Testosterone

A gay graphic novelist from the States is obsessed with finding his hunky Latin lover, who has mysteriously walked out on him; a search for the guy down in Argentina becomes a complex whirlpool of doubt, suspicion, paranoia and murder. David Sutcliffe, a low-keyed actor who resembles a gritty John Stamos, gives a passable performance here, yet it is tough to discern what the filmmakers were aiming for. As a noir, the movie doesn't absorb much interest with its loosely-hinged plot; as a mystery with a gay-hook, the picture is far too timid, teasing its target audience with just a few man-on-man lip locks. The low-budget shows, with the filmmakers failing to utilize the exotic locations to their full advantage...and why have the Latin stud disappear so soon? We hardly get anything useful out of this central relationship before he's gone--or was it to prevent alienating a heterosexual audience who might be sensitive to gay clinches? If straight movies about sexual obsession were this cautious, more viewers would be abandoning Hollywood films for foreign or pornographic pictures. This is an unusual attempt, but it is ultimately unsuccessful. ** from ****

I do not know the novel. So , I can not compare with original a dark, decent film about loss, secrets, searches and romance, revenge and roots of succes. Sure, it seems have the sins of low budget films. The story is not always coherent, the actors , their name and their bodies are the main attraction, the story is not the very convincing one but, after its end, this mix of love/ obsession story, film noir attempt seems, for very subjective motives, just decent. The flavor of leaves ash in fall - like is, maybe , the best virtue.

Testosterone started as a gay novel written by a gay author suffering from depression. It's a VERY grim, dark tale of Dean who is deserted by his lover Pablo. But it seems Pablo has left him a gift--an HIV infection. He spends the entire novel driving around Los Angeles meeting various dark, disturbing characters and circumstances to track Pablo down. The ending is very bleak.

This movie took the basic story, threw out the HIV angle completely and has Dean tracking Pablo to Argentina to seek closure!!!! There he encounters various hot men while trying to see Pablo. It ends (almost) the same as the book--but this version seems to be a light-hearted black comedy! I know that sounds strange but the tone kept shifting around. I was never sure how to take this. The script meanders all over the place, moves VERY slowly and (more than once) I wanted to hit Dean and tell him to get over it! As an adaptation of the novel, it's worthless. But on its own it's not that good either.

I'm giving it a 5 because David Sutcliffe was very good (and very hot) as Dean; it was great seeing Sonia Braga again (looking fantastic); it was fun to see Antonio Sabato Jr. out of his clothes--he can't act but has a great body (and has a brief frontal shot!); and has a real HOT Latino guy (Leonardo Brzazicki). Also the frequent shirtless shots of Sutcliffe are nice and there's some real hot man-on-man kissing (Sutcliffe and Sabato are straight but they seem very at ease in the kissing scenes). But the meandering script does everybody in. And Sabato is hardly in it (maybe 10-15 minutes).

I really can't recommend this film. I am wondering what they intended--if they weren't going to be faithful to the novel why bother? As it is this film is bombing. I saw it opening night in Provincetown during Mens Weekend--including me there were THREE people in the audience!

This film was certainly flawed and missed some great opportunities to be a lot better but it really wasn't that bad. I watched it from start to finish and that says a lot about a movie to me. It was not art, but I was certainly entertained. The ironic part of this film was that Antonio was really not that interesting on the screen. All the other actors and actresses were far more intriguing and Antonio's character was probably more important than the actor himself. This movie's only true downfall was that it didn't really capture its "theme" well enough to give the movie an overall point. Also, it was probably just a tad bit too convoluted. It's worth the 90 minute time investment, though, cause it's at least entertaining..

Odd little b-flic. It starts off very bad Laughably bad. Sound, editing, acting, it all fails dramatically. 'So bad it's good'-style, so no complaints there. However, the movie gets better and better with the introductions of new characters. With the exception of Sofia, none of the characters will generate much sympathy from the viewer. But all of them somehow manage to imprint their role with such sardonic egoism, that the ultra thin script is more than forgiven.

So, if you want to indulge yourself in some strangely cool whodunnit story homoerotic style, look no further. Eat your heart out Eric Romer!