Banquo13

Okay, so this movie had some funny moments, but most of it just left me cold--like it was trying too hard and somehow ended up being too artificial and too phony. I thought the love story was cute, for what it was worth, but some of the subplots left me scratching my head. For example, I find it hard to believe that there are a great many red-Becky Jersey boys (and hillbillies, apparently) in the Village who are going to throw beer bottles at gay men who express affection towards one another. I've been to the Village before and think the bottle throwers would definitely be bashed back. Not to mention the harassment from the window...omg....is this a lame attempt at humor or seriousness towards the fact that hate still exists? Either way, it felt very out of place.

And Adam's family (ba ha ha--just got that one...!) seemed nothing but a one line lame joke. Did we have to cross over into 3rd rate physical comedy to make some point about a curse? The movie did have its highlights--Parker Posey and Chris Kattan had their moments, the dance off was funny and it did make some interesting points about the human condition and relationships: I liked it when Adam asked Steve what he wanted, and he blurts out: "I don't know!!" Not an easy thing to admit.

All in all, "Adam and Steve" has given me a little bit of hope that someone out there might make a gay-themed movie that won't insult my intelligence.

Okay, first of all let's just say that there is seldom (if ever)"good" porn--I've yet to encounter anyone who watches these films for their fine artistic quality, so let's get that "Oh, this is so bad!" out of the way.

Although this movie is terribly amateurish, chaotic and lacks any real plot devices (I wonder if they just made up a lot of it as they went along) I think that we need to look at how the porn industry was different back in the 70's--first of all there was no home video, to speak of and there were probably a lot of perverts out there watching this in a theatre, not at home, so I figure they'd try and make it halfway entertaining--and I use that term loosely. But where do you draw the line between non-sexual subplots (read: a waste of time) and a little dialogue to get us to the sex scenes?

We could have avoided the 3 guys looking for the gates of Troy (I thought they might be going for a gay subplot[we have 2 of them playing cards on the beach in their Speedos!], but alas, no....)and the one portly fellow (who looked like he could've been Ron Jeremy's uncle)in the bad pajamas/bunny outfit.

3-D is never a good idea; especially when it doesn't work all that effectively and they put too much effort to remind the viewer that stuff is coming at us (other than the sex scenes). Do I really want a point of view from the inside of a trash can? No.

This movie was good for a laugh--the music, hairstyles of the 70's [both north AND south! LOL], but my main complaint was that is was WAY too long at close to 2 hours, I was nodding off at this midnight show. It was also pretty novel to be in a public theatre watching porn with a bunch of strangers and not in the privacy of my own home! All that nervous laughter at the first scene--but who can blame the patrons when they are given no warning and then BAM--there it is on a BIG screen in 3-D!

Worth a late night laugh with some good friends...recommended with reservations.