Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.Un escritor y su pareja buscan exponer las pretensiones inmorales de un psicólogo que afirma curar la homosexualidad.
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 1 nominación en total
Tom Vitale
- Gym Patron
- (as Thomas Vitale)
Suzanne Gilad
- Additional Voices
- (voz)
- (as Sue Gilad)
Opiniones destacadas
A challenging premise. The main flaw is that it takes way too long to set up the plot. The acting is very weak in some scenes(and very good in others). It seems like 90% the shot compositions are close-ups. The film feels very long. About 25% could be edited out. Too much emphasis on repetition of characters conflict and not enough on the conceptual issue. I my opinion it takes something noble and reduces it to a petty squabble between childish overdone stereotypes. Music was unhelpful.
Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.
Unfortunately a missed opportunity to get these ideas to a broader audience, as the focus was too much on some unlikable characters on not on the social issues.
I found this really interesting, not only because of sexual preference/identity issues, but also because of its universal theme of trying to figure out who you are apart from other people in your life whose opinions may sway you toward doing what you think they think you should. For me, watching this character try to unravel this tangle was inspiring. Also it was refreshing to me to face head-on some of the questions it raises. Even though the film takes a stand in the end, there's a lot of room to question and think about the issues, and I didn't come out of it with clarity, but more with thoughts about the questions, which is so much better than everything being wrapped up neat package. If I have one critique it's that maybe the film could have ended even more ambiguously (hence I gave it 9 instead of 10). This story is very layered and clever, if not always entirely subtle about it. Shot beautifully - another review listed as one of the negatives that it is mostly close-ups. I think this is a strength of the film, it is so much about internal dialog of the main character, and the other main characters are really in his space mentally so I think the way it was shot really reinforces what he's going through. The use of reflections and enclosed spaces whenever the shots are NOT close-ups also enhances this feeling of closeness and constriction. And the director's commentary is pretty good, which is so rarely the case... starts off on the wrong foot, but stick with it, they actually do discuss meaning and intent and ideas rather than the all-to-often string of production stories.
My only regret about this movie is it is not yet available for purchase. I would love to watch it again.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
Frank is a journalist who is living with his psychologist boyfriend. His boyfriend unethically sets him up to meet with a rival psychologist who works with making gay people straight. Frank battles with the psychologist, his boyfriend and, ultimately, himself. The ending is excellent, and leaves the viewer with even more questions about homosexuality.
It really made me think about whether or not gay people can be made straight. If they are born that way, what if they are very unhappy? Can or should they be allowed to change their sexual orientation? How much of this is because of the gay political climate? Is there really pressure to remain gay if someone wants to be stressed?
I highly recommend this movie, because it is intelligent and witty, and does not cater to one side of the debate, but leaves it to the viewer.
This is a great film! I think it came from a play--really intelligent and psychologically suspenseful. I couldn't wait to see how it ended. Really made me think about the whole issue of "fixing" gay men, turning them straight through psychology. The actors are all really good, and there are a couple of steamy shots worth checking out! I'd love to see another film by this director soon.
The feelings through seeing this film were so contrastant than not exactly easy to define it.
It is a film about rivalry, chains of lies, manipulation, dark games and forms of cruelty .
Two psychologists.
The boyfriend of one of them used for presumed article , in fact for proves to compromite the colegue.
The first part is more than promissing.
The second seems not only dark but forced in few scenes.
Because the premises are reduced at terrible confrontation in which young man, not very clever but batsy enough for his ignorance confronts a man who seems interested about him in profound sense.
Obvious, Frank is only a tool for mature. Dr. Apsey, for less mature, remaining in his traumas circle Dr. Baldwin. And the presumed independence is only a lie itself.
Not bad film, useful , first, for reflection ( maybe for bath scene, to, for different reasons ).
It is a film about rivalry, chains of lies, manipulation, dark games and forms of cruelty .
Two psychologists.
The boyfriend of one of them used for presumed article , in fact for proves to compromite the colegue.
The first part is more than promissing.
The second seems not only dark but forced in few scenes.
Because the premises are reduced at terrible confrontation in which young man, not very clever but batsy enough for his ignorance confronts a man who seems interested about him in profound sense.
Obvious, Frank is only a tool for mature. Dr. Apsey, for less mature, remaining in his traumas circle Dr. Baldwin. And the presumed independence is only a lie itself.
Not bad film, useful , first, for reflection ( maybe for bath scene, to, for different reasons ).
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe mailbox next to Frank's bears the name "Vito Russo". Vito Russo was a film scholar and historian who wrote 'The Celluloid Closet', a study of homosexuality in film that was adapted into a documentary film of the same name.
- ConexionesFeatured in 2006 Independent Spirit Awards (2006)
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta