200 Dólares

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.

I gave it six out of ten stars, half of which were A's for effort. The basic premise is entirely plausible, but some of the subplots are pretty silly. Circumstances revolve around an ad agency and its owner. If you've ever worked in an ad agency, and I have, this is kind of a comic book idea of what that would be like. None of it rang true for me. The photo shoot scenes were also painfully amateurish.

Nevertheless, two of the lead actors eventually won me over. The guy who plays the Australian hustler does an extraordinarily good job--very understated--with a difficult stereotype: the hustler with a heart of gold. Pretty Woman is referenced early on, but when we meet this guy, the level of trust we have for him is nothing like we instantly feel for Julia Roberts. He's slightly menacing, clearly hiding something. Through the course of the film he gradually reveals his gold heart, and it's done at just the right pace. It was a surprise to learn he's not Australian--the accent had me fooled.

The guy who plays his love interest also does well, even though he struggles with some impossible dialog in his office scenes. The guy who plays his boss is the weakest link in the chain. His performance is in that close-but-no-cigar category. Acceptable, but not much more. The other performances are a grab bag, quality-wise.

Is it worth renting? If you're working your way through the LGBT oeuvre like I am, yes. Keep you expectations low and you won't be disappointed.

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'.

Many of these negative reviews gripe about the poor production quality and the poor editing....well, try having NO budget (i.e., no money allocated, no funding) for a movie and see how high the production quality can get! I thought this film was an admirable piece of work. If one listens to the director's comments, many of the actors had to help carry the equipment around the set too! Basically, you have to compare this to a college level , purely voluntary, no budget film. In which case, this film comes out tops. One reviewer was comparing the movie to "Hitch"...umm, that movie had WILL SMITH in it, of course there was for more cash for the cinematography and music selection...millions more dollars i might add.

The actors did a great job and were all very hot. Definitely something worth checking out. Good story too, which was not cliché or overly angsty.

I rarely comment on films in IMDb, but felt compelled to defend this film I quite enjoyed it. I thought it was an entirely believable plot, decent quality production, and decent acting. I very much enjoyed Sean Matic as Ian/Tyler. An Hawaii raised American, his Aussie accent was very convincing.

"Worst Gay Movie ever.."??? C'mon. If you want to see the worst gay-themed movie ever made, try Green Plaid Shirt, or any Jeff London film (The Last Year, And Then Came Summer).

The world would be a very boring place if we all thought the same way and liked the same things.

Keep an open mind and give 200 American a try.