Hustler White

I wanted to dislike this more than I did, but against my will, after a while I began to sort of like it. It's still bad, but it's not offensive the way it seems like it will be from the opening. For a movie about hustling, with a few real-life gay porn stars thrown in for good measure, it isn't really smutty or gross -- it's having far too much fun with its own genre-hopping and movie-referencing for that. At the beginning it feels like it's going to be a lot more pornographic than it is -- that it so say, disgusting as opposed to sexy; however, there are a few sexy scenes -- there's a boots and leather porn shoot that's pretty erotic, as is the scene where a row of black men take turns with a blond muscle boy (and there are a lot of hustlers in short shorts, if that's your thing). There's a briefly touched-upon theme with a skinhead who wants to kiss, the notion of closeness vs. sex and if the two are compatible, that could have been elaborated on to give the film some weight, but it's not dealt with effectively; it's mainly there as a stupid joke. Most of the jokes are stupid, especially the recurring "Anger...any relation to Kenneth?" bit. (I love the movie's tagline, though.)

The editing is a particular flaw -- it's in your face and has no rhythm, and it makes the film seem more cheap than the subject matter already suggests. That cheapness may be part of LaBruce's intention (the amateurish acting would seem to say so), but it's still childish regardless -- a scene where someone repeatedly runs over a guy with his car is flat and unfunny. There's narration where Castro is talking to us, and it's completely phony-sounding -- the movie is fake everything. Again, I think that must be the point. (The film's overall reason for existence seems geared toward a scene where LaBruce gets to suck face with a hustler.) The best scene in the movie is that with Castro and a baby in the bathtub, a scene that is essentially a rip-off (or homage) to "Flesh." 6/10

I stumbled across this film at the media center in my college where I was doing research for a paper on prostitution and the description of this film made it sound like a documentary on homosexual hustlers in west Hollywood. This movie was not what I expected but it was quite an experience. I can't say that I liked this movie but I'll never forget it, as certain images from it are stuck in my head forever. There isn't much plot beyond the story of an annoying German queen (played by the director) who is obsessed with a is-he-or-isn't-he-gay street hustler. I thought Tony Ward, as the hustler, was particularly unattractive, as there's no way I would ever pay to have sex with him. As a matter of fact, except for the cute bald guy who gets mummified and the blond porn star who gets gang banged, I thought all the guys in this movie were average looking at best. So, basically the most enlightening thing that I derived from this movie is that I'm just as good-looking as the guys who work the corner of Santa Monica boulevard. I just might give this street hustling thing a shot. Anyway, like I said there is some mummification, a gang bang, as well as bondage and an incredible scene of amputee gay sex, which is the most explicit I've ever seen. This scene, in particular, for better or worse will stay with me forever. Also, the kissing scene between Ward and the German guy really gave me the creeps. Don't get me wrong, I'm not homophobic and I like to see two guys kiss as much as any other red-blooded American boy but not these two...it really made me sick. In all, this flick is definitely worth a look, unless you're easily offended, and you'll certainly never forget it.

I kept wondering what the intentions of La Bruce could have been to make this movie. Maybe he meant to give a serious impression of the gay hustler climate in Hollywood? If so, it only worked as some sort of road-map to the most significant places-to-be. For the rest he pictured everything totally over the top, almost burlesque! Was it meant to be some kind of ironic social comment? Or a parody or even a downright comedy??

The amount of graphic sex is huge, I have no objection whatsoever with that, but it impressed me as if it was the main focus of this movie, since the narrative that tied all the sex-scenes more or less together was extremely shallow and lame. That brings the whole thing very close to regular porn, exactly the thing that La Bruce apparently wanted to parody here. So what was the purpose? I would say: either make a solid porn movie, or make a realistic serious movie about sex with a decent story!

The acting of all concerned (as far as any intended acting was involved) is below par, especially that of La Bruce himself, although it could be that he acted so bad intentionally, for an intended tongue-in-cheek effect. There are lots of guys who look great, with amazing bodies, and they are amply allowed to show it; and main character Tony Ward definitely had (sexy) charisma!

Anyway: as a camp porn-pastiche it can make you chuckle now and then, but that's about it.

In HW, the always-entertaining Bruce la Bruce has produced his most appealing film to date by far. Model and former Madonna boy-toy Tony Ward is sweet and funny as Monty, the object of ice-queen film-maker Jurgen Anger's (played by la Bruce) instant love. The graphic, fetishistic sexual encounters of Santa Monica Boulevard hustlers and their johns are merely clever sidebars to the main story of Monty and Jurgen's collaboration and romance. HW is far too bizarre for mainstream moviegoers; a pity, as its themes are universal and their exposition right on target.

A good effort from La Bruce as a director, if not as an actor. In fact the major drawback in the film is the dreadful 'acting'. Here I am Bruce! I'm a good actor (so I've been told anyway) and I'm gay! One of the major drawbacks of gay films in this ilk is the acting. So I'm not good-looking. Hey, we can't all be! Anyway, aside from a few sick, sleazy moments designed to shock (but are mostly just boring), this is a much better effort than his earlier films. Maybe because he had a collaborator this time?