Just Say Love

I tired very quickly of Guy's helplessness and whining and began to focus on that horrific lump on the left side of his face, which I think needs a biopsy.

This movie may have its issues (the dialogue can be somewhat painful at times, as can the direction) but there are two big saving graces in this film that make it worth a watch: Matthew Jaeger and Robert Mammana. Both actors fit into their roles wonderfully and their chemistry feels very genuine; simple, natural, and therefore, it is easy to invest in their characters' main conflict - that is, the idea of love that transcends socially constructed sexual definitions.

The art direction is also fairly interesting - rather than the standard, the film is shot in a direct stage-to-film aesthetic - one set, dramatic lighting, and the simplicity works in it's favour, though it can seem heavy-handed at times.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. Something different, with two amazing performances that will stay with you.

The film is about two guys meeting up for a quicky, ending up in a sort-of no-strings-attached situation (with all the derived clichés). The one guy is a wannabe-witty-but-omg-whiner who endures an emotionally abusive relationship, while the other one, supposedly straight, enjoys a good ... service once in a while. Two thirds of the movie turn around the gay guy swallowing down indirect insults (for everyone who has even a little self-respect) just to meet again with the "hero" he's hopelessly fallen for, while in the last few minutes everything gets miraculously resolved in a Disney-like happy ending (which couldn't be further from any realistic outcome possible). The whole takes play on a minimalistic theater stage (something that might have worked for Dogville but pathetically fails here, since there is no real plot substance to substitute for the stage props missing). Characters do not really evolve, conflicts are not analyzed and resolved but unexpectedly disappear, while cinematography is on purpose absent (I do not consider changing the filming angle cinematography). Matthew Jaeger and Robert Mammana do a decent job trying to act, but the script is so shallow, that they have nothing to work with.

The film is supposed to be an adaptation of a stage play by David J. Mauriello (although googling for the original play didn't result in any information whatsoever). The story might have been enough for a ten-minute short film at best (in which case the development and the catharsis are left as homework to the viewers), but nothing longer. If the author wantonly recites Plato, he should first know (and apply) Aristotele's definition of Greek tragedy (theater 101).

Last-minute addition: Reading my review again, I realized that I may be overreacting (in fact much more than usually in my critiques), but watching it made me angry. I decided not to soften my tone because I don't want others to also waste their time (or if they do, to at least be aware of the risk they're taking). The most important reason for my anger, however, is the subtle insinuation throughout the movie, that enduring an emotional abuse may magically pay off in the end.

"Guy" (Matthew Jaeger) is sitting on a park bench contemplating Plato when he is approached by the rather uncouth builder "Doug" (Robert Mammana) who has heard that this is a place to go for some easy sex. Initially, the former is uninterested but a conversation sets things in motion that starts the ball rolling on a relationship that goes on to challenge both men's perceptions of what is gay, straight, and of what love actually means. I rather liked this even though it is scripted to within an inch of it's life - "do you realise how dead that food is?". The gloomily lit photography looks, much of the time, as though the entire thing has been shot on one camera and edited together using sellotape and lots of good will and it has a stolid presentation that takes some getting used to. All of that said, however, once it builds up an head of steam there is an obvious, quite natural and basic, dynamic between "Guy" and "Doug" and it does work well in this theatre-style multi-set one stage environment. The two performances - particularly Jaeger's - are sensitive, occasionally funny and the dialogue looks at attraction and stereotype but in a slightly observational, and therefore less static fashion. The ending is slightly predictable - despite efforts to tempt a stray cat with vegetarian tuna, but proves testament to the triumph of love over almost all human-made rules and constricts and spins a theory about "Sleeping Beauty" that you're unlikely to have encountered before.

I started watching it thinking it was going to be a how to i erase this.

The back and forth of the conversation on the bench, my thought was this guy should get up and run. But it was brilliantly written that i had to keep watching their exchange. Was the guy not quite right? Were they both not quite right?

The acting of both characters was really spot on and believable.

I have had conversations with someone that I was not sure if i should run away. And stayed.

The fantasy part of doug returning was confusing . Did he really or was it a dream?

I watched it until the end.

And did not think how do I get this time back? As with many movies.

Really liked it.

As to my crazy conversation, we became friends. And i think of him often. And hope he is safe, he moved away.