MovieChat Forums > Bros (2022) Discussion > first viewing

first viewing

posted 2 years ago by ADBruno1985 (3307)
27 replies | jump to latest

Doing my part for the box office.

I liked it. Funny, cute, relatable, realistic.

When I got my ticket, I saw only one other seat was bought. Thought maybe it'd be a cute guy and we'd have a meet-cute. I went in, it was empty. A little while later walks in what I can only assume was a lesbian. Would've been a cute date movie. Alas.

Billy Eichner blames straights for the box office failure. I think that's accurate, if not entirely fair. It's a niche movie, I can't blame straights for not flocking, even though as always in history, we just had to deal with watching their status quo stuff before anything came along for us. But also, I don't want to be the one sitting with straight people and answering their awkward questions about it.

Also, funny, my name is Aaron. Movie Aaron and I had a few things in common and at one point he was wearing jeans, a plain black tee, and a ball cap, which is what I was wearing haha.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I liked it too (and I'm straight). There were about three other people in the theatre when I saw it. I think most people (gay or straight) aren't going to see romantic comedies, especially ones that don't have big stars.

[–] sslssg (28043) 2 years ago

I can't even remember the last romcom I watched in the theatres because I'm sure it was in the 1990s. I want to see this movie, but if I'm going to actually venture to a theatre, it's got to be something worth seeing on the big screen.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I think you’ll enjoy it. Check it out when it hits a streaming service. It’s a good time.

[–] sslssg (28043) 2 years ago

I am planning on it. Luke Macfarlane is a Hallmark movie favourite.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Nice one Aaron! Glad you enjoyed the movie.

[–] CupidDeLocke (274) 2 years ago

we just had to deal with watching their status quo stuff

Who’s forcing you to watch anything?
https://tinyurl.com/mry4pwvf

I can only imagine that the people who think Bros is funny are the same people who think Full House is the funniest sitcom ever.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Have you seen it?

[–] CupidDeLocke (274) 2 years ago

No, never will. The trailer was awful enough.

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I didn’t think so. Probably best not to judge others who enjoyed it when you have no real idea what sort of humour is in the film then. I’ve seen plenty of bad trailers that didn’t do the film justice, and plenty of funny trailers that feature the only good jokes in the film.

Either way I’m not getting Full House vibes from this film AT ALL, but I’ll wait til I see it before slamming those who liked it 🙂

[–] Spiffy666 (398) 2 years ago

Yeah, just saw it. Good movie. Funny. Nice ending.

I'm sure it's lack of box office is mostly because us straights aren't going to it. But Eichner really should have done some stuff to help with that. Putting a big name person in it, adding a more prominent straight story in as a B or C story. You can lament that you have to do these things, but it's just how things go.

[–] BeaSouth (2801) 2 years ago

I don’t think there’s any dispute that straight people are not seeing it. I read the debate to focus on whether that’s due to anti-gay bigotry which Eichner suggested by attributing the disappointing ticket sales to homophobia. I’ve seen where he’s been more nuanced recently but he still says things like, “To be honest, we really didn’t make the movie for homophobes anyway…” If he really wanted “to be honest” he could ask himself why homophobia did not sabotage The Bird Cage, a comedy about a gay couple which made $185M and was massively popular among straight and gay moviegoers alike.

[–] Kowalski (58971) 2 years ago

ROBIN WILLAMS AND NATHAN LANE. NOEMOJI

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

There’s definitely that, but there’s also the fact that the depiction of gay life in The Birdcage is very sanitised and doesn’t veer into territory that might make people feel uncomfortable. In many ways it’s a typical straight romcom with a gay subplot. That’s not to say I have a problem with it, Mike Nichols is one of my favourite directors and the movie’s a riot, but it doesn’t shed any real light on the intricacies of gay relationships.

Bros is an entirely more frank and unashamed depiction of modern gay life. It was always going to put some people off. I’m not surprised that it wouldn’t be the box office smash of the year, but I am a little surprised by the heat of the backlash and that people are still getting their rocks off over its failure.

Sure Eichner may have shot himself in the foot with certain comments, but after watching the movie I can say that’s pretty consistent with the character he plays and I kind of like that, even if it’s not the way I’d go about it.

I think time will be kind to Bros. After the bullshit settles I can see it being appreciated for what it is, an entertaining movie with a fresh outlook and more laughs than your average romcom.

[–] Kowalski (58971) 2 years ago

YEAH...YOU ARE RIGHT...MY GRANDMOTHER LOVED THE BIRDCAGE AND HONESTLY...SHE DID NOT LOVE GAYS. NOEMOJI

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I don’t think she would have been alone there 😆

I liken Bros more to Torch Song Trilogy than The Birdcage. Still very different movies but similar in the way they both have a gay perspective that talks from the inside out, rather than having a more traditional mainstream projection, where it’s fine to laugh AT gays rather than WITH them. That’s why I would expect a movie like this to do medium business, at best, then gather a following in time, like Torch Song Trilogy did.

One thing I do give Bros over TTT is its happy ending. Stepping away from the tortured trope that marks most gay cinema is where I felt the film really felt innovative.

[–] Kowalski (58971) 2 years ago

I REALLY ENJOYED MOONLIGHT...I HAVE SEEN IT THREE TIMES...THOUGHTS ON THAT ONE? NOEMOJI

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

5/5 from me. The only thing I didn’t buy was the physical transformation from the second to the third actor.. that’s not even about the change from skinny gay kid to gangsta because that was 100% believable and a crucial part of the story.. more that it physically didn’t look anything like the adolescent grown up.

Minor gripe though, otherwise it was a fine movie with realistic and memorable performances across the board. Have you seen God’s Own Country? If not check it out, that’s up there with Moonlight as the best recent gay themed film for me.

[–] Kowalski (58971) 2 years ago

I HAVE NOT...I AM WRITING IT ON MY TO WATCH LIST RIGHT NOW...I USE A SHARPIE AND A NOTEPAD. NOEMOJI

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

😆 I bet you do too.

I use Letterboxd.

[–] Kowalski (58971) 2 years ago

I REALLY LIKE THE PART WHERE I USE THE BIG SHARPIE TO CROSS THE MOVIE OFF THE LIST. NOEMOJI

[–] ADBruno1985 (3307) 2 years ago

True. It wasn't sanitized here, which is part of why it would be awkward to watch with (some) straight people as I originally alluded to. Like, I don't want to have to explain what poppers are and do I use them. Or "Does sex happen that quickly? Group sex on a date? Have you had a dud in a group situation who wouldn't take the hint? Have you hooked up with couples?" And so on. Would just be uncomfortable.

I'm already still scarred from the time my parents (in what I believe what a misguided attempt at showing support) insisted on watching Brokeback Mountain together. The tent scene omg

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

😂😂😂

I hear you bro!

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I saw it yesterday and I agree, it’s funny and well made. I have to admit that romcoms in general are not my favourite genre of movies, but this was as good as they get for me. I wouldn’t call it groundbreaking in any way, like all romcoms there were cringeworthy moments, but I thought they were balanced well by the intelligent satire in the script. The movie does well poking fun at the absurdities of gay dating so it never feels like a diversity lecture. Nice performances, several good laughs, it really was an entertaining day at the movies for me.

7/10

[–] cyguration (3859) 2 years ago

I can't blame straights for not flocking, even though as always in history, we just had to deal with watching their status quo stuff before anything came along for us.

What an asinine comment.

You're in a fringe, abnormal group.

There is no "deal with" anything, you're the odd man out.

And Natural Selection will keep it that way since you have no way to procreate.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3307) 2 years ago

There is no "deal with" anything, you're the odd man out.

What an asinine comment.

Good job though, I generally don't expect such a good word use from someone with such duhm opinions.

Being the odd man out by definition means one has to "deal with" the status quo. Meaning that back in the 50s, a TV show wouldn't have an openly gay character, let alone something like Will & Grace. So the gays then had to just watch straight stuff on TV, with no real representation, maybe a few coded things but that would've been it. Meaning that as part of a minority group, it's understandable that the majority wouldn't prioritize seeing something that's of more interest to the minority group.

Also I wasn't complaining about being part of said minority group, not sure why you went on the attack like I was crying about it.

Believe me I'm so grateful I can't procreate because I'd have had way too many by now.

Hope that cleared some things up for ya :)

[–] cyguration (3859) 2 years ago

So the gays then had to just watch straight stuff on TV, with no real representation, maybe a few coded things but that would've been it.

WHY do you need representation for your fetish?

Do watersport fetishists need representation?

Do scatology fetishists need representation?

Do BDSM fetishists need representation?

It's such a bizarre, narcissistic thing to think that what you do in private needs to be "represented" in the public for EVERYONE to see.

Any esoteric pastime I partake in is not something I ever think aloud to anyone, "Man, I have to deal with ubiquitous pastimes represented everywhere. Wish my esoteric pastime was more represented in the public sphere!" because why?

That's the thing that makes a lot of people become indignant toward any vocal or public outcries from the so-called "minority" groups because it's essentially lamenting that the wider public isn't engaging, accepting, consuming, or producing fringe material that you enjoy. That kind of gall is what most people find distasteful from the alphabet group.

[–] ADBruno1985 (3307) 2 years ago

Lmao. An orientation is not a fetish. The rest of things you mention are fetishes. As to whether they need representation, not sure, not even going into that argument. But there's a time and a place for everything in entertainment. And yes, all orientations deserve representation. It's not about showing the privacy of bedroom stuff. It could be just as G-rated as any other dinner scene showing a family together. Anyway, enjoy your time on my ignore list, douche nozzle.