MovieChat Forums > The Living End (1992) Discussion > Interesting Early '90's Curio, Nothing M...

Interesting Early '90's Curio, Nothing More


Saw this yesterday on Youtube after many years. I had seen it when it
first came out in '92 and was intrigued enough with it to remember it
all these years later. However, after viewing it as a middle-aged adult,
I found it still interesting, but far from great.

For starters, the characters are completely one-dimensional and, frankly,
not very likeable. Luke, for one, has absolutely no redeeming qualities
to speak of, other than being hot. He's scary, vastly immature and
really incapable of loving another human being. I simply do not buy that
he loves Jon by the end. As for Jon, WHO IS HE, other than a film writer?
We know very little about him, and even less of who Luke is. Added to
this, there is no character development to speak of.

If all this weren't enough, the "Darcy" character is given way too much
screen time. We know she's a plot device, as Jon continually calls her,
struggling with whether to keep running or return home. Fair enough. But
she, too, is totally one-dimensional. Her name should just be "sensitive
fag-hag artist." Her scenes with her boyfriend, whom we know nothing
about, fail to resonate, as we don't CARE about either one of them.

The acting, too, while not terrible, is far from inspired and what little
the actors bring to their roles is hampered by zero layering of the
characters.

On the plus side, there's a doomed aura to the early '90's L.A.
atmosphere. It's refreshing, for instance, to see a low-budget indie
that was actually shot on FILM, rather than HD video. The sexual
chemistry is potent and the sex scenes are erotic without being over
the top. It's believable that these men are attracted to each other.
The final moments on the beach are haunting and it was wise to not
attach some sort of fake, happy ending, or a gross, depressing suicide.

Lastly, its views of an HIV diagnosis are tremendously dated - and
thank God for that! Today, of course, there would be no reason that
either of these men couldn't plan to lead healthy, happy lives, despite
their status. But 1992 was a long time ago.

In terms of atmosphere and a well-meaning approach, the film is worth
a peek. But far better queer films have been produced then and now.

reply

Totally "dated" - but - thank God - a time capsule of how gay men/filmmakers responded to the AIDS.

I show this to today's 20-somethings to give them a perspective of how "it used to be."

"Don't call me 'honey', mac."
"Don't call me 'mac'... HONEY!"

reply

I agree w/ both you guys to a great extent.

This film did capture something legitimate at the time, I believe. But as we all know: culture and medical science progresses. Thankfully. That's not the film's fault.

That said, upon my second viewing of this film in 2016 (via Netflix streaming!) compared to my initial one, around 2001, I agree: there are some inherent flaws to the film. The characters are very thinly drawn. Some of the plot devices (beating up and killing every homophobe) are a tad extreme and fantastical, which defy the otherwise gritty and more realistic aspects of the story.

All things considered, it still holds up in my book. I'm pretty jaded with movies nowadays, and it held my gaze: it's quirky, provocative and challenging but still manages to be fun, accessible and interesting. I agree w/ the comments here about the fascinating depiction of LA during this time period. This film is an interesting lens to look through, to glimpse a bygone era of this urban/cultural landscape...

reply