Relation durable

This is a traditional romantic comedy--love at first sight, complications, reconciliations, and lots of laughs. It centers around Glenn, a wiry, handsome, intense, Richard Gere type, who gets lots of one-night stands. His best friend/roommate is looking through the personals for an "LTR". He reads one that catches Glenn's interest, and Glenn winds up meeting Adam, a Brendan Fraser type. If you've ever wanted to see Richard Gere make love to Brendan Fraser, now's the chance. The contrast between the two types makes the physical contact especially hot.

The description of the movie in the program for New York's LGBT Film Festival gave away one of the best punchlines, which I will not do here. There are major differences, however, between Adam and Glenn, but they have such a strong love for each other that they stick together. Until . . .

This was a really enjoyable film, with hot actors, snappy dialog, and a decent plot. It's very easy to relate to the situations. Maybe a bit too much emphasis on the campy gay friends, and the best female friend role has been done to death already (I guess you need the fag hag to attract the female demographic). But the film is fun all the way. And, have I mentioned, hot?

Long Term Relationship (LTR) is so poorly written and flatly presented it makes the typically weak programming on the TV channel Logo look like Masterpiece Theatre.

LTR is supposed to be a comedy drama. The comedy consists of terrible one liners or sight gag montages. There's some frank joking about sexual incompatibility and discussion of supposedly insurmountable political differences but everything LTR attempts to address or make a joke about has been done before and much better.

The story is standard romantic comedy fluff with spikes of drama thrown in. The writing sounds like a college freshman's first script. Most of the characters are terrible clichés, the side characters in particular. There's a supposedly wise and sexy Asian female best friend of the main character, her husband who hangs out with gay guys but is utterly clueless about anything gay (Har!), a couple of mildly flaming constantly quipping gay guys, the professor, and Mary Ann. The last two aren't really in LTR but the side characters are as one dimensional as old TV sitcom characters. Except the acting in LTR isn't as good as the acting in a TV sitcom.

The two leads acting is competent (when they fall flat it's mainly due to the terrible writing) and their characters have some interesting aspects...Interesting enough that it makes you wonder what a better writer and director would have done with them.

The most notable thing about LTR (other than some pleasant but completely out of place piano music) is that the gay characters all have hair that looks as if they just rolled out of bed or possible cut it themselves. If believable hair was the goal it's LTR's one success. But the reason the hair is even noticed at all is that everything else about the film is so dull and obvious it makes the hair really stand out.

I loved it. At first I was concerned about the "stereotypical" depiction of casual gay-sex, but I think it was necessary, and that most if not all of the remaining nudity was within the context of the relationship. So it wasn't gratuitous or distracting. Which was fortunate, because the story itself and the subplots were rich and integral to the story. But it still had that constant tinge of spontaneity throughout. Enjoyable, nice flow.

So if you like it, make sure to watch it again with the commentary on.

The commentary was AS entertaining, if not more entertaining than the movie itself. In a completely different way of course, but don't miss that. It was an hour and a half of ROFLMAO. Plus you get to see all the adorable shots of the movie again.

An assault and insult to gay men everywhere; apparently of whom the majority are vapid yet stern democrat sexoholic clichés who make poor attempts at wit and humor. This film tries so hard to be relevant and funny, but is a LONG tedious road-trip away from both. None of the jokes were remotely funny (and here's a hint: don't edit in long pauses after each joke for emphasis as if you're at a dinner-party...PICK UP THE PACE and maybe we won't NOTICE how bad the joke was!). The premise that any gay man who doesn't work for "ACT OUT" remotely cares about the political leanings of his sex-partner is beyond laughable. The only theme that COULD have been interesting was how two men overcome "bad sex". THIS was what I personally wanted to see resolved...and it never was! Were they just satisfied to a semi-platonic relationship? Did they find the magic formula (i.e. "being old-fashioned"?) or were they destined to continue trying? This was just a really bad exercise in campy comebacks...the type one would expect from shallow friends-of-friends at a drunken cocktail where you tell everyone you'll keep in touch but give fake numbers to.

This film deals with a gay relationship that for some reason has problems attaining sexual fulfillment. As gay relationship which wants to endure, it does smash apart the still homophobic view among certain heterosexuals that long term commitments between men cannot last. This is a good point to make when we look at films such as 'Call Me By Your Name' and 'Brokeback Mountain' which I dislike intensely. On top of that, the two lovers come from opposite poles of the political spectrum, and I will give no spoilers about how this added problem works out. For some of the friends that surround them this a sort of sleeping with the enemy, and yes, there is humour in this as well. One of the lovers has a flatmate. The flatmate loves his sharing partner very strongly. The actor who plays him I found excellent. And to a certain extent I got a bit tired of why the sex between the two lovers failed despite their devotion to each other. But there are good things in this film and in my opinion it is well worth watching. It was clearly made on a shoestring, but then a lot of good films are. See it if you can. Made in 2006 it is still relevant.