Partners

Stereotypes, how does anyone get them. I've met men and women throughout my life and around the world whom were either shy closet types you'd never know existed, or standing up waving a flag obvious, and everything in between. Some have noted the movie is anti-gay, guess it depends on your attitude and who's watching it, just like anything else. I didn't think it was. To me the movie was a comedy about two reluctant cops balking at crossing orientation lines. And they find out they can work together just fine, co- exist, and the orientation lines blur a bit. I'd tell you my favorite scenes but that would ruin the movie. And except for a guy who's flamboyancy preceded him (funny as hell too), and the guy that used to come to the grocery store in paint, heels, and purse, most of the obvious stereotype stuff is kept indoors in my opinion.

This is a funny and entertaining movie that I went looking for again to add to my collection. If your not afraid of the flamboyant stereotypes and have an open mind you're going to love this movie.

I think "Partners" is an absolutely sweet movie, well balanced with a great John Hurt and the ending is really, really touching *tissues* ^_~ (and for the record, no I'm not a gay man, I'm a het gurl ^^)

Here's a gay-themed action-comedy that even the gay community has thankfully forgotten, an appalling, tangled mess involving two male Los Angeles police detectives (one straight, one gay) posing as lovers in order to track down a killer of homosexuals. You have to commend Ryan O'Neal, he gives this one-joke affair his best shot; but poor John Hurt (the most sullen gay character ever!) sluggishly performs as if against his will. The plot is promising--it might've been a sharp satire of "Cruising" had the handling been a bit more nimble. But "Partners" has the patched-together feel of too many different hands, and the laziness of the writing and directing sinks the idea almost completely. Sniggering jokes, embarrassing and half-hearted sentiment, and a plea for the understanding of the gay minority turns this tale into one swishy stew. *1/2 from ****

I would like to point out to all the people who felt it necessary to take offence at this movie: It was pretty groundbreaking for the time it was released. Speaking as a lone gay teenager in the Bible Belt, it was very informative to see people such as the "caftan clad landlord" and realize that there were places in the world where men could live together as couples. The landlords story of his relationship was very touching.This movie holds a special place in my heart because it was the FIRST movie that let me know I was not alone in the world. If you are not gay, you don't understand what I am pointing out.If you are gay, and you are that offended at the gay stereotyping in the movie, then you were born in California, New York or somewhere else progressive and should consider yourself fortunate you didn't have to rely on movies such as this one for acceptance.This movie was presented from the point of view of Ryan's character which is to be expected since he was the bigger star at the time.

This 46-year-old, (now 47-year-old) lifelong gay native of Fort Worth saw this movie when I was 21 years old. I liked it and I didn't like it even then. Gay what? What is 'gay'? Anyway, I enjoyed many things about this movie just as much as I could complain about just as many more that I didn't like. I think that John Hurt and Ryan O'Neil deserved to be shown better than they were shown in "Partners."

WARNING: What follows is a big rambling digression from my "Partners" comments. (Updated by original poster on Dec. 30, 2008)

______

I had seen the movie "Ode To Billie Joe" with my gay parent and my straight sister when it first came out in 1976. We all had known gay people for many years. In those days, the idea of being 'gay' was still kept private and only spoken of in close circles. Times were evolving then, just as they are still evolving now.

In my experience back in those days, one's own "gayness" was not talked about openly unless they had a desire to tell their story on Television. In the early to mid 1970s a lot of different kinds of people wanted to be on TV or something like that. I do admire those early open pioneers.

Back in the day I remember that 'gayness' (whatever that means) was respected by those who matter. Nobody ever had to make an issue of it, just as I have never done.

Neither my gay parent nor I or anybody else cared to talk about our personal business, and it was good in a way and it still is.

I had always loved the Bobbie Gentry song that inspired the movie since it was released in 1968. I had to see this movie, of course.

I rather understood the idea of Billy Joe's situation and that of the other characters because the story was told from a 1950's rural Mississippi perspective. Later in my life, it was suggested that the end was the particularly offensive part because of a line that was spoken by one of the main characters, and I still agree with that observation. (Though, if the viewer takes into account the locale and time period of the story, the line is actually respectful of the person considering the place and time)

Over My 46 years I've seen a lot of movies with gay characters and the only one I ever respected for that effort is "Victor/Victoria" (1982).

I didn't care too much for "The Birdcage" (1996) in spite of the talented people that participated in the making of the movie. I despised Nathan Lane's character (though Lane later redeemed himself as a gay/?/ man in the cable series "Sex And The City"). To me, the only good thing about "The Birdcage" was Gene Hackman's stellar performance as the conservative U.S. Senator.

In 1973 a wise women said: "Everybody thinks and feels differently as the years go by, don't they"

John Martin, 46, Fort Worth, Texas