50 façons de dire fabuleux

On September 8, 2005 at the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF), I had the chance to see the world premiere of the film "50 Ways of Saying Fabulous." Based on the Novel by Graeme Aitken, 50 Ways of Saying Fabulous is a coming-of-age film set in the '70s in rural Australia.

It stars Andrew Paterson as Billy, a chubby thirteen year-old kid who's interests are different from the regular kids in his school.

While all the other kids are interested becoming rugby stars, Billy dreams of becoming a character in a children's TV show quite similar to Lost in Space. Normally – this would lead to a lot of criticism from his classmates, but Billy's best friend just happens to be Lou (Harriet Beattie) – his cousin, and the best rugby player in the school.

So Billy lives blissfully in his own little world, faux-ponytail and all, until the arrival of puberty. Add to that a few new faces, and a few unexpected twists, and Billy's life will never be the same.

Great effort was made to keep the look of Australia in the mid seventies. Everything from the clothing to the cars – looked authentic. Impressive – considering that this was not a big budget film. The Director Stewart Main has a love for his homeland, and it shows - as Australia is filmed beautifully. In particular – the night scenes are reminiscent of the older days of filming, and not the normal "night = blue lighting" we've become accustomed to seeing.

At the screening, the director said he wanted to make a film that would appeal to all audiences, young and old. That brought about a very quick response from a member of the audience, "Not in America!" This film deals with friendship, homosexuality, love and lust. While it's far from an explicit film, its subject matter will prevent it from showing up any multiplex in America. In Canada on the other hand, the film already has distribution rights. So unlike many TIFF films, this one will be coming soon to a store near you.

The film is not without it's problems. Although it has a healthy mix of imagination, humour, and charm, the end lacks punch. And while it does try to rise above the genre, it has an unattractive "me too" quality. It doesn't offer anything truly unique like the intensity of the movie "Thirteen", or the cattiness of "Mean Girls".

That doesn't mean I didn't like the film. The actors were all wonderful. The cinematography was great.

It's not a film worth going to a theatre to see, but it is a film worth seeing. A nice rental.

This coming-out story of 12-year-old Billy is set in rural New Zealand in 1975. Actually, it's more of a Bildungsroman, because it's no secret to anyone that Billy is gay. His family and friends accept him for who he is, but he's having problems at school.

We follow Billy as he shows us his home, family and childhood friends (mainly tomboy Lou) and his school life, where he is bullied and struggling with his dislike of rugby.

We follow him as he experiences his first relationship with fellow "pufter" Roy and his first crush on older and completely unobtainable Jamie (played by a sexy young Michael Dorman).

"50 Ways" has an incredibly strong sense of time and place. I can't remember any movie that so successfully reconstructs the 1970s. The clothes, the haircuts, the town scenes, the homes -- it was all spot on. There was even a fondue dinner. Am I imagining it, but did the cinematography somehow reproduce the quality and texture of photographs from the 1970s? Movie goers are also treated to almost two hours of beautiful New Zealand landscape.

Main seems to have directed this movie using a group of rural New Zealand children. The line between fiction and documentary is a thin one. The child actors in this movie appeared only in this movie and almost nowhere else. How often do you see real children acting out a graphic gay coming-of-age movie? How did Main accomplish this? I think this would have been unthinkable in puritan America, wouldn't it? For this reason alone, the film is remarkable.

The realism is astonishing. This is not a phony after-school special school. These are not American movie children. These are children without guile and sophistication, without internet, without MTV. Main shows us children and school life as they really were, with all its complexities, difficulties and awkwardness. Sure, the acting was occasionally amateurish, or the dialogue a little forced, but for the most part I felt like I was watching a real group of New Zealand children ca. 1975.

Andrew Paterson, Harriet Beattie and Jay Collins -- I'd like you to thank you for playing in this movie. You did a great job. Your characters will remain with me for a long time.

I found the film to be moving, engrossing, relevant. I thought the movie had good character development and a few interesting plot twists. The complex and problematic relationship between soft Billy and tough Lou was the core of the movie. We outgrow our childhood friends as we discover ourselves.

Main doesn't sugar coat what it's like to grow up gay. It's a rich and full look at every aspect. Billy's hopeless and awkward crush on Jamie felt true. I felt really sorry for hapless Roy. Billy's difficulties with Roy and Jamie reflect core relationship issues that reverberate throughout every gay man's life. The struggle with "rugby" (and what that represents) is also familiar. Adults play a very minor role in this movie. Isn't that also accurate for gay teenagers? What I particularly liked was the way that Main explored how we come to terms with those dreaded words ("pufter", "faggot", "queer", or whatever). "What does that really mean?" And "Yes, that is what I am." Dealing with those words is a big part of growing up.

At times the director introduces some whimsy, mostly based on the theme of Billy's imagined fantasies of a television show similar to Lost in Space. Billy identifies with Lana; Lou identifies with Brad. It's difficult to know what to make of such a deliberate and in-your-face use of cheese in a movie like this. I have to confess I was also into these shows when I was a kid. Or perhaps I have a high threshold for cheese. I think it's accurate to make a television show the centre of a boy's imagination in the 1970s.

I see the movie has not got a strong score on IMDb. However, I wouldn't let this dissuade you from seeing it. Gay movies tend to get inexplicably and undeservedly low scores. Worth seeing!

The opening night film of the 2006 Melbourne Queer Film Festival, this is an overlong, aimless and rambling piece of fluff.

THANKFULLY the original novel's touchy theme of emerging adolescent sexuality was tastefully handled. Larry Clark, TAKE NOTE.

• If you're a fan of the original novel, don't bother. While the characters and major plot points remain the same, the parts in between these make no sense or have had their context COMPLETELY changed.

• The young lead actors, while charming, seemed confused and crippled by the badly paced and downright bi-polar script.

• If I hear "fubbulous" and that g-damned muzak played again, my head shall explode Cronenberg-style.

CONCLUSION: Love the book, movie BITES ARSE. Two star rating: one for the film getting made, the other for the young actors giving it their best. Expected so much more from the writer/director of the ABSOLUTELY SPANKING (read: fantastic) melodrama "Desperate Remedies" (1995) Sorry Mr. Main.

The movie tackles a sensitive subject in a way that is accessible to a wide audience. The plot moves at a brisk pace, and the acting is always excellent, especially by the three lead child actors. Dialogue is true to life, and sometimes very funny. I found several of the scenes very moving, especially those where the characters try to come to terms with the complexity of their adolescent emotions. The story concentrates on the children's viewpoint, with adults mostly absent - this is a good idea as puts the focus onto the relationships of the adolescents, which are the most dramatic. The period art direction is faultless, the landscape settings are awesome, and the music adds a nice comic touch. This is a very entertaining film that also carries an important and heartfelt message - that we are all basically the same and need to show each other tolerance and understanding. That's an important message in this day and age.

What could have been a great film was let down entirely by an appalling script that makes Shortland Street look Oscar worthy.

With a damn awful soundtrack (did they run out of money?), melodramatic silent screen era responses to unrealistic dialogue and a cast that looks the part but cant act to save themselves.....i struggled to make it to the end.

The saving grace of the film was the stunning NZ scenery and realistic visual atmosphere.

Unfortunately it just wasn't enough to save this incredibly disjointed film.