Being a gay person, I was glad that there was no GAY ISSUE over this movie. Being gay was not the focus at all. However, the lack of any romantic scenes between the two stars of the film bugged me. Yes, I know there was that tender, nauseattingly romantic thing in front of the chandelier near the end of the movie, I wanted a kiss, or even seeing them get out of bed together first thing in the morning, something more than what we were shown, ANYTHING.
I know exactly what you mean. They seemed like they were just really good friends. They didn't even hold hands. Soooooo bogus!
shareNo. That was the whole point of the movie. The fact that they were gay was not the central part of the movie. No one died of AIDS, no one was bashed, no one was harrassed. It was just gay people leading perfectly ordinary lives.
Well, except for the gun play and strong-arm tactics.
That's what I loved about the movie. It was people doing normal stuff and some of them happened to be gay. I'd like to see more movies like that.
--
"Music is a world within itself, with a language we all understand." - S. Wonder
really funny movie. I am actually glad it was no brokeback mountain.
http://wilhelminaslater.blogspot.com/
They did hold hands! Twice that I noticed - the obvious one when they're handcuffed, and then at one point they were sitting listening to a speech or something during the dinner and they were holding hands on the table. It was a quick shot...
And I thought the same thing at first about there being no "gay" scenes, until my housemate pointed out that the straight couples don't have much, either... one kiss to introduce Jenny and Damon as lovers, and that's it. It seemed to me that the movie didn't concern itself with physical sex, just with relationships.
"This is NOT bad grammar. Neither anything in my message reads as bad grammar."
It bugged me too that there were no scenes that expressed affection but you have to admit the final scene converning "Perfection" would have "offended the Gods". Good Movie but it deserved better. Great cast but seemed to be aimed at the people it made fun of. Straight people who don't know any better.
Macklin Crew
I think all the posters on this thread need a humor transplant. THIS IS A LIVE-ACTION CARTOON! It has no basis in reality and wasn't meant to. It was made as a farce for people who want to have fun. Get the hell over your serious selves!
"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde
Any decent rom-com should show some affection & sizzle between the lovers...that's what invests the viewer. It bugged us because we weren't invested but we wanted to be so that we could better enjoy the movie. It's not brilliant or insightful film-making. It's not artsy or even clever. It's farcical fluff -- cartoon as another poster put it. Enormous amounts of screen time was wasted on subplots & side characters. That time could've given us more insight into the coupling. They were in a long term relationship so the story wasn't about them falling in love but that was a wasted opportunity for a more unique love story. We don't often get to see couples who are well in and still in -- rather than coming together or breaking apart. I liked the line about them growing old together and I very much appreciated the idea of them being happy together even if their lives differed from both the hetero & homosexual "norm." It was nice symbolism for the anarchic happiness of those that choose to live on the fringe. It was John Waters politics that spiced up a deeply flawed puff piece. There was a lot of potential that didn't play out and we felt that lacking. A seemingly simple criticism
-- not enough affection -- belies a larger dissatisfaction. No, it's not a movie that should be taken seriously but it should satisfy. It's not doing anything else! Since when is it too much to ask for the couple to have romance, spark or chemistry? Isn't that the point? The movie needn't be overly concerned with the fact that the couple is gay (and this film was, by the way, to a nauseating point) but that the couple be endearing / interesting. We want to see why they love each other and how; why they work or why they don't. That's not an unreasonable expectation
with this kind of movie.
Two things that did work on that level:
1) After their friend announces her intention to join a straight women loving straight women group, Steven & Danny share a look of flirtatious amusement. The absurdity! They quip that they're just straight men who love other straight men.
2) The sexiest moment between them, in my opinion, was early in the film. They're asked about how they met and they say it was in the special forces...during "Don't Ask / Don't Tell." One says, "We asked" and the other says "We told." It evoked a past, private moment between the two -- the early days of falling in love, those moments of asking & telling that happens between all lovers. (If only the whole film could've been as well-done as that one scene.)
Ultimately, this film is all about fantasy. It's a utopian vision like "Big Eden" or "If The World Were Mine." A little more oomph between hero & hero wouldn't have been out of place. I could've done w/more Steven & Danny couple-time and less mafioso dressed as gay waiters in search of drag queens.
The movie wasn't meant to be a "rom-com." Not at all. The film did poke fun at a number of stereotypes, but the central characters acted just like any couple in a long-term relationship would act.
The movie did an excellent job of pointing out that being gay doesn't have to define who you are. Rather, it's just one time aspect of your existence.
Bravo, and well done.