200 American

What do viewers of Gay cinema want? After reading the other reviews AFTER I watched this film I was stunned at the many negative reactions.Some reviewers saw the beauty and craftsmanship. Other obviously expected and saw something else and that is a shame. It had no drug addicts laying in alleys or violence, gay bashing, murders, religious zealots, or any number of the sick and twisted character seen in many Gay projects. It was urbane, bright, and ultimately uplifting. Not that there is not room for those films with dark plots. It just was nice to see "nice" and "real" in a Gay project.

This is one of the very BEST of all the low/no budget Gay Indies I have seen since the rise of the"New Gay Cinema" that started in the 1980's and now sees numerous new films premiering yearly.

So the plot is not very original. This was a ROMANTIC comedy folks... It has a happy ending. It wasn't written and produced to make a great philosophical statement. It is about the most common and beautiful emotions of humanity. I speak, of course, of the mysterious lure of love. Love lost, love discovered anew, Love lost again only to become love rediscovered. LOVE.

The story is is an old one. OK, it is a cliché. but one that will always be popular regardless of gender. Boy (Conrad) loses boyfriend, He wants to get off, He's horny and lonely but does not want to date because he is still in love with with his partner of three years who he has now broken up with. So he calls up a hustler (Ian), who also has lost a boyfriend. He is from Australia. After coming to the States with his male lover he is dumped. He has no way to make a living as an alien. He can't go to school, or really follow any dream of his own. He has no one and nowhere to turn. He meets a pleasant women (Sara) who will gladly marry him for 10,000 dollars. So he becomes a professional hustler in order to make the bread to get his US citizenship. Hence the title, "200 American". That's Ian's (the Australian) hustler's base price for a couple of hours of no strings sex. Oh, but the complications arise. Misunderstandings, secrets not told and conflicts bewitch the very attractive and sexy male leads. Actually calling them boys is a misnomer. All of these guys are men and they are believable in their role as star crossed gay men.

The various other subplots just add to the attraction of this VERY nicely acted film The male leads (mostly straight guys) are all excellent actors. A lot of criticism has been thrown at the creators of Gay Cinema condemning this issue. I have friends that say "why can't they find Gay men to play these roles"? As Richard LeMay the creator of "200 American" states in his commentary, "I wanted strong realistic acting"....so what that the best actors that auditioned were straight men. That is why they are called ACTORS! Yes, I would like to see more "real" Gay actors in many of these films. Where are they? Are they afraid to come out? How silly. These "straight" guys act in roles as "Gay" men and they do it very well. What's to complain about that? There is much better acting here than in MANY other recent gay films. The smaller parts are handled by another group of really good actors (male and female), and they were able to come up with great on location filming in many nice locations in and around New York City. The editing and photography are so GOOD for a no budget film. In fact, if the writer and producer had not explained that it was really a NO budget film I would never have known.

Finally, the music written for this film is lovely. To me it fit the theme of the film perfectly. I applaud the writer, producer and director Richard LeMay. He not only made a beautiful, well made and acted little film, he trashed his sad ending he had originally written and has the 4 male leads get who they wanted. Truly a happy "GAY" film.

I highly recommend this light hearted, but NOT slapstick, funny flick about what we all WANT and NEED. You know, someone to love and be loved by. What's wrong with that? Sometimes I think a lot of folks don't appreciate the basics in cinema. They never get stale. especially in a well written, produced, directed, edited and photographed story of the power and beauty of love.

This film hits just the right spot to make you feel good and say AWWWWW.... As I said, What's wrong with that? 9 out of 10 stars Read some of my other reviews on Gay cinema. Some people would call me a romantic but, I repeat, what's wrong with that? Clive-13

I loved this movie. A group of friends and I rented the DVD and were all caught off guard by how good it was. It is so rare to find a gay themed movie about average guys. Unlike the cover art suggests, this story is not about sex. It is a simple tale of people finding themselves. The acting is exceptional. The writing is great too. The only thing holding this movie back is it's budget. Obviously shot on the cheap, it more than makes up for it in heart. How many big budget stinkers have we seen? Too many. On top of all that, the three leading men are hot! Also, the commentary and interviews were fun too. I highly recommend this to everyone.

I went in expecting a bad movie, knowing the budget was low. But right from the start, I was charmed. Particularly by the actor playing Sean, the Australian hustler. I thought he did a great job of acting. The guy who played Conrad turned out better and better as the movie went along, until you really like him by the end. Very soon into the movie you start rooting for Sean, and you can't wait to find out how things will work out. The actor who played Micheal was also great, and it was fun watching him come on to Sean. I think everyone did the best they could do, considering no money, and although the music certainly wasn't the best, what are you going to get with no money? And at least it did set the right mood. I hope to see Sean Matic in another movie, he really did a great job of acting.Hopefully someone in the business saw him and will give him a chance. Overall, I'd say, don't go expecting a big budget, well done move, but do except that for a low budget movie, this one was pretty darn good. It's fun, easy to identify with the characters, it has charm, and there is one good kiss to make it all worthwhile.

Director Richard LeMay admits on his DVD commentary that he changed his mind halfway through writing 200 American about what story he wanted to tell. But it doesn't take LeMay's commentary for us to realize that this film's major problem is lack of focus. The title alone should indicate that the central figure must be Ian, the Aussie rent boy searching for a way to stay in America without a legit green card. But LeMay instead opens his film from the POV of Conrad, an ad exec on the rebound from his ex, looking to get off with a renter instead of risking the emotional perils of dating. Never mind the fact that Conrad is a hunk that anyone would gladly bed gratis. Doesn't anonymous sex (for free) also imply 'no strings'? One would think so. The ad game must be going pretty well for Conrad, because he eagerly shells out a thousand clams for his hourly Boy from Oz to stay the night. But mid-vid LeMay ditches the inigmatic saga of Conrad and Ian for a more conventional romantic soap opera between Ian and Conrad's white bread co-worker Michael. To compensate, LeMay quickly resurrects Conrad's ex and proceeds with one of the most predictable pairings in queer cinema: Ian and Michael. Add to this lack of dramatic structure the fact that there's something a little lethargic about the whole affair and you've got a ho-hum gay indie.

The dialogue tends toward the trite and the editing and cinematography are very hit and miss. The script's single funniest moment (although it tries for many more) involves confusion between the Dalai Lama and Lorenzo Lamas. A fed-up fashion model also provides a much-needed cathartic blast. Oddly, there's an unfortunate subplot about white slavery that should have hit the cutting room floor.

LeMay's greatest asset is his cast, all of whom reportedly worked for free. They manage to make even the most illogical of plot points bearable. If it weren't for the quality of the performances, 200 American might well be totally unwatchable. If LeMay had spent some of his 200 on a script doctor, this film might have been something worth owning. As it is, it's just a 'renter'.

I am a playwright, movie script author and arts critic for a major newspaper chain, 80 years old and straight and I believe the writer/director did an unusual job considering that it was a no budget movie made under some of the most difficult conditions.

That he did not push nude or sex scenes showed clearly that he was not shooting this for the porn community or the gay niche community alone, but was trying to make a serious statement. You may criticize the statement from your point of view, but not the artistic intent.

Instead of some of these reviews that are nothing but catty, make your own movie under the same conditions and see how well you do.

The actors were not bad at all and I give credit to the writer/director for having the guts to create, rather than be one who sits around, considers himself a "critiquer" and spews negatives.