kirker

Okay, really? This movie is "homophobic" and "makes it look like all gay men smoke crack"? That it didn't seem "believable"? Huh. Maybe because I watched it not only knowing it was largely a true story, but also having read the real-life memoir of the man represented in the film by "Paul" (Bill Clegg), but I thought it did a very good job of depicting the tragedy of being in a relationship with someone fundamentally f*cked up and not being able to let them go until far too late. The acting was spot-on, particularly from Thure Lindhardt, and the portrayals were entirely believable. In no context whatsoever was it intentionally designed to depict gay men as insatiable crackheads.

As for complaints that basically go back to verisimilitude: people, it's an indie flick, and a super- low-budget one at that. You can't realistically depict Manhattan circa 1998 that way, nor can you have characters whose attire and hairstyles change all that much during the film. (That said, I've seen photos of Bill Clegg, and his super-preppy "look" -- which is how Paul is consistently depicted in the film -- hasn't really changed much over the years.) My only issue in this regard was in terms of easily avoidable problems; in the second scene for instance, set in 1998, Erik walks by what is clearly recognizable (to a New Yorker, at least) as one of the bus shelters constructed within the past five years or so. They really had to shoot on *that* street?

My problems with the film weren't with the acting, but more with its failure to fully flesh out Paul as a character. I'm unclear whether this was intentional -- in the context of "you can never *really* know someone" -- but Paul started out as an enigma and largely stayed that way. I understand that this comes with the territory with a largely autobiographical film written by the protagonist, Erik (though I have no clue whatsoever why he's Danish, to the extent of having conversations in Danish with his sister - Ira Sachs is American and Jewish, though obviously a real-life filmmaker), but hewing so closely to a real-life timeline left Sachs with too little time to delve into what compelled him to stay with "Paul" for such an extended period. I also thought there were a few too many largely extraneous side plots, particularly involving Erik's BFF's biological-clock issues and the weird muscley guy Erik inexplicably hooked up with two times five years apart. And why did a solitary, unexplained pair of scenes have him going to Virginia for an extended period of time? (neither of which had anything whatsoever to do with the main plot)

Still, even given its flaws, it's one of the best gay-themed indie films I've seen in quite some time (though "Weekend" is still better all around). It avoids the most typical gay-film clichés (the coming-out stories, the happy endings, the life revolving around discos and fabulous hags) to deliver something raw and real.

I had figured every possible angle of the Vietnam War story had been done to death by now, but Joel Schumacher finds a fresh angle with this very solidly-realized film. Schumacher's usual stylistic touches, seen in his previous "Batman" and "Bad Company"-type films, are almost entirely absent; he seems to truly embrace the concept of tabula rasa with "Tigerland." (Well, except for frequent subtextual homoeroticism. Although there are no gay characters (and no oversized codpieces, obviously), you'll see shirtless, underwear-clad or altogether-naked men frolicking in practically every other scene.) Colin Farrell has a stunning Stateside debut in this film; one can easily see what prompted the likes of Steven Spielberg to snap him up for "Minority Report." While not perfect -- several characters are one-note, done-to-death stereotypes (i.e. Grizzled Drill Sergeant Who's Really a Softie at Heart) -- "Tigerland" offers a fresh spin on a tired subject.

A certain film critic -- I believe it was the NY Times reviewer -- labeled "Battlefield Earth" as, to paraphrase, "what will become known in infamy as the worst film of the 21st century." He was wrong. "Rollerball" wins hands down. The acting, dialogue and direction are incomparably bad -- and I defy anyone to sit down after watching the movie once and effectively explain the plots, character motivations, or any of the rules of the Rollerball game. This is the most poorly-edited major studio film I've seen since "Superman IV," which is still my least favorite movie of all time. There are at least five or six very, very obvious dubs over the f-word, clearly done late in the game to obtain a PG-13 rating. This is fine for an airing on network television, but for an R-rated DVD? Um, no. Others here have already eviscerated the ridiculous night-vision sentence effectively, so I won't go there. The only thing remotely worth watching in this film is the opening luge sequence.