Socket

Are you gay (or just curious)? Do you like David Cronenberg? Are you especially fond of his movies "Videodrome" and "Crash"? Do you like looking at naked men? If you answered yes to all of those questions, then "Socket" is meant for you, but you stand a better chance of enjoying it if you only want to look at naked men.

That's not to say that nudity is all "Socket" has going for it. This story about Bill Matthews (Derek Long), a surgeon who survives a lightning strike only to discover he gets an erotic charge from electricity, is a fairly promising Cronenberg homage/rip-off, the weird sexiness almost drowning out the story's overarching silliness (which is more than could be said for Cronenberg's "Crash"). Matthew ("Pornography: A Thriller") Montgomery is well cast as Craig, the hospital intern who introduces Bill to a cult of electro-fetishists, becoming the doctor's Energizer love bunny in the process. Not only does Montgomery deliver one of the movie's stronger performances, he and Long actually look like a believable couple, the two men attractive without being unattainable hunks. Also, they look pretty good naked, which they prove early and often.

But "Socket" also has a lot going against it. While Long looks good in the buff, his performance isn't as captivating, his acting style leading me to wonder if he was a porn star trying for legitimacy (he isn't). At least he's better than Allie Rivenbark as Olivia, one of the doctor's lesbian friends. Crass lesbian friends have emerged as a gay movie staple, second only to gold-hearted drag queens, but Rivenbark's Olivia is just obnoxious, barking her sarcastic lines like an angry pit bull. When she berates Bill for not calling I had hoped his response would be, "I'm sorry, I meant to call but then I remembered I don't like you" (but it isn't). Maybe the doctor would've been better off with some drag queen pals.

Ultimately, "Socket" is brought down by ideas that aren't fully realized in the script and can't be realized with the minuscule budget. Snowy TVs are omnipresent throughout the movie, but their significance is never explained. Does Bill's mere presence affect TV reception? Does he, as suggested by a few "Videodrome"-like scenes, get off on a static-filled TV screen? Did he forget to pay his cable bill? Even loudmouth Olivia doesn't remark on the snowy TV in Bill's living room, as if it's merely an art installation common in L.A. households. Writer-director Sean Abley finds some creative ways to stretch a dollar, but by the fourth rapid-cut, seizure-inducing montage – used to illustrate characters dosing on electricity – I was wishing Abley had rustled up some additional funds for F/X before going into production. But I kind of enjoyed this attempt at a gay-themed erotic horror movie, despite its underdeveloped script, lackluster performances and bargain-basement production values. Bad as it is, I've seen much worse, and I applaud any gay filmmaker who tries something other than the usual coming out stories and campy romantic comedies. Also, did I mention Long and Montgomery look good naked?

If your expectations are so low that nudity in a non-adult film is sufficient to get you to watch a movie, particularly given how easy it is to find nudity and near nudity on line without going to an adult site, then this is probably the movie for you. If you expect good technical production values, an excellent and plausible story, good direction and acting, then you want to avoid this film. It does feature a unique element in the plot - at least for a gay theme indie film, and the director did do a little more with the low budget than some other films out in the past five years have accomplished. However, this is another case where a first time director, working from his own plot, is felled (and his projects fails miserably) because there is no director to call the writer on the weakness of his plot, or no writer to argue with the director about where the move is being moved or pushed away from the script -- or simply to toss ideas around with.

The performances aren't horrible, but the two leads are not as charismatic, particularly Montgomery, to get the plot from point A to point B as per the story, and the movie finally fails on the weakness in the plot, particularly towards the end of the film.

Bill is lucky to be alive after being struck by lightning. Upon his discharge from hospital, intern Craig Murphy - who was also struck by lightning some time ago - recommends he joins a group for people who went through a similar ordeal.

And so he does, and in the process he becomes romantically involved with Craig. Everyone at the group crave the sensation of electricity flowing through their veins. Now, electric shock is like a drug to them. Voltage. Power. Electricity. This is aphrodisiacs of a different kind!

Bill soon devises a way for them to plug into electricity - and into each other. Oops, wait, this is a gay movie, so I should probably rephrase that! Or maybe not, since they also do...erm...well, plug into each other! There's plenty of male (frontal) nudity, so if you enjoy the sight of a naked man, you will be satisfied. On top of that (...I should be careful with my wording...) Derek Long - who portrays Bill - is a deliciously handsome man. Hell, even his name sounds like a porn star!!

As the film progressed, it became more than just a bit weird. Although its a lighthearted fantasy about people being addicted to electricity, the principal is the same as being addicted to drugs, or substance abuse. It simply is more acceptable here, because we know it can't possibly happen. This is pure fantasy. And it's also a gay-themed movie. For a gay film, it certainly is unlike anything I've ever seen in this genre. This is not clichéd or predictable in the least.

For a low budget B-movie, the editing wasn't bad at all. The performances were also mostly good. This is an interesting choice of a movie, because those who enjoy fantasy might not enjoy the homosexual element, and those who enjoy gay movies might not enjoy the fantasy element. As for me, I think Derek Long made the movie more watchable than it ought to have been. And I also can't complain about those nude scenes and swinging dicks!

Sean Abley's film "Socket" fails in every respect; the story is flat, pointless, and uninteresting, the acting is remarkably unprofessional, the cinematography reflects a frightening absence of creativity (or even competence), and the director reveals that he has no eye for screen presentation. One wonders how it's possible to expend the time, money, and effort required to create a film, and to then turn an apparently blind eye to the final product. The movie is presented as a gay horror film, so we're treated to pointless sex-oriented nudity, which delivers no heat whatsoever. Indeed, one wonders whether director Abley was more concerned about the film's gay/nudity aspect than its horror aspect. Either way, none of it delivers. These characters give gay people a bad name: boring. The DVD offers a "special feature" section wherein the cast and crew discuss the making of the film. It is pathetic to listen to these people discuss their effort as though they had created something worthwhile. Sorry, this film is terrible.

I give it two stars for frontal nudity and the rest is garbage the movie stinks so bad I had to fast forward to bear it...as a gay man I always hope for a fine well done movie and unfortunately this just wasn't any of those things. Convoluted, stupid, boring, utterly a waste of time. Montgomery I have seen him in other films he just can't act, the other actor was decent but the movie just isn't any good terrible direction, awful script just skip it, there are better gay films out there to bad most of them are foreign made or else come from a non gay filmmaker. I guess it was a big stretch to try and make a meaningful movie and have it be sci-fi horror.