Havan_IronOak

This is a film about a group of teenagers. Whilst to most it's a way of passing time, one is beginning to realize that his feelings for his close friend means more to him than to the others. It's bittersweet as these guys seem all too destined to go their own ways The film is a loving portrait of that time .While this may (just barely) qualify as a gay film it's really a film about discovering one's emotions. Yet it's certainly a journey that most guys who've come out (even if only to themselves) can identify with.

It's NOT terribly revealing but the boys are likeable and the film is short enough while still delivering a satisfying experience.

A tourist lands at LAX loses his wallet, breaks his phone and is "rescued" by a cute hustler who takes him while the guy is walking to his motel from the airport.

Just how the hustler has a car is only the beginning of a series of unexplained and unmotivated circumstances that make this short make no sense.

The hustler being accosted at knifepoint (by his pimp?) is just another of the totally stupid things that just doesn't make sense in what's meant to be a light hearted romantic short.

At least the two main characters are cute. And the the scene in the shower is a nice moment despite also making no sense.

A somewhat unattractive man wakes up in bed with his one night stand and gradually gets dressed to leave whilst piecing together the events of the previous night.

There's nothing here that was new and revelatory here (except maybe the parting reveal) 10 years ago when this was made and it's even less intriguing today. It's short and the story is told in yoeman-like fashion.

I might have rated this more highly if I'd been more attracted to either actor and this isn't as painful as many shorts I've seen but there's little to recommend this and it will be about as memorable as the night these two apparently spent together.

Not sure that IMDb's 600 character requirement should apply to a 7 minute short but here are nonetheless.

Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.

Shared Rooms (2016)

Is a no angst gay rom-com written and directed by Rob Williams who brought us 'Make the Yuletide Gay'

This is another "Holigay" film that's intended to be light entertainment and it succeeds on that level. The story involves 4 gay couples with their stories told in an intertwining manner only to have them all close the loop; Couple 1 are an accountant and a screenwriter who open the film lamenting (over a Christmas dinner?) to couple 4 about the way that their social circle is shrinking as their gay friends are getting married and switching from partying to parenting. Of course couple 4 reveals that they are in the surrogacy process and expecting a baby themselves soon.

Couple 2 involves two men who are meeting on Christmas day for the first time thanks to a "manhunter" (Grindr/Tindr?) date. They discover that not only do they have sexual chemistry but quite a few other things in common as well.

Couple 3 involves two roommates who've shared digs for over a year with one traveling extensively. The traveler returns unexpectedly to find that his flatmate has turned his bedroom into a gay B&B and his room is actually rented out. Of course the two end up sharing the other bedroom and both discover... While couple 4's story isn't really developed, we actually get a fifth couple when the teen aged nephew of one of the guys in couple 1 gets thrown out of his own home and comes to lodge with his Guncle.

The stories all come together at a "Steve Not Eve" New Year's party.

The acting is genuinely not bad, the actors are good looking if not strikingly handsome, the production values are adequate, and whilst there are unlikely plot developments, there are few of the cringe-worthy moments that kept me from ever really enjoying the director's earlier 'Make the Yuletide Gay'

At only 75 minutes this film requires little time, and since it's streaming free with Amazon Prime, little investment. This is not an epiphany generating film with tremendous amounts of fiber and food for thought of the greater issues, but it is a candy cane of a movie. Light and sweet and perfect for the holidays.

A simpler and more straightforward film than Boy Erased yet with many similarities. This one seems less about the schadenfreude, more realistic and yet more hopeful.

The rural setting made the father (Tom Wopat) so much more of a sympathetic father figure than the creature Russel Crowe was in the other film.

The actors here were more comfortable to be around and felt more like people I'd really know. Seeing Gregory Harrison in the councilor role was so much less cringe-worthy than the charlatan in the other film. Also, the grieving father's other bad decisions depicted how parents are fallible beings as well.

This one seemed to be something that might actually help kids and parents struggling with their own life dramas whilst the other film felt more like a call to action to eliminate suvh misguided programs. This film accomplishes that as well but in a kinder, gentler way.

The story of a 14-year-old boy who finds out his revered older brother is gay, and what happens afterwards, is interesting. There are a LOT of what we would call "gaps" in the plot, so don't expect things to always be logical or realistic

I know that one cannot judge movies about social issues by Western standards

I already know that Indian movie-making is vastly different but having seen other Indian movies I was hoping for more. I know that dialogue, editing, pacing and plot development don't adhere to Hollywood norms

Even given that... I found it hard to grok why the one who seems to react the most strongly to the coming out is the gay kid's 14 year old kid brother. To me that just seemed unfathomable

Adding to the weirdness is that more than half the spoken dialogue is in English. I thought it might just be that the film was dubbed but about the same amount is in Hindi. Even most of the signs that students are waving at one point are all in English.

If the characters have assimilated that much western culture, how have they failed to assimilate this aspect of western culture as well?

It IS odd that the two families arrange a meeting of the parents to deal with the "the problem" but in a culture that still arranges marriages I was surprised by that. I'm chagrined to admit that the weird thought crossed my mind that while I was hoping to avert it happening I'd be curious to know if one of the kids committed suicide would the other commit suttee.

I was curious why the film makers even made a movie on what is such a taboo subject in India. As with many Indian movies they end on a happy musical note and all the ends are tied up with a happy ending that's never really examined too closely.

It seems that coming-out dramas are an evergreen subject for movies. How could they NOT be when even out and proud gay men must continually come out to a society that automatically assumes any non-effeminate man MUST be straight?

In this tale we don't REALLY ever get a coming out by the protagonist. And why should we? It's really his business after all, not ours.

Yes, he's got a gay father. Yes, his boyhood friend has outed him. But the fact is the main character learns through the course of the film that he doesn't need to fit into anyone else's little gender preference criteria but his own.

As a side note: This is also the first film I've seen where there was an on-going friendship between a guy and his (probably trans) friend that as close as the one shown here.

Thankfully, there is one old-school cinema stereotype that is missing from this film. None of the homosexuals in this film are fated to die in the end or even end the film in some pitiful state.

This film using the body swap trope had a lot of opportunities to succeed and I really wanted it to. But, we don't always get what we want. Kevin Zegers is cute enough to pull this off and the romance aspects of this work to some degree but the parentals are cringe-worthy, the gay character is used for comedy only in the most juvenile fashion I've seen in a long time. Definitely a Vito Russo test Failure. Even the boner jokes won't get a rise out of most people. They say that beauty is only skin deep, but if that's tha case, then this movie is only for the really thin skinned folks. It's not torture, but it's not very entertaining either. Just One of the Guys (1985) did the themes more justice 20 years earlier.

The main character is just not "right" somehow. As we begin to see why it's clear that Jim Jordon wouldn't want you to see this.

This film is intentionally obscure and the mystery is part of what makes this an engaging if dark film. It presents a compelling look at the damage that sexual abuse can have -- even years after the fact. That this predator preys on children makes him even more despicable but the way that the story is told one is never really sure just where this tale is headed.

This is NOT light hearted viewing and one wonders just how much more preachy this story would have been if it had been unfolded in another way.

It's clear from the outset that something is wrong here and it's clear that this is no Bull Durham. My biggest fear is that the main character was even more damaged than what I suspected. At the same time there are some obscure plot points that should have been more fully resolved. One wonders just how much the mother in this story was actually aware of, how much the police were aware of, how the man who bought the protagonist's childhood home knew and even if he'd once been a victim.

Given a minuscule production budget, one expects certain storytelling shortcuts. E.g. Getting one's prospective room-mate as one's Uber Driver in episode one was incredibly unlikely but one willingly allows for these types of things, occasionally. Meeting one of the main character's estranged family members here was much more jarring. It just seemed like a device to fill in missing story-line details and resolve the current plot dilemma on the cheap. While it was filmed well and the actors did a great job with what they were given it still felt far too unlikely and gave rise to as many questions as it answered. E.g. How would a sister who'd not talked to Joshua know where he hid his spare key and that he was cooking for Andre, even assuming that she COULD read his e-mails.

I love the Romeo and Juliet story. Though it wasn't the first time I'd been exposed to it, I fell in love with this tale after seeing the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli.version of it.

I've seen the film Private Romeo, I've seen an off-off Broadway play where both leads were men. I've seen the 1996 Romeo + Juliet. And I'm sure that there are a score of other productions I've seen over the years and this is perhaps the worst version I've ever seen.

The guys aren't that cute, the dialogue is neither an interesting comment on, nor an evocative update of the original. I searched for some of my favorite scenes and I just kept getting more and more frustrated feeling that any time spent viewing this was a waste of time.

I found no great parallels, no new perspectives on offer, nothing really that made me want to continue watching.

This is only one person's perspective and possibly I missed all the good bits as there was NO way that I could force myself to sit through the entire thing without fast forwarding & skipping ahead.

I've suffered through a LOT of gay film in my time, cherishing the shining moments that I could find amidst the dross, Maybe I'm just too jaded to continue with that quest but this one gets no further with me.

Set in the early 80s in Wyoming, Steve is in love with his best friend Mark, but Mark is unsure of how he feels. Flash forward 10 years to the funeral for Steve's father.

The two boys have their Clive & Maurice moment (and yes, there's a Scudder around) but some things never change and some people never find the courage to do the really "true" thing.

There are just SO many coming out / coming of age stories and it's an evergreen topic for film makers. Most are generally sweet as those of us drawn to this kind of film are automatically pulling for the guys. And these films remind us of our own crushes & "roads not taken".

This one is workmanlike, and doesn't have any truly cringe-worthy parts. But when one finds oneself checking the progress bar at the bottom of a 21 minute video and kind of wishing that the number were higher than 14, that's probably NOT a good sign.

Cryano Debergerac is one of my all time favorite plays. I first saw a revival version off-Broadway in NYC and I loved it. I immediately checked out the Jose Ferrer version and it was good, but not AS good. The version that I saw at the Stratford festival in Canada a few years back was great and I even enjoyed the Steve Martin remake.

This was a laudable attempt and is remarkably free of cringe-worthy moments while updating this perennial favorite.

The updating of letter to texting worked. The casting of eminently huggable BooBoo Stewart in the Christian role was a superb choice. Even the aside making best pal Raganeau, Cyrus's cousin when the original based much of the original problem on Roxanne being Cyrano's cousin was a nice touch.

The poetic duel, the wooing Roxy by proxy aspects were all enjoyable. Overall this was a fun movie for those of us that knew the story. I'm not sure why it wasn't rated higher than it is.

Still it was fun and I'd watch it again if nothing better were on offer.

At just under seven minutes, The short film Not Me, depicts a troubling scenario involving a randy guest and a young hotel room service waiter.

In the post #me-too age the kid showed remarkable presence of mind in recording part of the encounter which all too easily could have devolved into a he said / he said situation.

I'd say that it saddens me that people are becoming less and less civil and trustworthy but the realist in me knows that many people have always been this way. It's just that more people are being caught and that those in power all too often yield to the temptation to use that power over others.

While the short IS powerful, it's NOT terribly deep (and how could it be in less than seven minutes) It does hold one's attention and didn't have me glancing at the video progress bar as so many other shorts... even shorter ones have done.

That said... I was a bit surprised to see the introduction of a "wife" character at the end. It was unnecessary, added nothing to the story, and even made the main premise more unlikely.

I was in the mood for a gay rom/com and I was pretty sure that this WASN'T what I was looking for but something about it resonated with this 60+-year-old single guy who'd become more than a bit cynical.

The honesty and the familiarity I felt for these characters kept me interested enough that I decided to put aside my search for a sappy sweet romance and see how these boys did.

Of course I identified with Bobby the overly analytical overly opinionated cynic with a secret wannabe romantic at his core. As a cis-gendered white male I've always been able to pass when I wanted to but have always been attracted to people unlike myself.

Finding someone who looks like Luke Macfarlan does in this film with his puppy-dog eyes and his sweet disposition certainly pushes this into the idealized romance arena and I was hooked and satisfied.

After watching it, I'm still trying to figure out why it worked as well as it did and it's clear from the ratings that a lot of viewers never have.

Seeing all of the openly gay actors with cameos in this film just made it that much sweeter. This is not ever gonna be everyone's favorite movie but I'm glad it's out there and I'll definitely be watching it again sometime.

This film deals with a pair of gay students in Columbia who are attending a private school with an autocratic administration. The main characters students also have absentee or largely unsupportive parents. Given the level of repression, the unchecked bullying and the raging hormones, this is a recipe for disaster and the film has a higher body count than movies of this type.

When I was first coming out and coming to terms with my sexual identify, I found a lot of good in Spanish films. El Diputado, Colegas, El Sacerdote, Law of Desire to name but a few. In later years we've seen Strawberry & Chocolate , Burnt Money, Y tu mamá también, and The Way He Looks,

In many ways they are ALL more advanced than this film. Yes, the setting is Colombia in South America and it seems WAY more repressed than most Hispanic countries.

The boys are cute enough and the story doesn't dwell in the dismal aspects of this culture but it's certainly NOT the hopeful optimistic brand of gay film that I've come to expect these days.

According to the after credits the Colombian government ordered a change to school rules nationwide that recognized differences in sexual orientation So I'm a bit unclear what a film like this released in 2017 was trying to accomplish except perhaps the exorcising of some old demons.

If you have a special interest in Colombia and want to see an autocratic school system with very few real civil liberties, then this may well, be your film. If you're up for something lighter and want something in Spanish may I suggest the latest season of Elite?

I read this book when it first came out and have now now watched the film at least three times.

The book is better in that one can avoid all the awkwardness that makes into this type of film.

The MOST glaring flaw in the film was the insertion of the nonsensical Vice principal. Every time the man was on-screen it was annoying. Whatever comic effect they were going for there was completely lost on me leaving me with nothing but a distraction that I wish I could edit out of the film.

The blackmailing character was also over the top and in general detracted from my enjoyment of the rest of the story. It's a bit like watching a classic like Casablanca but injecting a Jim Carey animation character in. Totally unnecessary. It felt like the film makers couldn't trust the material and felt they needed to add "something" to widen the appeal.

Still, in the grand scheme of things, the rest of the story was well written and heartfelt and could be enjoyed once one got past the annoyances.

It's almost as confusing the 2nd time around. The intro episode is a bit confusing but it gets better as I recall. This episode was very poorly subtitled in English even though it had been dubbed into English as well.

11 minutes of flirtation between two swimmers inter-cut with their backstory. There's no dialogue to speak of and for the most part none is really needed. Which is good because most of the flaws of this film can be eliminated when watched at 150% of the intended speed.

I'm not sure why so many short film makers tend toward intentional obfuscation of their stories when a clearer, more flashback-free presentation of their story would make the whole thing so much more watchable. I was entirely ready to switch to watching something else when I realized that this film with no dialogue would be perfect for acceleration. That pretty much saved this short for me. There were still some plot details that could have been made clearer but I'm convinced allowing the plot to unfold at 1x speed would have exponentially increased my viewer frustration level while providing no additional clarity.

There IS a sweet ending but without the advantages of time acceleration it probably wouldn't have been worth it.

I read the book that this was based on back in 2013 and loved the book. The way that New York City was almost an additional main character in the book has been carried over into the TV series. How can you not love a series that features the Strand Book Store, McSoreley's Ale House, Two-Boots Pizza and so many other New York City landmarks. And that's not even mentioning punk rock Klezmer players, beared drag queens and Challah Back Boys! I absolutely loved the scenes in the Morgan Library.

Tale of a South African rugby player who comes out to his best friend and suffers the ensuing rejection. While there's not much new in the main story the film spends a lot of screen time in some alternate sanctuary reality that seems to have been designed by an over zealous window dresser.

The basic story is OK and the main actors are pretty enough and yet butch enough to pull off their roles as rugby players. That said, it's an evergreen issue and there are few wince-inducing moments.

Given that it's viewable free on you-tube, it's worth the price of admission. Check it out for yourself.

I loved the intro to the characters and it looks like there may be some good story-lines here.

One clinker though... a $500 fee to play basketball seems ridiculous.

Still it's not as over the top as the Vice Principal was in Love Simon.

While this was released in 2015 this Dutch kid's longing reminded me strongly of a time when I had those feelings and fears though for me it was the pre-aids 1970s. Looking for love and finding sex is still all too common an experience even in these days of Prep and Covid. I was a bit surprised that sex club in this was so seedy but then, as I recall the Club Baths Tampa were no great shakes either. It's poignant in a way that not all viewers will appreciate but then any loss of innocence is.

At 51 minutes I'm guessing that the version airing on CBS all-Access is just a re-tooled version of this (sans Derek Jacobi) This doc presents a different version of events than most of the documentaries I've seen on this battle. . In one graphic it shows they show a single US fleet with three carriers while in fact the US side was split into two fleets with one having two carriers while the other had one. Much of the footage leading up to the battle is different than that usually shown and does a pretty good job of explaining why combined air ops were important.

This episode made an effort to up an already ridiculous level of tension. It not only portrayed an over the top drill, it was an over the top story line. It's just a pity that the creators couldn't trust the underlying characters that they've created over a number of seasons and focused on the good dramatic bits. Instead they went for spectacle and failed to create something that might have been worthwhile viewing.