Fantasmopolis

From the description in the television guide, I wasn't sure if I'd like this one. But, thanks to 'Here!' channel, I got to see it uninterrupted and found it to be a super film ... a very insightful story of very believable characters by an extremely talented, perfectly-cast, fascinating group of actors(none of whom I have ever seen before, but hope to see often). Of course, the brilliant author/director had 'something to do with it'.

I found each character to be fully drawn and could identify with each of them ... something I don't see often in films.

I want to see more about these people. Thank you all for sharing with us.

Please, folks, do not hesitate to dive into this one with both feet and your whole heart.

What a great line.

I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.

I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.

I came twice to watch this film in a lapse of more than ten years. What motivated to write a review was the recall I had from it, when the character David (Troy Huptash) the painter, curses his best friend Kryla (Lynda Boyd) Faghag. That shocked me, coming from a gay man. And that was one of the few memoirs I had from the film. Seeing it a second time just showed I was right: it has nothing remarkable. In particular, I still have the feeling that Huptash acting has nothing profound – he seemed to read his lines. I would say that Matt (Vincent Corazza) character is deeper. He really shows he's torn between this wife and his new found lover David. Besides, Corazza is a piece of a man, well build developed and a good actor. Overall, it's a film to be watched, perhaps even twice as I did. Another predicate is to say it aged well. The conflicts shown are undying and worth reflection from the viewer.

I guess we are all VERY different-at least when it comes to our opinion of the acting. I think the premise was good, very real (my partner and I were both straight-married when we met), the location is unique, the supporting cast interesting, the acting.... terrible! The main actor's skill may be fine for stage where melodrama is a good thing, here, I couldn't stop wondering who slept with whom to get this part. The wife was a bad actress most of the time, the rest of the cast were fine however. Just way to much drama and too little script development.

I don't think we need happy endings and this movie lacked meat, but if you can get over the acting, which I couldn't, it is a fair movie to watch, then to forget.

Leaving Metropolis recalled from the far reaches of my mind lines from the 1816 Lord Byron poem, When We Two Parted:

In secret we met--

In silence I grieve,

That thy heart could forget,

Thy spirit deceive.

If I should meet thee

After long years,

How should I greet thee?

With silence and tears.

This entertaining film is well-acted, intelligently-written and directed with great sensitivity. But it hit too close to home for comfort, which is perhaps one reason why I liked it. The story never over-reaches. The character arcs, as in all good stories, propel the plot forward building ever-increasing tension that is all the more palpable for its exquisite subtlety. Typically, the denouement in most gay-theme films either lacks credibility or is utterly predictable. Neither is the case with this exceptional film. When the lights come down and ninety minutes of screen time pass like five, when one is uplifted for having met the characters but saddened for having to depart from them too soon, when one experiences pathos and ethos in measure enough for an honest cathartic moment--that, for me, marks a worthwhile, captivating, artful film. Bravo! Bravo!