ChorusL106

I viewed this film last evening on Netflix. My personal opinion is that the film's general storyline is an important issue facing GLBT culture today. Given that the American public is still coming to terms with homosexuality and that homosexuality only started becoming publicly accepted within the last couple decades (maybe less), I think this film depicts an issue that occurs very often today. We are finding that, as America's perception of homosexuality has increasingly softened, older men and women who repressed their identities in their youth are slowly starting to come out and address their own sexuality issues. I think the film's desire to create a narrative of this sort is excellent. I thought their portrayal of the situation was ghastly. Part of this negative review is due to personal experience with the issues portrayed in the film and part is also a reaction to the film's poorly developed storyline.

There is actually a school of psychology that has been aptly dealing with the emotional damage that's affected by the later comings-out of closeted men and women. It is a small school of thought, and probably not particularly well known or received in the greater medical community. But whatever research these groups churn out does not match with what occurs in this film. The truth is, these late revelations wreak havoc on the relationships and marriages they change, change which normally manifests as destruction. While I can appreciate the film's creators' wish to create a situation and characters sympathetic to the struggle of these men's and women's long denial of their homosexuality, it's not a particularly accurate portrayal of what normally occurs in such a situation. It also didn't give justice to the struggle that the deceived partner goes through after learning something of that magnitude. The wife's reaction, while initially convincing, dwindled to acceptance far to quickly. It didn't accurately show the length of time it normally takes for a "surprised" spouse to recover from his or her partner's lies. It also didn't adequately show the emotional turmoil. In other words, nothing in the latter half of the film was believable. I wanted to see the wife kick her husband out, drink herself into oblivion, maybe attempt a suicide, and, after a long montage, finally gain a smidgen of acceptance for what happened. The wife's complete turnaround in what appeared to be one day was just incredible.

Personally, I am quite sensitive to this issue because I have friends who have been deceived in this way. I also know men and women who are living the situation of the husband in the film. Personally, I think these scenarios make a great case for augmenting public respect for and learning of homosexuality. Repression of sexuality leads to people getting deeply emotionally hurt, often scarred. I feel these kinds of stories are a good way to educate the public at large, mainly because it shows the greater harm to society as opposed to the harm that is endured exclusively by the homosexual person. But unfortunately, this film did not serve that purpose.

My second gripe with this film was the bad story telling. As I said earlier, I had difficulty believing the wife's short turnaround. But also, I took issue with the lack of build-up in this film. There was relatively little interaction between the son's friend and the father. None of the interaction was really significant enough to truly warrant the turn of events that came about. It felt as if the father was actually a heterosexual, but decided he wanted to "try it out" a bit on a whim instead of finally being able to experience what he's been missing out on for years.

Lastly, the script for the film was wretched. There was no subtlety or nuance that helped create the characters. Characteristics of each character was blatantly shoved in the viewers' faces and demonstrated awkwardly. The example that I found most obnoxious was the writer's wish to convey the wife as an uptight conservative. They first developed that quality through a tacky scene involving a exhibitionist young boy and his skeezey mother, and then followed that with her participation in a predictable, hackneyed dinner conversation regarding homosexuality. While I don't think the actress that portrayed the wife was particularly good in this role, I can't really blame her given that her character was so clumisily developed. This was also true of the son's character as well. The script really suffered from a very rushed development, which unfortunately probably had to do with budget concerns. While I don't fault them for that, one other review mentioned several slow-moving, overly-lengthy scenes, the house party in particular. That thing just dragged on for close to fifteen minutes, and really didn't introduce us to any new or interesting qualities in the relevant characters. It was used mostly for comedic effect. That's fine, but the film really isn't a happy, light-hearted comedy; indeed the ending is particularly tragic. It didn't fit and it took away time from scenes that should have been more fully developed, particularly the growing interest between the friend and father, and the wife's emotional trauma. All in all, it case across as something written by a beginning film student.

So yes, while I think the message is important and worthwhile, this film bungled it and really did a bad treatment of the material. None of the characters' situations were believable, nor did the script allow the actors to truly develop their characters. One good thing about the film was the cinematography. There were some really beautiful shots and settings, the lake in particular. The scene with the wife sobbing at a patio table towards the end was quite breath-takingly beautiful. But none of these positives made watching the film worth it. There are better films out there that address this issue and I would suggest looking to those. Thanks!

I've always enjoyed Lisa Kudrow as an actress. I think she has a gift for comedy and creating humor in situations of angst, misery, and the pathetic. While I enjoy her as an actress, and do think she is incredibly gifted for her unique acting abilities, I don't think that those talents, alone, are enough to support an entire sitcom as a lead character.

I watched this entire web-series in two evenings. First off, I enjoyed them. I do think her take on the character is viable and relatively believable, despite the sheer heinousness of her. However, I think the supporting guest appearances by other notable actors and actresses were far more interesting and humorous than Kudrow's character. Guests like Molly Shannon, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Michael McDonald, etc., provided their well-known comedic flair that, I think, stood out over Kudrow's. I think this is mainly because much of these well-known comedians' parts in the show replicated the humor for which they previously became famous. Molly Shannon plays an over-the-top, eccentric reporter who has a complete meltdown, entirely in the gruff style of Shannon. Julia Louis-Dreyfus plays her usual middle-aged, stressed-out female with the a propensity towards dramatic, heated outbursts. Many guests play parts that have characteristics reminiscent of their well-known characters in the past.

Kudrow, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have the same comedic connection, most likely because most of her comedic parts were either supporting, or if they were lead characters, they were short lived, i.e. Valerie Cherish. Thus, I kept wanting to see a more predictable comedic pattern in Kudrow's Wallice character. To be clear, Kudrow's portrayal is very consistent and remarkably believable for how "character-ish" Wallice is. But it falls short for the reason above.

Secondly, I don't find Kudrow's character to be particularly new or ingenious. I've seen several mean, rich, bitchy, self-absorbed, insensitive, calculating woman characters many times on TV in the past several years. Karen Walker, Lucille Bluth, Samantha Jones, Lucretia, Ilythia, Atia of the Julii, among others, have introduced many traits present in the Wallice character that others on this board seem to think are so novel. For sure, Kudrow puts her own spin on the character, usually with great success. But I don't believe it to be a particularly ground-breaking portrayal given what I've watched in the past few years.

Despite the above criticisms, it really is a cute show. The story lines, while short, are interesting and deserve attention. The recurring Craig/McGreevey/Haggard issue is very funny and well played. The other women that come into the script as a result of this issue have some hilarious bits.

I did see the Meryl Streep episodes. While she is not well known for her comedy (aside from 'The Devil Wears Prada' I don't think I've seen her in any comedies), her portrayal of the vapid, over-confident, saccharine Camilla was exceptionally wonderful. I don't know if Streep is a method actress, but her talent as a gifted performer far outshines that of others on the show. She literally became that woman in every part of her being. Her comedic performance in 'Web Therapy' seemed just as carefully crafted as her great cinematic roles.

Lastly, the concept of the show is really quite interesting. It reminded me of Choderlos De Laclos' 'Les Liasions Dangereuses,' written completely as letters between the characters. While the webcam offers a more complete observation of the characters, the action is limited only to what the computer camera captures. This struck me as similar to same limitations presented by the letter-writing in Laclos' book. Thus, much of the action depends on the performers' true acting abilities, and less on sets, costumes, and blocking. The closed feel of the webcam definitely limits what the characters can do, which I believe must have been challenging. I applaud the cast for dealing deftly with that limitation.

To sum it up, while it's compelling, funny and interesting, I don't think it is Kudrow's best work. However, like I expressed, I don't feel this is due to any lack of command in performance on Kudrow's part. She is extremely gifted and talented, but I don't think this particular project suits her talents. Secondly, the other guest characters' shenanigans and their portrayals are so funny, I think Kudrow's performance gets stifled. Personally, I imagine her as a much more deft dramatic actress with a comedic undertone (similar to her performance in 'The Opposite of Sex'), as opposed to a fully comedic character actress. I also don't see her character, nor her portrayal of her, as exceptional or novel. The performers do well with the limitations of the use of the webcam device and it provides an interesting cinematic tool. I give it 6 out of 10. Thanks for reading.

I came across this film while randomly looking over IMDb and was intrigued by it (not by the title, I had no idea what a donkey punch was before watching). I thought it was pretty good and entertaining.

In my opinion, I thought the players did a good job with their characters, particularly the lead actress. I thought the gentleman who played Josh was also very deft. I enjoyed his portrayal of the seemingly-naive law student who ends up executing the most damage and using his knowledge of the legal system (maritime law is really awesome) to create fear and tension among the rest of the group. Generally, I thought the switch the characters made between sanity and crazy was compelling and interesting.

I was a little disappointed with the gore, as I was hoping for a lot more. In my humble opinion, I wouldn't call it a slasher flick, no categorize it as horror. It was really a thriller and nothing more. The killings were not really all that ingenious or clever in my mind, only one, maybe two, made my eyebrows rise.

Other reviewers have made negative comments about the setting, but I thought the luxury yacht was really wonderful. No doubt, it's most likely been over-used, but killing is so much more exciting and cool when it's executed on a fancy boat, don't you think? The maritime setting also added the great, claustrophobic element to the story. In all honesty, I thought the boat and the Mediterranean combined to make a great setting because it fought against the later-ensuing madness. Things were just lovely and marvelous on this fancy boat in the middle of the world's most beautiful body of water, good booze, sex with hot people, good drugs (if you like that sort of thing), gorgeous weather . . . and then all of a sudden it's the complete opposite. I liked how the desirable turned into the unwanted.

I thought the sexual content was actually quite well placed and appropriate. For sure, it is pretty explicit (whoever said it was tame is probably addicted to porn), but to me it didn't feel gratuitous or out of place, i.e. meant to get heterosexual males in the theater seats. It really brought out the nasty, hedonistic feel the story needed. I think it also was an appropriate way to introduce the turning point in the film, as the nudity and sexual activity introduced a vulnerability to the characters that made the shocking act seem all the more bizarre and horrific. Plus, the sex scenes were pretty hot.

One last item I would note is the apt use of instrumental underscore. I think this was one film that made excellent use of music. The instrumental scores well fit the action and matched the mood precisely. For whatever reason, that really made my viewing experience much greater.

I also thought the lighting and cinematography was pretty decent for such a low budget film.

Overall, I liked it. I thought the acting was above average, the setting compelling, and the story worth one's time. I would recommend it, but you probably will be fine with one viewing.

I started watching this show late in the season, and accidentally came across it by accident on Hulu (I meant to click on something else). I am glad I did.

What I like about this show in particular is that it is primarily concerned with the platonic dynamic among the members of a mish-mashed group. For me, that is really refreshing. I have never been a real fan of major network sitcoms because of what I perceive as a complete lack of ingenuity and a revolution around unoriginal themes (I actually started tuning into the Disney show, Suite Life of Zach and Cody for the reasons stated herein). There have been a few good ones here and there, but most friendship-oriented sitcoms geared towards adults seemed to develop the over-used story of a group of friends sitting around crabbing about their love lives and how to fix them, i.e. Friends, Will and Grace, O.C. (not exactly a sitcom), Sex and the City, even 30 Rock to a certain degree. I realize the bulk of those shows are from a few years back, but it was those sorts of shows (not to mention the devil-conceived reality shows) that really turned me off from major network programming. I enjoyed them at the time, but they all seemed to grace the same themes: we're such close friends and we're going to help each other find boyfriends. Puke! I got so sick of seeing friendships revolving around getting someone laid.

Then I came upon Community. I've watched every episode thus far in the first season and I really appreciate its commitment to focusing on the core relationships among the friends. Of course they delve into the sexual tensions that naturally exist, but it always remains focused on the friendships, and through funny means. I think this kind of theme is so necessary in today's programming. It's OK to "just be friends" with someone. It's OK to be yourself, to be dorky, funny, fussy, uptight, bitchy, whatev. There are still people out there that can care about you. It doesn't have to be about finding love or sex, being sexy, or being desired by the gender from which you seek attention. That is what I like about Community, it just shows friends being friends without pretense.

As far as the show goes substantively, I think it is quite funny. It sometimes misses the mark, but I think those moments are rare. Some episodes are funnier than others, some characters are funnier than others, but everyone has their moment. I love Joel McHale, I think he's a riot, and Chevy Chase is really great. Someone else mentioned how they were glad he wasn't over-taking the show's humor elements and I also appreciate that. His humor is well- spaced throughout the show. The guy who plays the dean is a riot as well. I love his scenes.

I also really enjoy the community college setting. It's a very appropriate setting for a show about a diverse group of friends that each have their own special and interesting reasons for being there. I know some people dislike the overt, "politically correct" representation in the group. There are some stereotypes, the culturally- insensitive older person, the fabulous African-American woman, the WASP-y, pretentious brat, the hipster, the cool guy, the nerd, etc. It can get a tad clichéd, but I think it works specifically because the community college setting is a place where you might find that mixture of people. It appeals to people from all walks of life: younger, college-aged students, people who have time on their hands and want more education, people trying to make a new start in life, etc. I think it's a great and interesting setting to use in a show about a unconventional group of friends. I really think the creators planned it out well.

So yes, if you are like me and enjoy seeing shows about friends being just friends, and developing those platonic relationships, its definitely worth the try. I certainly plan on continuing.