Suradit

If you're expecting the gritty, sweaty reality of rent boys in London, you'll find this movie disappointing. While there are some brief, decidedly homoerotic poses struck by the boys that replicate some of Caravaggio's paintings, the rent boys in this fantasy film are more about the cerebral than the physical. As mentioned several times in the film, they do not like the term "rent boys," preferring to be called "raconteurs."

The clients are obviously drawn to the physical beauty of the boys, in particular Harris Dickinson, but (and one must be reminded that this is a fantasy) it is the boys' ability to discuss artists such as Caravaggio in depth that seals the deal, so to speak.

One reviewer referred to this as "pretentious 'dibble'". Not sure what "dibble" is. I didn't notice anyone in the film dribbling, so presumably he meant "drivel." I have to totally disagree with that. I found it all to be fascinating and the actors carried it off with marvelous skill.

If I attempted to explain what it all meant, I would undoubtedly descend into pretentious drivel. It was somewhat amusing and presumably intended to mentally stimulate the viewer by making it all open to different interpretations. It undoubtedly explored the different forms of exploitation, but not in a way that demands all viewers react in a singular, predictable way.

I thoroughly enjoyed Postcards from London and will probably watch it again because, like a painting by Caravaggio, it contains far more than can be absorbed in one glance. I can easily see that it wouldn't appeal to everyone, but it definitely deserves attention as a thought-provoking film.

I found this biographical documentary to do a fairly good job covering the life of someone who is undoubtedly a person of importance in the history of South Africa and civil rights. For anyone who is unware or minimally familiar with the extent of the government's brutal treatment of the majority of its citizens throughout the history of South Africa, this documentary did not provide a meaningful context for Winnie Mandela's life and the lives of all non-white people under apartheid, but to have done that would have been a daunting, lengthy undertaking.

Another reviewer felt that Winnie's involvement in the death of Stompie Moeketsi and with the Mandela Football club was whitewashed in this documentary. I didn't find that to be the case. Even Desmond Tutu's plea to her to admit whatever she had done and the fact that she was asked to appear before the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were documented. Clearly that provided evidence that she was thought to be complicit. But it was also evident that the government, factions within the ANC, Inkhata and Mangosuthu Buthelezi all exploited the charges against her in the media and through other propaganda. A former government official admitted as much.

Did she involve herself in violence? Almost certainly. Did what she may have done compare in any way to the total violence against people under apartheid. Not even close. Were the ANC and Inkhata and the government of the day in a position to throw stones? Hardly.

I'm not excusing what she did or her refusal to acknowledge it. But she was never likely to be given a fair hearing in the public or in any court. The testimony of supposed witnesses was remarkably inconsistent and in many case the same witness told stories that were totally different each time they testified or were interviewed, as was explained in the documentary.

I lived in southern Africa for nearly a quarter century during the time that encompassed the period before and after the independence of Zimbabwe and during the time that some of the ANC leadership was in exile in Lusaka until Nelson Mandela was installed as president of SA. A good deal of what happened during these periods of transition was horrific and there was plenty of blame to go around.. Despite some legitimate questions that can be raised about the behavior of some, or maybe all, of those involved, the fact remains that Winnie Mandela was extraordinarily brave and that her life was extraordinarily difficult. Very few important figures in world history, no matter how revered they may be, could withstand meticulous scrutiny of everything they did without tarnishing their reputations.

This was a good biographical documentary attempting to present a complex, difficult subject who is unquestionably a person of historical significance.

Great News might remind one of the Mary Tyler Moore show ... with variations on the characters in the MTM Show ...Ted, the clueless news anchor and Rhoda, Phyllis, Lou and Sue Ann Nivens all contributing to the mayhem and lunacy surrounding the life of the central character, Mary Richards.

Great News does have a fairly decent supporting cast. Actually, the supporting cast probably carries the show and they provide most of the comedy.

It's rather hard to tell whether the central character is meant to be Katie Wendelson or her mother or whether it's just supposed to be mélange with no one being the focus. Katie (Briga Heelan), unfortunately, has been poorly cast and makes it seem that the rest of the cast has to struggle to keep the show afloat.

Definitely could have been a better, funnier show based on the concept and the talent exhibited by most of the cast, but the overall result has become bland and borderline slapstick.

Maybe if the parts played by Nicole Richie (Portia) and John Michael Higgins (Chuck) became more central and Katie and her mother became more peripheral it would help.

At the start of the movie Billy Bloom (Alex Lawther) does come across as being a little too fabulous in his behavior and appearance. I can see why that would be off-putting to many people. And possibly that was the point. We judge others based on first impressions which are almost always superficial because we don't have anything more to consider.

Billy's parents are separated and each show only a shallow, mostly hands-off interest in their son. Florence, the housekeeper, is passively sympathetic and protective, but unable to be meaningfully supportive. Billy is essentially alone and coping with his confused sense of self by being as provocatively freakish as he can be.

When Billy starts at a new school, he deliberately alienates himself from the other students by letting his "freak flag fly" in the most flamboyant way imaginable. He is understandably the target of bullying both trivial and physical.

Then, for reasons not easily understood, he attracts the friendship of one of the school's most popular, decidedly straight, male students, Flip Kelly ( Ian Nelson). Flip becomes the catalyst that helps Billy tone down his provocative, defiant and flamboyant behavior because he is possibly the first person in Billy's life who appears to care for the person beneath all the make-up and glitter.

Yes, the movie is filled with a supporting cast of stereotypical characters, but stereotypes exist for a reason and the exceptional characters are significant because they stand apart. While Billy is purportedly the stellar example of an exceptional person, the most meaningful, influential and exceptional character was Flip Kelly.

Great performance by Alex Lather, but Ian Nelson's acting was "exceptionally" good. Bette Midler lent her name to the cast listing but her appearance in the movie was largely insignificant.

While the movie dealt with the disaster that was the handover of India to it's people and the carnage of partition, the story centered its attention on the ridiculously palatial British Viceroy's House, the farcical pomposity of the British who conducted their business there and the countless number of Indian servants whose behavior and attitudes which reflected those of the Indian population at large.

As Churchill said, "History is written by the victors," and thus British colonialism in general, and people such as the Mountbattens in particular, have long been blindly glorified and exculpated. At least this movie helps to expose Mountbatten as the fatuous tool of the politicians that he was, chosen for his gullibility and his obsession with inflating his reputation. His wife and daughter come across as being the sympathetic, but clueless ego-centric do-gooders that they were.

The rush to hand over India, as one servant in the movie aptly stated, was because the British didn't want to be accountable for the inevitable carnage. As we were informed at the end of the film, countless millions were displaced and one million died, with the blame conveniently shifted onto independent India. This moment in Indian history, the obvious focus of the movie, and the resultant blood shed, as horrific as it was, would pale in comparison with an honest assessment of the death, destruction, enslavement and exploitation visited on India during the previous centuries of British rule. Shashi Tharoor recently claimed that Britain was responsible for the deaths of 35 million Indians. The accuracy of his numerical claim is irrelevant, but it does provide a contextual comparison.

The family of the film's director, Gurinder Chadha, suffered from the partition debacle and from the irresponsible colonial rulers. Possibly the time has come for history to be portrayed by its victims, rather than the supposed victors. Gurinder Chadha has been accused of bias in her film's portrayal of Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Indian Muslims.

An attractive, likable cast made it all bearable and, at times, enjoyable, but most of the twists and turns in the story were predictable, derivative and tedious.

There also seemed to be numerous, awkward moments when, out of nowhere, a musical number was inserted in a startling, cringe worthy way. Rather than enhancing the story line, most of them were intrusive, barely relevant and uncomfortable.

While the whole movie was creeping over the line into soap opera territory, the final twist & turn removed all doubt.

It is probably still worth watching, but by the end you may be asking yourself, "what the hell just happened."

The overly intrusive mother and interfering, judgmental family thing has been done to death and by actors who made it both funny and believable. Linda Lavin and Elliott Gould may be very nice people, but whoever cast them as the parents may not have actually read the script or attended the auditions.

From the effort being put in by the rest of the cast, I get the impression they've already concluded this thing is going nowhere.

A laudable undertaking. I appreciated that several notable actors took part, some like David Hyde Pierce and Rob Reiner who took on roles portraying characters with views obviously contrary to their own were amusing in their absurdity.

I did feel at times it was spread a little thin with several loosely connected stories transpiring simultaneously. And so many exchanges between characters involved lectures or philosophical statements being hurled at one another (and us) rather than allowing events to make the arguments being espoused. Having a casual first encounter in a gay bar immediately result in a lengthy lecture on Stonewall, as one of many examples, seemed overly awkward and staged. Definitely, if historically accurate, the production underscored how divided and divisive the various support groups and their leaders were. It seemed often that the more formidable obstacles to progress came from within rather than from outside the movement.

Certainly there are documentaries or docudramas that better portray some of the individual seminal events in LGBTQIA history, but this attempt to connect it all was worthwhile. Whether or not it would hold the interest of viewers unfamiliar with this aspect of American history, and those most in need of being exposed to it, is another matter.

Miles is a blandly pleasant movie, but there isn't that much drama or comedy or connection to reality. The actor playing Miles is likable but the plight facing his character isn't that compelling and the premise for the movie, though supposedly "inspired" by a real story, isn't especially convincing.

Miles wants to escape small town Illinois and head off to the bright lights of Chicago to attend college once he finishes high school. Those plans rest on a modest amount of money set aside for him by his parents, but his father seems to have blown through the money and this only comes to light when he dies, supposedly leaving Miles with no choice but to spend the balance of his life in his dreary hometown, one of several assumptions that stretches our credulity.

Although the family is obviously of modest means, it's only at this point that Miles considers looking into financial aid for college. Judging from the response from his high school counselor, this is breaking new ground for her as well. But she has a list of possible financial aid for schools located in Chicago and that list contains a total of two items, the National Merit Scholarship Program and one volleyball scholarship from Loyola that supposedly would cover nearly all of Miles's expenses … all of which beggars belief.

We then have to accept, absent a boys' volleyball team at his school and that no other possible scholarships exist, that a recruiter from Loyola would likely pick him after watching Miles play for a few minutes on a girls' team.

Surprisingly this doesn't pan out, although Miles, his mother and the girls' team coach all eventually think it's a marvelous idea and the Loyola recruiter takes the time to come to a game to watch a player with no Illinois high school volleyball record at a school the recruiter would surely know has no boys' team.

The idea behind the movie had some potential and, presumably, the story that "inspired" it was more grounded in reality and possibly involved some actual drama and comedy, but the end result fell pretty flat and wasted an opportunity to explore the more plausible problems faced by gay kids "trapped" in rural America.

Great movie primarily because of the actors, especially the two who play the central characters.

The plot is a bit contrived though entirely plausible. I don't think it's necessary to look for any deep meaning in the behavior of those involved. Obviously a tragedy occurred and it was bound to have a profound effect on all involved and it was something that would not have been fully explored between parents and the very young boys at the time.

Likewise it would have been a painful jolt to all involved when it suddenly resurfaced again as the two young men fell for each other at school. Forgiveness and rational thinking are easy to expect in theory, but far more difficult to deal with in reality. One thought that never seemed to have arisen was whether blame should have been shared between both mothers ... Christopher's mother who was driving the car that struck Benny's brother and Benny's mother who apparently allowed the child to run out in front of the car.

We never know how long the relationship between Benny and Christopher lasted. The shared tragedy might have been overcome by love and forgiveness, but it would always be a burden that would weigh on them both.

It was a well done bit of drama and romance, but it was not anything from which profound meaning could be extracted.

The show has potential, but it will require a great deal of work to recover from the pilot episode. There was very little coherence between segments and the dog is less a central character and more of an incidental victim of the main character's sordid life.

Agree with several other posters that the dog's use of "like" in everything he said/thought was really annoying. Probably better to just have the dog think aloud his observations. Having his lips quiver to suggest that he's actually speaking just looked ridiculous and amateurish.

I'm guessing that it's aiming for "dry humor" rather than trying to be a knee-slapper, but it fell flat when it came to humor of any sort.

I had hoped this would be enjoyable. I'll probably give it a couple more episodes in the hope that the writers & producers get their act together. If it continues as is, I expect the show will be short-lived.

The cast and characters were generally likable and the story could have been an enjoyable escape, but the over-acting was overwhelming.

In just the first few minutes the actor playing Eric attempted to be adorably quirky but just came across as hyperactive and annoying. The actress playing Robyn was apparently meant to be the female confidante who dispensed words of wisdom and encouragement to the stereotypically clueless gay guy. Unfortunately she came across as a chirpy nursery school teacher trying to get a socially challenged child to play with others. Having some hetero character play the adult to the childish gay character(s) has become a bit tedious.

I know some people enjoy amateurish productions because of all their rough edges and the struggling actors trying to outdo each other, but it's a bit like sitting through a local high school stage production. You appreciate the effort but just wish it would end soon.

Possibly if this had been produced twenty years ago it might have been deemed mindlessly amusing, but considering what's available in the way of movies and TV these days, it was just mindlessly tired and banal.

The script is just a series of lame, tired word play and pathetic situations augmented by a cast of hesitant, not particularly likable, actors struggling to portray one- dimensional characters.

I don't want to beat this to death, but if you manage to sit through it all from beginning to end, you'd have to be a masochist. I'm not so I didn't. I tried fast forwarding a few times in the hopes that the pace might improve and the actors might become less wooden, but that just compounded my disappointment.

I did watch Rob Williams' Make the Yuletide Gay a few years ago. The situations were fairly lame and ridiculous in that as well, but the actors were likable, fairly talented and able to rescue the awkward plot. That magic element was sadly missing in Shared Rooms.

I endured about a third of this before giving up. I guess this was aimed at drawing in those viewers whose lives revolve around the realism of the world of video games. Maybe the balance of the movie involved some real substance, but the first bit was nothing but childish nonsense with some facts tossed in to make it easier to swallow.

You've got a bunch of testosterone-addled clowns who each sports a beard; who give cute monosyllabic nicknames to each other as well as to everyone and everything they encounter; who have adorable wives, children, dogs back home; who work out; who play video games to demonstrate how relaxed they are in the dangerous environment; who use the f-word every two minutes so we know how tough they are; and who think they know everything there is to know about Libya from weeks spent inside American compounds surrounded by Americans.

All the locals are portrayed as clownish, sinister, cowardly cartoon characters and the Americans involved above the rank of knuckle-draggers are either slaves to mindless protocol or buffoonish pie-in-the-sky Harvard or Yale dilettantes.

I'm not sure which is more troubling, that this serious event has been reduced to this soap operatic cast of caricature-characters or that this portrayal remotely matches the actual people involved. In either case I'm sure many of those who watch it will absorb it all to be stored away as fact … just like Batman and Superman battling the forces of evil is fact.

Sadly disappointing case of Hollywood reshaping reality to appeal to the crowd who needs car chases and plenty of weaponry to keep their attention from wandering.

There are times when a talented and/or charming cast of actors can save a badly written/scripted movie, but in Tennessee Queer, the amateurish acting only makes it all worse.

Gay-bashing & bigotry towards both the LGBT community and Blacks remain a deplorable reality even as we start the 21st century and any effort to expose its ugly existence is laudable. Exploiting the problem as an excuse to produce a childish, badly acted movie, however, is counter-productive and neither informs nor entertains. "We" can do better than this.

There have been many movies produced that sensitively & successfully combine drama and humor in dealing with bullying, prejudice & ignorance and the harmful consequences they have on so many. Tennessee Queer almost appears to lampoon the issue with unintended humor and soap-opera farcical drama.

I applaud the intentions of this production but not the results. If you want to see an excellent, realistic portrayal of community healing, a gay pride parade and excellent acting, watch the British movie "Pride," for example.

Watching this as a video on a television, as I did, probably meant it wasn't as impressive as it would have been in a theater, but it was beautifully photographed.

It presented a reasonably even-handed and, as far as I know, accurate portrayal of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim communities residing in Jerusalem. It was a decidedly superficial and elementary presentation. I'm not sure who the intended audience was, though the approach suggested it was aimed at school children or possibly as a tourism promotion.

There was no reference to any of the difficulties faced between the communities, at least until the conclusion when a vague mention was made of historical conflicts and a hope that seeing the commonalities and shared faith of Christians, Muslim and Jews might eventually be considered more important and valuable than the emphasis on differences.

Overall it was nicely done, but very superficial and lacking any depth. I doubt many people would come away motivated to work for peaceful coexistence, though maybe those who are open-minded will better understand that Jerusalem of all places ought to inspire peace rather than conflict between the three major Abrahamic religions.

The film explores the whole issue of identity although it focuses on how someone speaks.

The way we speak, whether with southern or British or Boston or bland newscaster accent or gay intonations, does have practical implications. Should it matter? Probably not, but we don't live in an idealistic world.

Obviously it will matter in a negative way a whole lot if you're a high school student in Beaver Dump Idaho, whereas if you live in the Village in NY and work in a gallery it may be both acceptable and an asset to sound gay-ly intellectual.

Should a Black man from the south be ashamed of sounding like a Black man from the south? Of course not. But if he wants to get a job as an announcer on CNN and stand a realistic chance of rising in the ranks, he'll probably have to modify the way he sounds. We each have to decide what matter most to us and whether changing something about ourselves really matters.

But this website isn't really about the validity of the supposed issue being addressed, but about how it's been presented. In this case, I think it was handled superbly.

The issue is addressed honestly in terms of influences in childhood, celebrities who we've regarded as exemplifying all the stereotypical behaviors of gay men or situational experiences that we've lived through ... not solely in terms of speech, but in the whole constellation of behaviors that define us and those that will likely elicit certain reactions from those around us.

By the end of the film we can see that the issue of how we sound is simply one aspect of our identity, both as we think of ourselves and how others may think of us. Is our reasoning behind wanting to change idealistic, realistic or symptomatic of something deeper? Some people are certain that plastic surgery or a hair piece will transform them into something they are not. Maybe cosmetic changes will increase our sense of self-esteem. Maybe we'll realize that superficialities are meaningless and that we're grasping at straws.

I think this film explored the whole issue of self-identity very well in terms of the influences, both internal and external, and the need for each of us to come to terms with who we are and what really matters.

Well worth watching to better understand ourselves and what things we focus on that are irrelevant to who we really are.

I generally enjoy movies that lampoon a genre and elevate tired over exploited situations to clever farce. The Naked Gun series of movies managed to be painfully ridiculous and produced situations that made one cringe, but laugh at the same time. Scary Movie, at least the first one, was similarly amusing. Clue and Murder by Death managed to be zany both in dialogue and great casting.

I endured 2 1/2 episodes of Scream Queens because I thought it might improve as the actors got comfortable in their roles and if/when it began to gel. It actually got worse.

As a story concept, it had some potential, but the characters and the actors struggling with their roles never gained traction. Possibly with a different cast and writers it might have taken off, but under the present conditions I can't imagine it will survive much longer. I have to believe the reviewers who called it "hilarious" and "brilliant" either have some connection to the producers or else they've led very sheltered lives.

Another reviewer referred to this as "astonishing." I suppose that can be taken several ways.

When I decided to watch this film I missed "musical" in the description and mistakenly assumed it was a murder docu-drama, rather than a crime docu-songfest.

I guess it could be described as innovative. It is allegedly based on a real event, the real words of those in the community, the reactions/implications of & for those in the locale affected by the murders and the subsequent investigations. As we are told repeatedly, people became suspicious of one another.

The question remains, is all of this something to sing about. The medium is the message or at least it influences how one feels about it all. For me it just seemed tedious and rather bizarre.

The story revolves around a wager between some older boys and the three younger central characters. In order to put the bullying of the latter to rest, the younger boys accept a challenge to stay in an allegedly haunted house overnight on Halloween. This will supposedly demonstrate their bravery and earn them eternal respect from the older boys. Originality or credibility are certainly not the movie's strong points.

The characters are two dimensional. There is nothing remotely funny or frightening in the movie. The special effects are neither special nor convincing. Even the youngest viewer would probably be bored.

The actors at times attempt to inject a little enthusiasm into their roles, but for the most part they seem to be left to drift through an uninspired and tired screenplay.

The premise for the movie had potential, but it was ruined by overkill.

There's not too much originality in exploring the antics of an intrusive, micro-managing mother and her long-suffering off-spring, but to be effectively done, some subtlety and realistic reactions need to be present.

In this film, the mother goes beyond meddling and goes well into the realm of obnoxious smothering and the character's efforts to appear to be a free spirit dedicated to protecting her son engenders no sympathy for supposedly well-meaning intentions.

Even more difficult to believe is that her son bears all of this with amazing equanimity rather than resorting to suicide and/or matricide and that the other students at his school seem to barely notice the mother's constant manipulative presence.

There are a few worthwhile scenes where the son attempts to resolve his confused take on his own sexual orientation with his long absent father ... despite the fact that his mother has outed him as gay to everyone because it suits her plans to finance his college education, but for the most part the film is more excruciatingly annoying & cringe-worthy than humorous or moving.

A couple of guys, one of whom is incredibly obnoxious, are having problems "hooking up" with women ... surprise, surprise ... but then one notices that "chicks" seem to be drawn to gay men. Guess what devilish scheme that one then hatches ... the title probably is a good hint.

The supposedly actual gay men that are the inspiration for the scheme are offensively portrayed as limp-wristed, squealing queens. When the two straight guys decide to pretend to be gay, they carry the offensive stereotypes to a new level.

While it might be understandable why the obnoxious guy would be desperate to try anything, the other man doesn't have any problems meeting women, so I'm not sure why he would resort to doing this ... but I must admit I was doing a bit of fast-forwarding hoping to find something remotely amusing, so I may have missed the logic behind that. About 30 minutes into the film I gave up and hit the stop button.

What I guess was meant to be funny at the beginning of the movie, aside from the screaming gay characters, involved the obnoxious guy repeatedly getting drunk & getting shot down by numerous women, several people vomiting, one attempt at a three-some that finished with the two main characters hiding under a bed while the woman's husband had sex with her ... and as far as I could tell things weren't likely to get much more "hilarious" than that.

Juvenile, crude, offensive, trite and I find it hard to imagine anyone could seriously consider any of it funny.

A well done and, as far as I know, a unique story concept. Not sure how rare it is for two brothers to be gay, but the situation was quite believable.

"Johnny Hazzard," the former porn star, turned in an exceptionally good performance. He is obviously multi-talented.

Two gay sons of a small town hardware store owner turn out to be totally different personalities.

Todd, the younger brother left home for LA. He is brash, angry, confrontational. Chet, the old brother stays at home, looks after his father during his final illness and death,continues to run the father's hardware store. He is an introvert, lacks self-confidence and has become resigned to a solitary life. He is openly gay and is accepted within the small community because he isn't in anyone's face about his orientation.

When Todd leaves LA and returns to the small town because he is unemployed and without money, he definitely stirs up the town and unsettles Chet as they try to reconcile and reconnect.

The acting was great. Todd/Johnny Hazzard makes the movie come alive. The young man who plays the local police officer also did an excellent job.

Well developed plot and some thought-provoking issue resolutions. Definitely a worthwhile movie to see.

The first part of the film was a little erratic, jumping abruptly from one situation to another. Not sure if that was intentional or if editing created continuity issues.

Also in the beginning some of the minor actors seemed to be quite literally reading their lines from a teleprompter that wasn't keeping up.

If you stuck with it, things did improve. Duvall both starred in the film and wrote it. He was, as always, excellent and I'm impressed that he (apparently?) came up with the story idea. Possibly he personally had some past demons he wished to put to rest.

It deals with a Texas rancher coming to terms with changing times, a need to address past wrongs and an attempt to reconstitute a family that his attitudes and behavior had torn apart. His efforts are not entirely successful in many ways and yet may have been the catalyst for some painful healing nonetheless.

James Franco was quite good. His acting is so much better when Seth Rogan is not involved. Maybe a hint of James Dean dealing with father-son alienation but with more understated drama. Josh Hartnett was also excellent.

It is not really a feel-good sort of movie, but there is a comforting sense that some things are changing for the better no matter how painful the process.

An excellent Italian film, which is especially surprising since the story premise is hardly original.

Mattia has never come out to his family and only to a few others. He is about to leave for Spain for a new job and to live with his Spanish boyfriend, Eduard, who is under the impression that Mattia's family knows that he's gay and that they know about Eduard.

Eduard then makes a surprise announcement that he's coming to Italy to meet Mattia's family before he and Mattia travel back to Spain together. Much of what happens is fairly predictable, but a wonderful cast of actors & characters and, for the most part, an excellent script/dialogue make it a thoroughly enjoyable movie. More than a few laughs and even a couple of teary moments.

Even if you feel put off by the "storyline" which makes it seem like a rehash of some sitcom you've seen before, it is well worth watching.