Long-Term Relationship

Interesting to read all the varying comments posted here regarding this movie. I think viewer reaction really depends on how much of a sucker you are for a romantic comedy that does away with reason and believability in an effort to come up with a happy ending.

One person mentioned that the director/writer/producer only read "Directing For Dummies" before he helmed this. I wish he had read "Screenwriting For Dummies" too. I think the major problem lies not in the direction but in his script. The development of the central relationship doesn't make sense. Supporting characters disappear for a good portion of the movie, only to reappear at the end.

There are a couple of laugh-out-loud funny lines - mostly delivered by actor Artie O'Daly as Eli. Some would say the character he plays is stereotypical, but he's a good actor with great comic timing & almost steals the movie. That said, other dialogue (and performances) are cringe-worthy.

Questions regarding political and sexual incompatibility in the central gay relationship are raised - which is good - but the solution, according to this film, is to just go ahead and get married! The Republican character doesn't offer any objection. Nothing is worked out. Just slap a happy ending on it. It's a shame. What we're left with is another gay indie film in which a writer/director/producer would have benefited from collaborating with someone to come up with a better finished product.

An assault and insult to gay men everywhere; apparently of whom the majority are vapid yet stern democrat sexoholic clichés who make poor attempts at wit and humor. This film tries so hard to be relevant and funny, but is a LONG tedious road-trip away from both. None of the jokes were remotely funny (and here's a hint: don't edit in long pauses after each joke for emphasis as if you're at a dinner-party...PICK UP THE PACE and maybe we won't NOTICE how bad the joke was!). The premise that any gay man who doesn't work for "ACT OUT" remotely cares about the political leanings of his sex-partner is beyond laughable. The only theme that COULD have been interesting was how two men overcome "bad sex". THIS was what I personally wanted to see resolved...and it never was! Were they just satisfied to a semi-platonic relationship? Did they find the magic formula (i.e. "being old-fashioned"?) or were they destined to continue trying? This was just a really bad exercise in campy comebacks...the type one would expect from shallow friends-of-friends at a drunken cocktail where you tell everyone you'll keep in touch but give fake numbers to.

Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.

I loved it. At first I was concerned about the "stereotypical" depiction of casual gay-sex, but I think it was necessary, and that most if not all of the remaining nudity was within the context of the relationship. So it wasn't gratuitous or distracting. Which was fortunate, because the story itself and the subplots were rich and integral to the story. But it still had that constant tinge of spontaneity throughout. Enjoyable, nice flow.

So if you like it, make sure to watch it again with the commentary on.

The commentary was AS entertaining, if not more entertaining than the movie itself. In a completely different way of course, but don't miss that. It was an hour and a half of ROFLMAO. Plus you get to see all the adorable shots of the movie again.

A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.

As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.