Bros: Más que amigos

I enjoyed Bros in spite of the so-called stereotypical portrayals of the characters in this film - it is a comedy. Those who are gay like myself and found the characters over the top I raise awareness to those comedies (admittedly on the small screen such as Friends and Will And Grace. Both have heterosexual characters and scripting both of which are hyper real and maybe stereotypical.

I found Bros entertaining (and romantic comedies are not up there as a favourite genre) and it managed to touch on some deeper stuff as well. It's a comedy and the sort of comedy like screwball which has elements that are hyper real. I thought it moved along nicely. I found myself having a chuckle more often than not in that very special atmosphere like no other - viewing a film in a dark cinema with a heap of other viewers which to me creates its own unique viewing experience.

As a man who really struggles with romcoms at the best of times, I was rather nervous about this. Actually, though, it steers clear of some (though not all) of the gay stereotypes and presents us with a genuinely quite funny love story about two forty-somethings who meet in a nightclub. One, "Bobby" (Billy Eichner) is a ordinary looking, gobby podcaster and activist who is trying to raise the money needed for an American National LGBTQ+ museum. The other is "Aaron" (Luke Macfarlane) - a lawyer who spends a fair amount of time on the cross-fit. They wouldn't appear to be the most natural of fits but a series of brief encounters on their opening night coupled with a fair degree of sarcasm and a kiss sets the tone for what happens next. Certainly, anyone who has a Dekkoo subscription will have seen the format before - and often, and this doesn't really vary the theme much. What does make this different is the characters have much more depth. Their relationship is never going to be straightforward and though sometimes delivered via annoyingly angry monologues, the character of "Bobby" makes some fairly profound and well reasoned arguments about the constraints history has imposed on people of differing sexualities over the years. Eichner is effective as a man who uses his sharp and pithy tongue to prove the best form of defence is attack, Macfarlane proves to be far more than the man with the muscle, and the writing from the former and director Nicholas Stoller clearly demonstrates that both men have skin in this particular game. Experience has clearly informed and fuelled this creative process. It can be a bit hit or miss, especially the third quarter when it all becomes a bit contrived, but the ending redeems it rather - if only for the pure schmaltz of the serenade - and I rather enjoyed it. It sure doesn't need a cinema screening, but it is entertainingly provocative at times. The BBFC slide at the top warned of "strong sex". Clearly they have never watched "Theo and Hugo" (2016) because there is nothing at all visual in this that could conceivably cause offence; even the language is comparatively mild.

Ever since I knew I was gay, I've always been on the lookout for people of a similar nature, as humans naturally do. "Gay" people in film/tv have often been heavily stereotyped. EG the effeminate gay best friend, or the badass butch lesbian who is just one of the boys.

While bros does try a little bit harder to break through the stereotyped glass ceiling, it still falls into that category of trying so hard to be gay that it feels unrelatable to most gay people, and no doubt straight people as well.

It's not a bad movie and is quite entertaining, and is worth the watch for those elements. But a core idea of this movie is the normalisation of sexuality with society, which is something it fails to do.

Normalisation occurs when we have love stories between peole who happen to be gay, like Brokeback Mountain. A character's sexuality should not be the driving force behind the movie; the characters should be interesting in themselves in a variety of ways.

Billy is no Julia Roberts in "My best friend's wedding". He can't pull off being neurotic yet charming. I struggled during the first 45 minutes wondering if I should turn my TV off or carry on. You only have to see the first five minutes to understand why Luke McFarland's character would ask him to tone it down during a family meeting (with relatives that look nothing like each other). You just can't root for this very annoying leading man, who is skeptical but chooses a restaurant with live dance and songs as a good spot for a family outing. The gag is the music during awkward moments. Funny!

For a movie that keeps making fun of Hallmark movies, they really needed to be more self-aware.

The editing is also really bad. It looks like a Netflix reality where it's painfully obvious that close-ups were part of a different take.

It seems like they came up with sketches or gags first and then they wondered how they could put them all together through a needlessly long story. Most of the artists are overacting as if that would make this funnier.

Luke is decent enough in his performance, but he has been better in other things.

I went into this movie with no real expectations except from enjoying some of the directors previous comedies. The only real problem I had with this movie was Billy. His character is not likable and there were several times throughout the film where I wondered why anyone would want to be in a relationship with this person. I was not familiar with the other actor who played his boyfriend in the movie but he did a phenomenal job and was very sympathetic and portrayed aside of gay men that I do not see on film very often. Billy's character is catty, insecure, and loud. He's not sympathetic. I don't know if another actor could've pulled this off better, but Billy was definitely the problem with this movie. Which is funny because he wrote the movie for himself and portrayed himself as the least likable character in the entire film.