Los agitadores

Horseplay

In a post gay world where pornography is ubiquitous only gay characters strongly imbedded in a believable story evoke any homo-eroticism. This was like a throw back to any Andy Warhol movie of the 60's.

The camera work was good but I could see much believable acting.

It's juxtaposition of laddish behaviour and suppressed sexual desire lacked heft or direction. The story was at best vestigial. I saw little to laugh at at and any reason for why this group of boys were imprisoned in this house.

Quite frankly I was bored from start to finish.

It a 2 outta 10 from me, meaning skip this drivel!

How is this not "Taekwondo" all over again? Marco Berger's gay male gaze is still here, not as facefront as it is in "Taekwondo", but there's still plenty of that in here. Something that's not very prominent in here is his usual slow-burn sense of longing. There are some characters that struggle throughout the movie but their struggles are various, not only same-sex attraction. Or are they? I enjoyed watching this, I love everything Berger does, he owns me, but for me it's one of his weaker films. "Horseplay" is what straight dudes do to fool around and it's not that exciting of a movie. Marco Berger still needs to make more movies.

The first temptation is to see it as a kind of Taekwondo II. And to appreciate more the first part.

Many guys, nude , talking, wasting time, gay, hetero, looking for love or define their sexual identity, girls, a lot of photos and a beautiful house.

Some homoerotism.

Real good looking guys.

And a very - very-very gentle suggested story if you have not impression of self illusion.

I can not be very critic about this film but its basic virtue is to send the thoughts to Taekwondo , working just as precious kick to see that , again.

Is it enough ?

I suppose so. I appreciate Marco Berger job and I respect his perspective about a theme who seems very closed by him. Cinema represents experiments and Los agitatores is one of them.

One of the worst movies I've ever seen. There is zero plot. The characters aren't believable and frankly it's just boring from beginning to end. It could have been so much better if the perspective of Poli and his (maybe unrequited) relationship with his friend had been explored. Instead Poli is mostly mute and we get no sense of how he thinks about himself and his sexuality in this setting and friend group.

The dialogue is extremely repetitive and not credible. Almost half the movie is just the characters calling each other 'homo'. I think even homophobes would get bored of this chat pretty quickly.

I really don't understand why this is being considered a queer movie. It's a movie about straight men. It's not even homoerotic, the nudity is sterile and not sexy. Much of it is actually disgusting (one character vomiting on another in a shower). I found it to be deeply unsexy. Ultimately it's a movie about a group of unpleasant straight men with one closeted character who barely speaks.

Do yourself a favour and avoid this.

Usually I like Marco Berger's films, especially the ones where there are just a few characters, and the story is about the subtle, sexual tension between two guys (like "Hawaii" or "The Blond One"); these are often extremely slow-paced, with sparse dialogue and an almost dreamy atmosphere. In this "Horseplay" however the atmosphere is everything but dreamy: a large group of loud, basically heterosexual guys gathers in a sun drenched villa for the holidays, doing nothing but yelling and boozing and bickering and fooling around; the latter for some reason constantly in the vein of imitating gay situations (riding each others back, touching and fondling, walking around naked) and then roaring with laughter about it. Hence probably the English title "Horseplay".

The original Spanish title "Agitadores" means by the way something slightly different: "troublemakers", so apparently Berger intended not so much to picture careless playfulness, but a deliberate stirring of the emotions. Such an intention could have resulted in an interesting movie, maybe if there had been fewer characters and longer, more serious dialogues and interchanges. But now the whole movie is made up by very short bits of conversations, with only vague hints of interesting topics, all ending as blank as they are started and leading nowhere. Sure, there are some innuendo's of greater issues: homophobia, machismo, promiscuity, fear of coming out as gay, but they never come to anything conclusive and stay dangling in mid-air, overblown by all the juvenile pranks and tiresome fooling around. There is, as usual in a Berger movie, lots of naked male skin to enjoy (if you're into that, and I humbly plead guilty), but that doesn't help making it a good movie. In fact it impressed me at many times as redundant and just added to titillate or provoke the viewers.

So summing up all the above: a disappointing experiece.