अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंBisexual travel writer Nathan examines his increasingly complex feelings for Maggie as they travel through California's wine country on assignment.Bisexual travel writer Nathan examines his increasingly complex feelings for Maggie as they travel through California's wine country on assignment.Bisexual travel writer Nathan examines his increasingly complex feelings for Maggie as they travel through California's wine country on assignment.
- पुरस्कार
- कुल 1 जीत
Jer Adrianne Lelliott
- Nicholas
- (as a different name)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I watched this movie as I had a spare hour and a half and the 73 minute running time intrigued me, as I often find that a lot films these days are over inflated and over long. This film is a confusing "love" story with an unlikeable lead. The casting of the leading male actor was a mistake as far as I was concerned. He didn't (to me) have the charisma required to portray the "lothario" he was convinced he was. His looks bordered on effeminate. Don't get me wrong, effeminacy does not bother me in the slightest,but in this case, I found it hard to find the actor/character as irresistible as the film would have you believe. Kudos however must go to the lady playing the female lead. I felt she gave a good performance and she made me feel for her. Which is a definite plus, right? The road trip format of this movie has been done before. And I quite enjoy road trips if the traveling companions are interesting and the destination is worth the trip. In this case, it wasn't. Not a total waste of time, but I would not recommend this as a must see.
I agree with another reviewer here about the film's decent technical quality, but I wouldn't extend that to acting. Amber Benson is good, actually, but the rest of the cast is pretty much sub-par. I particularly thought many of Cole Williams' lines were read poorly.
The story could have been interesting, but the script didn't do it justice. The dialog sounded forced and stilted much of the time. It just didn't ring true, didn't sound like true life. When the plot conflict develops, I couldn't quite see the reason for it. There didn't seem to be anything happening that hadn't happened before so I couldn't understand the characters' reactions.
It was difficult not to compare this movie to Sideways. Not that they had all that much in common except the location, but that was enough to have me constantly thinking of how much better this movie could have been.
The story could have been interesting, but the script didn't do it justice. The dialog sounded forced and stilted much of the time. It just didn't ring true, didn't sound like true life. When the plot conflict develops, I couldn't quite see the reason for it. There didn't seem to be anything happening that hadn't happened before so I couldn't understand the characters' reactions.
It was difficult not to compare this movie to Sideways. Not that they had all that much in common except the location, but that was enough to have me constantly thinking of how much better this movie could have been.
The plot is simple. A straight girl and a très camp nominally bisexual boy go on a road trip and have a lot of sex and bicker.
The problem with the movie is completely in the writing. The dialogue is monotonous, and not in the least believable. It is some naïve straight person's fantasy of what gay people are like. It lacks humour and novelty. It feels like ordinary people talking just to pass the time.
The gay sex scenes are quite Victorian. The characters don't even disrobe. The actual sex is discreetly off camera. The raciest thing you see is a hand on an arm. In contrast, the heterosexual scenes are very in your face. That is cheating and insulting in movie that bills itself about being about gay characters.
Cole Williams in particular does the best with the limp material, breathing some life into it.
The very plot of the movie echoes that infuriating Christian lie that being gay is a choice and all that is needed is some heterosex to convert even the feyest boy.
There is some quite fun music and animated dancing, the best part of this movie, unfortunately a small part.
The problem with the movie is completely in the writing. The dialogue is monotonous, and not in the least believable. It is some naïve straight person's fantasy of what gay people are like. It lacks humour and novelty. It feels like ordinary people talking just to pass the time.
The gay sex scenes are quite Victorian. The characters don't even disrobe. The actual sex is discreetly off camera. The raciest thing you see is a hand on an arm. In contrast, the heterosexual scenes are very in your face. That is cheating and insulting in movie that bills itself about being about gay characters.
Cole Williams in particular does the best with the limp material, breathing some life into it.
The very plot of the movie echoes that infuriating Christian lie that being gay is a choice and all that is needed is some heterosex to convert even the feyest boy.
There is some quite fun music and animated dancing, the best part of this movie, unfortunately a small part.
An arrogant jackass meets an airhead. This was a total waste of time. Not sure what the writer was trying to do but it didn't work.
The best acting was done by the car.
The best acting was done by the car.
This film is about the sexual relationships of a bisexual man and a heterosexual woman, who go on a trip together to research for a newspaper article.
Judging from the film length, I guessed that the plot is probably not so well developed, and there is little to be conveyed. Unfortunately, this turns out to be true. I feel that there are not enough character development to make the characters connect with the viewers. There are not enough subplots to make the film interesting either. Many of the momentary flashbacks could have been expanded to full scenes, such as Nathan and Maggie walking around San Francisco having fun together. This would serve as better story development, and to increase the film's runtime. It is a pity that this film turns out not to be as captivating and interesting as it could have been.
Judging from the film length, I guessed that the plot is probably not so well developed, and there is little to be conveyed. Unfortunately, this turns out to be true. I feel that there are not enough character development to make the characters connect with the viewers. There are not enough subplots to make the film interesting either. Many of the momentary flashbacks could have been expanded to full scenes, such as Nathan and Maggie walking around San Francisco having fun together. This would serve as better story development, and to increase the film's runtime. It is a pity that this film turns out not to be as captivating and interesting as it could have been.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाFilm debut of Justin Hartley.
- साउंडट्रैकSonnet No. 3 (Like a Duck)
Written by Honky / Rock-A-Lot / Whacks-A-Lot
Performed by MC Honky
Published by Sir Rock-A-Lot Music (ASCAP), Dick Little Music
Available on spinART Records
By Arrangement with Ocean Park Music Group
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइट
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Кто первый к заднице прильнет
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $5,468
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $1,549
- 1 अप्रैल 2007
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $5,468
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें