kbraidi

The curators of this collection of six French short films had the opportunity of showing us a range of France's creative best, but apparently this is the best that they could come up with, sad to say.

Admittedly, I have a preference for either forthright narratives or, if we are to take a flight of fancy, at least a tale with a discernable point to make. Of the six films presented here, only two have a straightforward A-to-B-to-C plot structure.

"En Retour" - "In Return" - gives us a short tale of what might transpire between a more "mature" john and his adult rent-boy.

The far-and-away best selection of the bunch, "Herculaneum," presents a series of three encounters between two men who meet through a hook-up app. (I would highly recommend viewing this one, even if you skip all of the others.) The whimsical "Apollo" is somewhat of a fantasy detailing the titular teenage boy's obsession with his body, particularly the size of his penis.

"Ruptures" is a hard-to-follow mash-up of various 20-somethings describing their past break-ups. It jumps back and forth between snippets of a series of interviews conducted by a friend, as best I can figure. But, to what end?

Each of the remaining two shorts has a different pair of boys at its core. The first half of "Juliet Electrique" presents two adolescents, one being the alpha-male leader; and the other, his accomplice, who will face whatever fears he has to meet his pal's dares. An unexpected kiss between them throws them -- and the film! - off track, into an obscure future, dragging the viewer along to an unresolved confusing neverland.

And lastly, it is anyone's guess what "The Body of Angels" is supposed to be about. It seems to want to be allegorical; but in any event, we can safely say that it is "for the birds."

While it is true that whenever I see that a film's star is also its writer and director, I tend to avoid watching what I assume will be another vanity production. Sometimes, however, I decide to take a chance and watch it anyway; and occasionally I am pleasantly surprised. This is not one of those cases.

From the get-go, this film is dominated by the "performance" of one Tom Heard, who plays Jamie, an older gentleman who was once an enthusiastic local cabaret performer, but who is now attempting to recover from an upsetting break-up with his singing partner/boyfriend, by isolating himself in his apartment, belting out maudlin love songs to himself. He is not a likeable character at the onset, and does not ever become one!

The plot is such that our sad-sack crooner begins interacting with his younger neighbor, another "damaged goods" loner who is unwilling to deal with his depression due to the death of his mother, and has a journal full of sentimental "poetry" to prove it. Donato De Luca does at least provide a little spark as the sulky young neighbor, Ben.

I suppose it is debatable whether the film would have been better served by having less saccharine poetry, better song lyrics, or vocal performances beyond those exhibited by Mr. Heard. Let's cut to the chase here: If there is any reason to sit through this low-budget, low-energy fiasco of a film, I just don't get it!

It seems that Thales Correa sees himself as a sort of triple threat, and decided that he was the best man to fill the jobs of writer, director and star - as well as other positions -- on his feature film debut, "Bathroom Stalls & Parking Lots." Sad to say, he proves to be inadequate in each of those roles. Theoretically, the film could have overcome the resulting challenges, and still turned into an enjoyable film to watch; However, that is not the case. Its greatest accomplishment may well be its evocation of the gay club and street milieu of San Francisco's Castro district.

The film seems to posit the well-founded idea that our current Grindr/app culture has made it nearly impossible to establish any "real" relationships, and then goes through a nomadic trek through several different "scenes" -- clubs, apartments, sidewalks, sex parties, and, yes, bathrooms and parking lots -- supposedly in an attempt to somehow show that romance can triumph over mere lust. Apart from our two main protagonists, several other characters come and go, but seem to be mostly just plot devices to provide new opportunities to add more drinks and drugs into the mix.

I did manage to sit through the entire film (so you don't have to!). If you are wondering if the film reaches any sort of satisfying ending, I can assure you that it does not.

If you have ever been in a relationship that ended sadly, you will be able to empathize very well with the protagonists here. And since the actors portray their characters with such accuracy, you will feel their pain so acutely that you may indeed find it painful to watch. It might even bring you to tears. Yes, it is a downer of a film. The very first scene is the actual break-up point in the relationship, which occurs in their bed, as they discuss what has happened to their relationship and if there is any chance that their problems can be fixed. Even the bed itself becomes a point of contention, a sort of symbol of division.

As each of them returns to the modern gay dating world, we see them go through some very realistic attempts to move on with their lives. We witness a few of their dating encounters: some comic, some desperate, and some just sad. There is a very touching scene where the two of them and their respective new flames attempt to have a civil dinner party.

So, dare we hope for some sort of reconciliation in the end? Watch and see. (And look in the Special Features on the disk to see an alternate ending.)

This is a very low budget film, set in Panama City (although the chance to showcase this exotic locale is squandered.) The story line is so unrealistically over-the-top that it is downright laughable in places.

The 2 male leads provide some welcome eye candy. But only one of them displays any acting ability, with the other droning his lines without any change in expression or inflection throughout the entire film.

While the plot is ludicrous, it is not the worst thing about this film. That honor is split between 2 technical aspects. The first of these is the atrocious sound quality, with much of the dialogue being completely incomprehensible. ( This is true not only through the entire film, but also in the extra features on the disk.) In addition, the entire film is so poorly edited, with static scene after static scene, each running to 2 to 3 times the length that would be needed to make its point. Thus, there is no sense of pacing, as the film creeps along to its bloated 2+ hours in length.

In short, this movie is unsuccessful in so many ways: unable to tell a cogent, believable story, or to do it in an entertaining and technically proficient manner. Little redeeming value here.

This is a very well made, well cast film. The main subject is adolescence, and how painful it can be. While most of the reviews here seem to be wholly focused on the sexuality aspect, it is also largely about how teens navigate the ebbs and flows of their social relationships, both with their peers and with their parents. Sexual experimentation is on view, to be sure, as is unchecked homophobia and the havoc it can wreak. The film presents no easy resolutions to the problems encountered along the way. Just like real life.

Note to self: when a film description suggests that what you are about to see is surreal, please remind yourself that what that really means is that you are about to be presented with a string of nonsensical scenes, never explained, that add up to nothing more than a waste of your time. And then go and find something else to watch. (And, no, I do not find the suggestion that our protagonist is on a mind-altering drug to be explanation enough for us to be interested in this nightmare of his.)

This film is completely useless. It claims to be a documentary, but does not provide the viewer any usable information about its subject. The music featured on the soundtrack seems lifted from a '50's horror film, and is very irritating.

This is a nearly incoherent soft core film, with plenty of nudity and blood and all kinds of sex, to be sure, but little in the way of plot. The pacing is that of a snail, and a feeble, near-death but apparently horny snail, at that! The creepy music in no way enhances the orgiastic action. The main character (?) and narrator is incomprehensible most of the time. The atmosphere is one of gloom throughout. I was thinking that this film might be almost so bad that it could be trippy fun, but instead it just seemed endless and boring. ( I notice that the actor who played the second-lead male role, Dmitri, is not even credited here. He would be wise to keep his name from being associated with this dreck! )

Avoid this film at all costs.

This is a film that seems to be more interested in creating an atmosphere than in telling a story. Into a small town in the French countryside, a German stranger arrives. Certainly he has a back-story, and wheedling out the strands of what that story might entail is, I suppose, what the film is "about." There is an event in his past that he must find a way to come to grips with. We witness his interactions with those around him -- his landlord, neighbors, and a possible romantic interest -- as he settles down into a disjointed day-to-day existence. There are definite signs of darkness and foreboding, but we are given only tangential clues as to what it is that he has run away from, and he seems by turns depressed, mysterious, sexy, dangerous. We eventually witness his attempt to address the provocations of his troubling past, albeit in an obtuse poetic manner; but it is not clear what effect his actions will have for him in the long run. Nor is it clear what the film's viewers are meant to take away from their viewing experience. We can acknowledge that the filmmakers have been able to successfully build for us a tension and a sense of un-ease. But to what end? Perhaps the character himself has gained some sort of self-awareness, but what is it that we have gained from this experience?

This movie is not worth your time. It is low-budget and amateurish in the extreme, with bad writing, bad acting, and bad directing. The pacing is painfully slow, with way too many extended scenes of Halifax scenery (some of it nonetheless beautiful), and a relentless piano music score poured all over it like treacle. The plotting is ludicrous, and absurdities abound, such as: a large high school which apparently only has 5 students and two staff members; a tattoo parlor/tea room run by a sweet hippie-ish couple, neither of whom sport a single tattoo; one of the main characters gets shipped off to Canada to live with his father, and then gets shipped back to England after only a few days, in which time he has met and fallen in love with another cute troubled soul, made both friends and enemies, but yet he apparently hasn't even seen either his father or his father's home. There are physical attacks and a home break-in, with no thought of reporting anything to the police -- or is that commonplace in Canada? It is all too much to swallow. I give it one extra point for being well-meaning. If you want a "Beneath the Skin" experience, I recommend getting a tattoo rather than seeing this film.