Claire of the Moon

Set in a women's writing retreat in Oregon, Claire of the Moon begins it's long and tedious journey. The first time I saw the movie, all I could think is, "When are they going to do IT?", but when I saw it for the second time, I got the message Nicole Conn tries to convey. Buried under the rather stiff acting of Trisha Todd and Karen Trumbo (and for that matter, all the other actors in this movie) is the most complicated problem in any relationship: exploring intimacy. The intentions are good for all involved in revealing Clare and Noel's fear of intimacy, but poorly followed throughout the tale. Conn tries too hard to make this view analytical and intelligent but succeeds in making it so intelligent that it becomes tiresome. Not that I did not like this movie; I did. But I endure this movie only for the final scene. The end leaves us wanting for the real story to finally begin, but it is too late...the movie is over. Now for the confession: I really like this movie, but only with a grain of salt, and that is how it should be viewed.

I saw this movie years ago and really liked it. Neither the acting nor the storyline was the greatest, but it was a sweet and eye-opening love story. Many times we suppress feelings we may have for a person because of societal fears. But we must be true to ourselves. In the end, both of the main characters were. Sweet.

I must say the first time I saw this movie was way back in 1997. When I saw it then I almost wished I'd not bought it. I was desperate for something to watch one weekend and pulled out the old dusty VHS tape. I watched it again and realized the acting may have not been the best, but i'm sorry Trisha Todd is a very sexy woman. Even w/ 10 years added i'm sure she is still a very sexy woman.

I went out and bought the 10th Anniversary DVD to see what else there was to see. Much to my amazement there were MANY scenes deleted. After I saw the making of the movie somehow a lot of other things made sense. In my personal opinion the producers/directors of this film should have left in much that was removed. I'd personally like to see the WHOLE movie with all scenes that were shot left in.

All in all a good, sensual movie. I know I'm certainly in the minority having this opinion.... Trisha Todd is just too hot to be overlooked.

i had heard all the hype about this movie when it was first released and when i finally got to view it, late one evening, i was far from pleased. i've seen my share of gay/lesbian cinema but this had to be by far the worse one to hit the screen. it was incredibly slow moving and a complete bore. i have to agree with one of the other reviewers when he/she said it was a horrible film. i found Trisha Todd's acting to be so wooden and stiff that i had a difficult time caring about her character. by the end of the film i just wanted someone to kill her off and put an end to her misery. the long-awaited love scene didn't make things any better. there's a lot better lesbian films out there and this isn't one of them. enough said.

I hate this rule the lesbian community makes up, where if a film featuring lesbians is made and none of the aforementioned lesbians wind up killing themselves or going straight (as if that were possible) before the end credits roll, all of us are supposed to hail it as some masterpiece of filmmaking. Particularly in the case of this train wreck of a borefest, I refuse to join the crowd on this one.

The characters (particularly the woman who owned the lodge, the Southern-belle romance writer, and the nice-little-mom-of-two-in-her-jumper-outfits-writing-her-first-book) were offensive stereotypes, caricatures of what they could have been. It's possible for a straight woman to find the idea of lesbianism repellent without portraying her as some strange replica of Tammy Faye Bakker. And -- surprise! -- it's also possible to portray a lesbian lodge owner as something other than a hard-ridden, raspy-voiced, rough-n-ready bulldagger.

The plot dragged. AND dragged. AND dragged. If I learned a single thing from watching this movie, it's that I have an incredible reservoir of restraint -- I didn't stalk out of the theater in disgust. But then I'd paid $7 to get in, and that was in 1992 at an artsy-fartsy house. LOL

My take? Not a classic. Not even a contender.