Man, this was unwatchable.
In 10,000 B.C. this tribe is headed for extinction and have to rely on their warriors to survive. I did not care, except that I kept wishing I was on the set to shampoo those people. Barfy hair was everywhere.
No gay content.
In There Will Be Blood, Daniel Day-Lewis plays an oil tycoon in-the-making. He plays a man thirsty for oil power, does it all with his bare hands and will stop at nothing to get what he wants -- surprising, huh? He nasty, of course.
I thought the movie should have been shot in two parts, the first with his rise, the second with his, uh, fall. As it is, the movie feels rushed towards the end (they tried to pass it off as artsy, but that didn't fly with moi). Having said that, I still think the movie is excellent -- Daniel gave us the best performance by a male lead. Ever.
No gay content.
Every now and then I will forget how much I hate Western movies and I will go see something like 3:10 to Yuma. Here's my basic beef with Westerns: they glorify bad guys -- and there's a lot of that in this one.
In 3:10 to Yuma, Russel Crowe is the badass robber who is aprehended and needs to be delivered to a train heading to prison. 
Christian Bale is the good guy who helps the law enforcement folks in their effort to put Russel in jail. The movie is pretty boring except that the last half hour gets pretty interesting; the result is still a mediocre movie, though.
On some level, I think Russel and Christian fell in love with each other, but maybe that was just in head...no actual gay content was present.
Now I just have to forget my hate for Western movies one more time to go see Jesse James when/if it comes out.
By now, I hope that all of you guys will have seen the Snickersgate incident. In that incident, Snickers made an ad for the Superbowl which was shady on the gay side (I thought it was only shady, well, at least the ad they actually showed), but commentary outside the ad itself made the ad clearly homophobic, it showed that the company (and the ad company behind the ad) expected a homophobic reaction from the public. Actually, worse than expected: incited it.
Something similar went into play in 300. In 300, we follow Gerard Butler in the role of Leonidas, a Spartan who gathered 300 of his hottest warriors to stand up against an evil empire (without realizing that they, Spartans, were just as evil, but that's another story).
The movie is a nice technical achievement, I liked the grainy images, excellent photography, and I loved the costumes (or lack thereof):
It was nice to see that the buff guys had to suck their gut quite a lot, you can tell that; so, I'm not alone there. But the movie is not all that. It's not. The reviews have been (mostly) great; but I will have to disagree. It's not a bad movie, but you should not have high expectations. Unless, of course, all you want is to see this man:
Before going into the gay content, let me just say that I had a big problem with the racism in the movie. You can read about that at The Independent. I am not even going to try to go into the historic inaccuracies -- you can read about those at The Toronto Star.
Now to the gay review.
I will differ from a few of the reviews of 300 on the gay front as well. I did not really find it homophobic (ta-dah!). The movie itself is not homophobic, I think. People have been saying that Gerald Butler's character reference to Athenians as "boy lovers" is homophobic, and I can see where that comes from, for sure. But I think that to say that that is necessarily homophobic is incorrect: I believe the reference to Athenians is offensive to Athenians (not gays) on a different ground: Athenians would be pedophiles. While it is true that the two (gays and pedophiles) are unfortunately, and often, equated, the two are far from being the same thing and one would hope that a reasonably intelligent person would know that. So, to say that the "boy lovers" comment is necessarily homophobic is a bit of a leap. If you want to make an effort into seeing goodness behind people's shady comments, this would be a good time.
But that's not all. Another accusation of homophobia in 300 comes from Rodrigo Santoro's character being effeminate. The character is king Xerxes, who is portrayed as (someone who thinks he is) a god. A god full of flaws (and maybe his effeminate nature could be seen as one additional, or even the main, flaw), but it didn't really came out 
that way for me, and remember that I am the one who is usually quite sensitive about the way we the gays are portrayed. For a king to be effeminate is not a homophobic stance and that didn't really bother me (even though he is the villain). As I have said before, I love the fact that people can be seen as effeminate, even though I would prefer if they were not the villains in the movies.
On a slightly positive scene (the one in Rodrigo Santoro's tent), we see some girl-on-girl action, something I haven't seen mentioned anywhere. I think the scene was supposed to show the bacchanalian bent of the Persians, I guess; but again, that didn't bother me and I actually found that scene to be a little on the positive side.
But in the end, I will indeed give the movie a shipwreck score because of the "boy lover" comment (to a 
small extent) and because of a declaration from writer-director-asshole Zack Snyder (that's him on the left and on the right, "acting" in Dawn of the Dead). The "boy lover" comment, after all, isn't nice and some people unfortunately equate "gay" with "pedophile", and I bet a lot of the straighties in my theater (a packed theater that clearly predicted the strong opening) did just that mental association.
The stronger reason for my shipwreck score indeed does rest on Zack's comments, which relate to my opening thoughts: the real homophobia in 300 actually lies outside of it, it lies in the bigoted mind of Zack (by the way, I think the other people involved with the concept of the movie should also be put to blame). Here's Zack's childish question, posed in an interview to EW: ''What's more scary to a 20-year-old boy than a giant god-king who wants to have his way with you?'' So, he is indeed turning Xerxes into a homo who wants to have his way with Leonidas, and that is supposed to scare young boys (it should lure them, but whatever). Not nice. Zack was specifically referring to this scene, where Santoro "tops" Butler:
Frank Miller's stories already resulted in a movie with homophobic content: Sin City. Shame on them all for letting homophobic undertones into their work.
Oh, and the acting was a-t-r-o-c-i-o-u-s.
The piece from EW is after the jump (where Snyder does concede that ''Some people have said to me, 'Your movie is homoerotic,' and some have said, 'Your movie's homophobic.' In my mind, the movie is neither. But I don't have a problem with people interpreting it the way they'd like to.'') Eff you too, Zack!
Talladega is a pretty funny movie with outstanding gay content. You really should see it (although you will have seen some of the funniest parts in the trailer).
The recommendation comes from a guy who would not normally see a movie like this -- I only saw it because I like Will Ferrell and Amy Adams (her performance in Junebug was one of the best supporting performances ever). Nascar races are not my thing as you can imagine, but the movie is good -- you'll get all the crazy dumb stuff that Will Ferrell does so well (and they threw in a little cameo by Molly Shannon, who is hammered all the time -- hilarious).
In Talladega Nights, Will Ferrell is a Nascar driver who thinks that if you don't finish first, you finish last. He is a national sensation, married to a pretty blond, with two kids. His childhood friend, played by John C. Reilly, becomes his racing buddy; he always finishes second. All goes fantastically well on the surface of Will's life -- that is until sassy French F-1 pilot, played very well by Sacha Baron Cohen, comes along to defy the status quo.
Our gay content was brought to us by Sacha's character, who had a major role in the plot.
Sacha's homosexuality is flaunted from the outset. Sacha mentions his husband (not partner, not boyfriend, husband -- played by Andy Richter) early on and challenges Will Ferrell to accept diversity.
Initially, the guys, including TV hosts and other cast members, shrug or find the husband part a bit weird. But nothing bad is really said. I think the guys thought that Sacha having a husband was more of an unusual circumstance, rather than necessarily weird.
Sacha teases Will Ferrell many many times during the movie and Will had many opportunities for gay bashing, name calling, but none of that takes place in Talladega Nights. Sacha is called names, but no gay related swearing occurs. That was nice. It really goes to show that Sacha's being gay was as natural as it could be in a Nascar setting. Sacha was just a great driver, who happened to be gay.
Sacha's character is eccentric and has many traits that plays to the gay stereotype -- he is flamboyant, jazz loving, refined, that type of stuff. He reads Camus behind the wheel for chrissake. But nothing bad, really. He is tough, and good at what he does.
One edgier trait we do see in Sacha's character is that he teases Will Ferrell a few times by sort of coming on to Will. In one early scene, Sacha tells Will that he would abandon the races in the US and go back to France if Will kisses him on the lips (you can actually see that very scene here). But I see that more of a way to tease Will the way competitive guys do, I don't think the movie really indicated Sacha's character was hot for Will Ferrell.
I must say that the movie does use Sacha's character for a cheap laugh a couple times (especially the first times we see that Sacha has a husband), but I'll take it -- nothing major.
A few factors make the portrayal of gays in this movie very important. The movie is clearly directed to a family, straight, and Christian audience. Yes, Christian. Will Ferrell is very religious in the movie, and so is his family. Will's mom even uses religious school to set Will's kids straight (they were annoying, potty mouth little brats).
So, we have a movie that was meant for families and straight guys, about the "Mediocre American Man" (in Will's own words), with a great amount of positive gay content. Way to weave Red and Blue together. Not apart. Gotta love that. I love Will Ferrell even more now (he co-wrote the screenplay).
I will talk about one more great light thrown for the gays in the movie, but that will spoil part of the plot. Read on or go see this movie right now.
[SPOILER AHEAD]
Continue reading "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby (2006) - LightShed 10" »
This is a mediocre movie, but it's one of those mediocre movies you can't stop watching - you've got to see what's next. So, I just cannot place it in the mediocre category.
I had seen it on video, and saw it again the other night on Bravo, while flipping channels. Bravo became such a great gay TV channel, don't you think?
Here, Patrick Swaize, Wesley Snipes and John Leguizamo play three drag queens stranded in a small town waiting for some car part to arrive so that they can get their car fixed and go to Hollywood. They help the town be gayer. Here are their names: Vida Boheme (Swaize), Noxzeema Jackson (Snipes), and Chi Chi Rodriguez (Leguizamo). Classic.
The gay content is excellent. Tons of cliches, not one of them bothered me though. The drag queens were like real drag queens, all joy, even if they were also shown to be shallow at times -- except for Patrick Swaize's character, who was thoughtful and deep. Only John Leguizamo's Chi Chi was believable (pic on the right), Wesley and Patrick must improve a lot for their next drag queen role.
Chris Penn plays a cop who tries to kiss and assault and take advantage of poor Patrick Swaize and gets knocked over. So he keeps trying to find the drag queen who hit him back. He is shown as a loser and an idiotic bigot. So, great for us.
Michael Vartan has a cameo in the movie too. He also plays a bigot, but his bigotry disappears pretty quickly into the movie. Yay! Go Vartan!
I was surprised to see the movie made $36.5 million in the US box office. That is pretty nice for a movie that is not that good. Although Brokeback clearly represented a change in perspective for gay movies, we have quite a bit of clues that there was some life before Brokeback. To Wong Foo is certainly one of such clues.
More discussion on the great positive light will ruin the plot. Keep reading or go rent this vintage.
Continue reading "To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar (1995) - LightShed 10" »
Mediocre movie. I have to tell you I had really low expectations for this flick, but it wasn't that bad, you can actually watch it.
Here, Matthew McConaughey is an ordinary betting associate at this small company. Al Pacino hires him and tries to groom him to become his successor in his big betting company.
We have lots of male bonding. Al Pacino says Matthew looks hot without a shirt. There are lots of "I love yous" back and forth. That kind of stuff. Nothing explicitly gay though.
Matthew is shirtless quite a few times, but no booty.
I am very glad that such a guy movie did not use a single homophobic slur. Super nice -- although it would have certainly been better with some gay content -- maybe even some Piven on McConaughey action.
Good movie. Everybody was good and I am re-considering my sickness of Aaron Eckhart. Katie Holmes delivered. Adam Brody delivered. Rob Lowe delivered. Maria Bello delivered. Aaron delivered. Mostly small roles, but everybody looked pretty good.
In the movie, Aaron Eckhart is the spokesman for the tobacco industry. His only friends are also in industries that kill people to make money: alcohol and guns. He screws the reporter played by Katie Holmes. He tries to get his son to like him. Tries to pay for his mortgage. Unfortunately, you will have seem most of the great punchlines in the trailer. There's certainly more in the movie, but the best stuff is in the trailer already. I hate when that happens.
I was a bit bothered by the politics behind the plot. The movie kind of portrayed Aaron as a hero, which is a big boost for the tobacco industry, but any grown-up can take that I guess. Teenagers... I don't know.
Now to our gay movie review. Not much here, but we did have some crumbs. J.K. Simmons' character calls someone a cocksucker (what is up with that particular slur recently?). So, it got off to a bad start, but the slur was more than compensated with Aaron saying that his employer should have cool people smoking, like Will & Grace, to set the "good example." Good light. I'm living out the reference to a scene with Aaron almost naked with cigarette patches all over his body, lying by the crotch of Abe Lincoln
Excellent movie. Here, Lou Taylor Pucci is a teenager who sucks his thumb. While trying to get rid of his addiction, he acquires others. Coming of age story. Lou Pucci is excellent. Tilda Swinton is excellent. Vince Vaughn was ok. Vincent Donofrio, as usual, could have been better (i.e., could have been replaced by anyone else). Keanu Reeves. Well, I had given up on him in Speed (that's 1994). He is hopeless, right? But after Thumbsucker I will keep him on hold. He wasn't that bad.
What a beautiful soundtrack, carried basically by Scream & Shout
In the previews, they briefly show a scene where Benjamin Bratt is going toward Lou Pucci to hug him. I thought we were going to have some sort of weird gay content, but it was a false alarm.
Wow. Our first LightShed 10. I really liked the portrayal of gays in the movie (and the movie is pretty good, but not amazing). Felicity Huffman is truly superb (and so is everybody else actually).
Transamerica tells us the story of Felicity Huffman's character, a pre-operative transsexual who finds out she has a son. The son, a teenage hustler, is played by Kevin Zegers. They travel together across the US. Yay!
Transamerica finally gives us a movie in which the transsexual is well raised (no major problems in her upbringing, abuse etc.), a pretty much together person. Felicity's character is called names, is (verbally) abused by her son and mom, but all comes down to understanding and acceptance (sort of). Great great portrayal, and I am happy the movie is getting the attention it deserves for Felicity's performance.
Recent Comments