on your schedule. I'd even like to see more from Mr. Bright.

Excellent Potential, but...

[barndancer61 · 1/10 · 14 August 2007]

This film had every opportunity to become a good watchable moving film, but the opportunity was waisted. Where do I begin? I give most movies a benefit of the doubt and especially so for gay films because of the usual low-budget nature of their productions. Most gay films even with low production values, will have me rooting for them if the acting is at least passable, but this film turned me off right after the first bit of dialog was uttered after the opening credits. To say the acting was unconvincing is an understatement. I went into the film wanting to like it, but the acting was so bad (--no Abysmal) and painfully embarrassing to watch that I new it was going to be a waste of my time. Truly, the worst gay-oriented film I have ever seen. There was no excuse for it. The story had potential but I truly felt as if I were watching a web cam vid from some kid's bedroom computer on YouTube.

Love story between an older guy and a younger one

[Natureboy1 · 7/10 · 22 June 2006]

Just saw this film tonight in a one time benefit screening at the Arbor Theater in Austin, Texas. From there it goes to DVD. This is a cute film, really funny in places. It's really heavy on dialog, fortunately it's nicely written. Some of the acting scenes feel clumsy, a few emotional transitions don't feel right. But the actors are all appealing and the rabbits and other animals on the ranch where it takes place are a welcome addition. The film focuses on the two men and their love affair despite an age difference of 20 years and on their relationships with their fathers. This is a pleasant film, often funny, never boring. I would recommend it to gay audiences or straight ones. It is not sexually explicit, pretty tame.

What happens when a gay man goes straight?

[carljoe · 5/10 · 8 January 2011]

Good thing Tom chose the avenue he did, otherwise there would've been no Justin. After watching this movie, the only thing most viewers are asking them self is, "What's Justin up to these days?" We have a movie here for wishful thinking, gay old men, and old gay men, too. That's about all that needs to be said, but it can also be noted that most gays will see some irony regarding their own personal lives, at least somewhere in this movie. There are many movies containing gay themes, and with cast members, but it's that we have a gay themed movie here, where those gay cast members are actually gay, 'openly' even. I would be interest in watching other works done by this clever writer and cast. The movie was a pretty good endeavor, especially given the budget on the project. It was obviously a bit cheesy in places, but somewhat touching in others. As was stated, "...won't win an academy award", but if they keep at it, you never know where the next project might lead them.

Worse Than A School Project

[nurielt · 15 December 2006]

Watch it only if awful gay movies make you giggle. In an awful way, that is. Not in any cultish or artsy sense of the terms "awful gay movies" and "giggle". Just good old fashioned All American (gay) awful. Did i say it's awful? It's awful. Someone should create a special prize for the best turn-off gay movie and not only give it to this one, but name it after it too. Invite your old, lonely, bad looking uncle for a cup of tea and a game of chess instead. Trust me. He won't like it either. And the young actor in the movie don't seem to like it much himself. He's doing his best to pretend that love is what he feels, but then you should see the man he falls in love with to better understand what a poor, poor casting can do to a cinematic love story.

cute little movie

[roydmck · 6/10 · 13 January 2007]

I agree with the two people who posted positive reviews about this small film. The small budget is obvious and the acting is about on par with a primary school play-let (especially the younger lead and the main character's daddy). These 2 negatives aside, there is a lot left in this film to enjoy: the May/December romance, the non-stereotypical gays, the fluffy ending and the realization that there are gays in the state of Texas and not just hateful bible spewing heteros. Basically I bought the tape because of the cover showing 2 guys kissing and the cute little bunny and I was not disappointed. I rated it 6/10 and am looking forward to other films by this director.

Father Issues

[bkoganbing · 5/10 · 3 April 2015]

I would really love to believe that in the hundreds of little redneck hamlets in the State of Texas I'd dearly love for one like where Paul Bright and Tim Jones live and where Bright can fall in love with young Thomas Romano and have no fear of reprisal. It's what makes this Texas based gay film a true fantasy. But having said that it is a nice fantasy.

Young Romano works for his father in the advertising business based in Austin and Kyle Evans the father is forever on his case. He can't seem to do anything right. Evans is also in an incredible state of denial as far as his son's sexual orientation is.

On assignment from his father to meet with a client Romano's car breaks down avoiding hitting a white rabbit nowhere near the size of Harvey. It is the special pet of Paul Bright who lives with his father Tim Jones and is still mourning the loss of a life partner. He's got some additional responsibilities taking care of Jones who is in first stage of Alzheimer's Disease.

Romano and Bright are soon in love and in the sack, but both have some severe father issues to deal with.

Angora Ranch is a pleasant enough film. I liked all the players especially young Mr. Romano on many levels. I hope that Angora Ranch does not remain his sole film credit.

Though I want so much to believe there is a tolerant and accepting town like this somewhere in the state that elects Rick Perry and Ted Cruz.

Bunny Funny

[TBROUGH · 10/10 · 2 January 2007]

"Angora Ranch" is a sweetly low-key romantic movie that has plenty of animals in it. There are rabbits, goats, horses and chickens (and the cat that managed to sneak into the dinner scene). But the romance is between two men who must overcome a different kind of animal: the paternal kind. Justin (Thomas Romano) is a 20-something cutie working for his father's advertising agency, a self-absorbed manipulator whom Justin can never satisfy. (And Daddy has a few secrets on the side.) Jack (Paul Bright, "Angora Ranch's" writer and director) is a gay widower who has a live-in father, Peter (Tim Jones, the movie's co-writer), that is trying to push "his gay son Jackson" into a relationship before he slips into total senility. A chance accident and a little of Peter's meddling drops Benny the Bunny squarely into the stew and a May/September romance begins in the suburbs of Austin, Texas.

While the movie is certainly not a slick affair (in the extras, Bright and Jones joke about how their budget was in "the thousands"), it does do several things the creators promise:

No tragic gay man dies of AIDS. No screaming queen is running around disrupting things. No men are just straight-acting guys claiming they're gay. And most importantly - All gay male characters are actually played by gay men.

The acting is not going to get any Academy Award nominations, but that isn't why you're going to enjoy this. "Angora Ranch" is a delight for the many things it isn't. Non-hyperactive, not bitter or angry, not political (other than the general wink at gay marriage) and not aimed at the tweaker circuit coming-out crowd. This is the kind of movie I am comfortable showing to friends with dinner, and, I am going to project, feel comfortable with repeat viewings.

And it's worth it just to see a rabbit yawn.

(For those of you who only buy "gay movies" based on skin content, Justin appears naked from the back and the two leads have a love scene from the waist up.)

A good reason not to take all reviews to heart. Know yourself, too.

[Sam6284 · 7/10 · 24 June 2010]

Based on everything I had read regarding Angora Ranch, I wasn't expecting much and rented it for the same reason I rent so many gay-themed Indies: To do my part to assure they continue to be made.

First, two disclosures:

1) I'm of a certain age that precludes me from understanding what many viewers expect from a movie.

2) I don't typically "watch" a movie. More frequently, I listen as I'm working on any of my dozens of hobbies. I glance at the screen from time to time, but am almost always doing something else at the same time. For me, the very best movies are those that insist upon my total attention and I'm forced to stop whatever else I was doing. This was not such a movie. Listening, for the most part, was sufficient for me.

Many on IMDb have written about the poor production values and poorer dialog of this movie. My challenge is this: If someone filmed your day-to-day life, would your scenes be better or your dialog more substantial? I wonder if the simplicity, commonness and lack of polish weren't intentional.

What I got out of this movie was honesty. There were three generations of men who all knew who they were. They remained true to themselves while assuming all responsibilities expected of them. I could also rephrase that as: There were three generations of gay men who loved themselves, loved living, and loved others. (Let's not banter about how straight the 'dandy' was. BTW, dandy inherently has nothing to do with sexuality. This was an obvious error on the part of the scriptwriters.)

In short, I found this to be a disarmingly deep movie. By definition, we humans are all flawed. I think this movie tried to demonstrate those flaws using film as the messenger. Despite their weaknesses and personal losses, it was an exclamation point for me that each character hadn't lost the ability to love.

I can't know for what audience the directors/producers/actors made this movie. I can say it reached and touched me. I'd love to see this level of "Average Joe humanity" in many other movies.

Would I "watch" it again? Probably not because I got it the first time and there are so many other movies. Was I glad I watched it? Absolutely.

Woeful

[Molonglo · 1/10 · 27 June 2007]

Warning: I am not feeling charitable. And experiencing this DVD has not helped.

Woeful. Sorry folks, but the dialogue had all the convincing elements of a script from a porn movie. In fact it felt like the badly done sex with bored performers was about to happen at any tick of the clock.

Woeful. Absolutely woeful. I couldn't bring myself to watch it all. I turned it off. I didn't care what happened to any of the characters, cos I didn't believe it at all.

Woeful. And to think I had to pay a fine cos I returned it late to the video shop. That added insult to injury!

Woeful.

God Awful Movie

[larrysez · 1/10 · 25 February 2009]

The simple-minded script for this abysmal film might have been partially rescued by a competent cast, but the acting is absolutely excruciating to watch. I've seen better in beginning acting classes -- no, wait, make that "I've never seen worse, even in beginning acting classes."

After an opening scene where our lovely young hero Justin drops trow, steps into the shower, and sings "A Hard Man Is Good to Find" (yeah, that's original), the action begins with a completely contrived confrontation between Justin and his overbearing father over what Justin will wear to The Big Meeting where he will make a pitch to a new client of Dad's ag agency. OK, both Dad and Justin look like people you'd be more likely to find behind the counter at Dairy Queen than in an ad agency, and Dad comes across gayer than Justin, but let's see how this plays out . . .

Justin drives off to the meeting, dressed as Daddy insisted, and comes to a dead end and roadblock sign that is straight out of a Roadrunner & Coyote cartoon. On second thought, make that a Bugs Bunny cartoon, since there are cutesie-poo rabbit references throughout the film. In fact, Justin goes off the road to avoid a bunny in front of the home of a crankily kindly stranger, thereby setting up the rest of the action with all the subtlety, but none of the wit, of the car breakdown at the start of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show." He goes to the nearby house to ask for help, and meets Jack, the owner of the place, and his father Peter.

Love is sure to bloom thanks to this chance encounter, because circumstance and a little interference from kindly bumpkins in the Texas village he has stumbled upon conspire to pair him up with the rather neurotic, unattractive older man whose bunny he swerved to avoid. Played atrociously by the screenwriter and director of this disaster, incidentally.

By the way, how is it that Peter, this straight father, also seems gayer than his tres gay son? Could it be that Tim Jones, the "actor" playing him, is the producer of this vanity production?

Gag! It just keeps going downhill from there. It could have been a creation of some retarded younger brother of John Waters. Absolutely dreadful.

Do yourself a favor -- watch something else. ANYTHING else.

If there were a pervy old dude category...

[Coralknight · 1/10 · 27 November 2016]

...Paul Bright would absolutely take home that award--and apparently very happily, since that seems to be the subject matter of all his films. Like his other mess "Altitude Falling", the catastrophe has a weak premise of a young man who stumbles upon Paul who subsequently seduces him into a creepy old man-on-boy relationship. Weak acting, even weaker script and skin-crawling editing (lots of close-ups of Paul mugging for the camera) make this a must see for any pedophile...but something anyone with any sense of good taste will want to miss. I'm generously giving an extra star here since Paul did not show us his junk in this one (though they were sure to capitalize on several buttocks scenes with the young blonde actor...for which I hope he was paid VERY well, since he'll most likely need the funds to pay for all the therapy sessions to deal with all the simulated sex he had to have with Paul.

Save your time and money

[CaseyFlynn · 1/10 · 18 February 2010]

This is one of the worst gay-themed movies of all time. As soon as the first line of dialogue is spoken I wanted to stop watching, but it was like a train wreck. You don't want to watch because it is so horrific, but you can't stop for the same reason. The dialogue is dreadful and acting worse. The story is lame beyond belief. It is astonishing that they were able to take some of the most universal themes in the gay community and make them trite and superficial. I cringed throughout. I forced myself to watch the whole thing in the vain hope that it might get better but it just sank to deeper depths by the minute. I want to give movies representing gay- positive messages a chance, but this one was so painfully bad and clichéd that I hope no one else has the misfortune to lose the time from their lives spent watching it. There are absolutely no redeeming factors.

AMATEUR RANCH (VERY)

[raymarsh-51084 · 1/10 · 22 May 2019]

Dreadful movie. Acting, lighting, cinematography, directing, dialogue, plot. Bad. Everyone aspiring to a career in the film industry should see it. This movie is an object lesson in everything you do not want a movie to be. I appreciate that a man wanted to create a gay narrative film, but you need to at least have it up to a 5/10 standard. It would have been more entertaining narrated as an audiobook.

Oh Dear

[hjames-97822 · 3/10 · 23 April 2015]

Three stars for what should be one. I enjoy gay themed cinema. And I try to be generous with indie films. The strength and resources it takes to bring any indie film to any screen is an achievement. But this one is just...B-A-D.

An advertising guy, his gay son, rabbits, an account presentation, rural gays met by accident and an old man straight out of George S. Kaufman. It's a silly, unfunny premise. Turned into a silly, hackneyed script with some of the worst dialog ever imagined.

Then it's all directed poorly and the acting. Oh my God don't say you had to pay any of them. No better than a high school play. The actors playing the business people they are making an ad pitch to would have been better cast as domestics. Seriously. Save your time and your life.

But, still, everyone showed up and they got the thing made. That deserves something.

Tender and sweet--not a Hollywood version of gay romance

[road-bike · 9/10 · 28 June 2007]

What an unexpected surprise! It's great to see a movie about real men who are gay and not some city or Hollywood version of flaming queens. The love story between the two guys was tender and sweet and I enjoyed the movie thoroughly. It was definitely not a Hollywood movie, and in some ways was a bit like what they used to call "independent" but once I got used to that I was able to enjoy it a lot. The leading actor was very cute--I'd like to see more of him. And the rest of the cast were certainly small town unusual. I don't know how the director found those people, but it was really refreshing to see what felt like "real" people. Not only that but this movie had straight characters interacting with gay characters and it was all very natural. And there were some surprises, too, but it was ridiculous or make me groan. I will definitely watch this movie again.

Great Story

[foodaphile · 9/10 · 7 July 2007]

What a relief to see a movie about real people. I'm sick of all these gay movies about porn stars or flaming queens. This story about a rancher whose father is delusional (does he have Alzheimer's? I couldn't quite figure that out) was a lot more realistic than anything else I've seen come out lately. No it wasn't a perfect movie--yes, it was probably shot pretty cheap. But I was willing to overlook that in order to enjoy the story. The end actually had me teary-eyed. I watched it again with a couple friends and we each saw different things in the movie and then talked about it the rest of the night--so I guess it was worth the cost. I'd show it to my father, but he wouldn't understand it because he's a lot like the older character. Glad I saw it--gave me some things to think about.