A Reunion

I don't understand why there are no reviews of this movie. It was quite entertaining and even endearing, although sometimes too wordy. The locations were great, perhaps because I've been to some/most of them. Most of the dialogue was realistic, as well as the acting. I'd like to see A Reunion II.

There is no beginning and there ain't no end, just a middle here. A middle, a snapshot - very much like the journey the protagonists take, cutting through into the middle.

The movie is visually stunning. The stops along the way are beautiful. LA, Death valley, Las Vegas, Grand Canyon, Rt 66, Grants, Tucumari (misspelled in the movie as another reviewer pointed out), Amarillo, Tulsa, Stanton, St Louis, Chicago.

However, one fails to connect to either lead. There is no backstory on who they are, what they do. All we get are a lot of words, but none that makes us like/dislike/form an opinion.

From the beginning one can see that Josh definitely likes touching Michael more. He is more wooden in his acting and wish there was more feeling to his attraction to Michael. But when he explains his fears to Michael (towards the middle of the film), we see a small glimpse into who he is, before it is shut off again, permanently.

Michael, though he does more of the talking and is more exuberant, shows us nothing of his inner workings. He opens up just enough to keep the viewer, and perhaps Josh, interested, never letting on who he really is or wants.

What a cute, endearing movie. Lots of laughs, carefree behavior, a road trip from LA to Chicago, with some secret stops along the way. I like the indie feel of it, great acting, compelling characters. I live in Chicago, the ending was great to see my beautiful city captured through different eyes.

Why was Tucumcari (NM), titled as "TUCUMCARL"? WTF?! How could no one catch this?! Acting was decent, scenery good, although it seemed they weren't putting man miles each day. The story never seemed to take off. No "pop" the entire movie.

The cinematography was pretty good. But it felt like a travelogue. Was it really necessary to put "Las Vegas" across the screen while showing signs of Las Vegas?

The endless, dopey slow, brooding of the Michael character was annoying. We got it already. I could just imagine the Director telling him too walk slow and put his head down. Over and over and over.

I felt gypped that they apparently ran out of money and couldn't afford some kind of ending.

In my opinion, the nudity felt gratuitous and din't seem to work into the storyline too well. (And I love nudity). Not really knowing anything about the characters left me, as a viewer holding the bag. It seemed like there was just way too much for the viewer to figure out. Filling in a few gaps is fine, but really?