Surprise, Surprise

I don't disagree with the first reviewer much. But I do disagree with the overall rating.

Two things were really subpar in this film: The sound quality and the first two main characters/actors we meet. That could be enough for anyone to switch the station or press eject after 10-15 minutes.

The direction and editing were mediocre. Some of the dialogue was horrible, some good. The remaining main characters/actors range from alright to rather good (though limited by poor direction). I don't think I've ever seen a film before where the kid outperformed the grownups by such a wide margin.

I like the concept: An established couple facing an adolescent who, in turn, is facing them. Neither the couple or the kid are very pleased, at the start--and we never get to the saccharine, though many would think the ending overly optimistic.

I think it's reasonably evident that everyone involved tried very hard to make this come together. I'm glad I stayed with it. Unfortunately some lacked the experience/training to pull it off better.

It was no surprise to read this movie was adapted from a play. It does not move much from the living room of an LA house. Characters get out on the terrace occasionally, and I think we got a peek of a bedroom, but it was brief. There are a couple long shots of the house and I'm ashamed to admit that I found myself wondering, "is that Kathy Griffin's house?" It isn't, but I was visually bored enough to let my mind wander thusly.

As other reviewers have remarked, the sound quality is poor. You would think that a director who knew that 90 percent of the movie would take place in a living room might have avoided one with a marble floor and glass wall. It photographs nicely, but you can practically see the sound waves bouncing.

I can't quite remember the context, but I remember somebody repeating Orson Welles' line about the difficulty of "opening up" a play to make it a movie. "What am I going to do? Show somebody getting out of a car?" It is a problem, but significant parts of this story could have been moved around a little. Unfortunately, it never gets out of the box, and that would have been a big improvement. Dialog might have been a little more realistic, and the movie might have been a little less talky. It's really talky.

We've seen elements of this story many times before, older people suddenly having kids thrust upon them. In fact, I can think of three other gay movies that use this same set up. One of them--Patrik, Age 1.5--does it really well. See that one and skip this.

As a gay man, I am obviously drawn to gay-themed movies. All I ask of them is to show me gay characters that are believable. I don't need to see them have sex; I only want to believe in their relationship. This was denied to me in "Surprise, Surprise." We are supposed to believe that Den and Colin have been together for six years. I understand that this is not the first week in the relationship and that they are not expected to French kiss every time they meet. But when Den comes back from a working session outside of the country, and he's been gone for days if not for a couple of weeks, upon his return he finds nothing more loving to do than to give a peck on his boyfriend's forehead. You know the kind one gives to his grandmother? That is the extension of their affection. As far as I'm concerned, they may has well have given each other a handshake. Those guys are not lovers: they are roommates. Lips will never touch. I am reminded of other "gay" couples (gay on paper only) in movies like "Friends and Family" or "Advice from a Caterpillar", where the couple is known to be gay and yet the characters never show it.

"Surprise, Surprise" is certainly not a bad movie. It was obviously a theatre play at first, which is fine because we are assured of decent dialogues. The characters don't have a lot of depth, and young David is certainly one of the most obnoxious characters I have seen in quite a while. Such people do exist; but why one would want to be around them remains a complete mystery to me, family ties or not. Then again, I am not family-oriented.

The actors are good, especially Luke Eberl as David. He certainly gives an energetic performance. But the character remains extremely unpleasant.

I think I would have liked it better had we had spent more time with Den and Colin, instead of Den and Junie (no reflection on the actress' work). What was their life like before David shows up? What is their interaction? Are they the least bit in love and was there a time they showed some affection? When did they both become straight? :-)

But that is another movie I guess.

This film could have been better. Once it began I was intrigued at the plot. What was hard to take was the main characters of Den and Colin ever having a relationship. They seemed a misfit of lovers. Colin the dancer who lost use of his legs and the older man looking like his father. When the young boy entered the scene I thought that he and Colin would end up together. I also wondered at the casting of Den. I tell you not, but I thought he might have something about casting himself as producer or whatever. When I checked the credits, there he was as the writer along with Jerry Turner the director. The puzzle was solved.

Travis Michael Holder as Den was bad casting and he never seemed to leave the page of acting. Like he was reciting the words he wrote. John Brotherton as Colin, the lover, was excellent. He had just the right amount of tension regarding his legs. But being lovers these two had no chemistry together. Hard to believe such a good looking young man, Colin would end up with Den unless he was being kept. Their feelings for each other consisted Den giving Colin a peck on the head. Gee whiz, Ma, you gotta be kidding.

Deborah Shelton was also very good as the friend of the boys. She has some fine moments and quite honest in her approach to the role. And a looker as well. Lucas Elliot as the young boy, David, gave the best performance. It was raw and honest and almost improvised. The scene near the end with he and Colin was inspiring to watch. The two went at each other with such emotional outbursts you felt at times you were intruding. Mary Jo Catlett did what she could in a thankless role. It never was followed through just who's side she was on. She seemed to find fault with everybody. I suppose she did an adequate performance since the writing didn't give her much else to do.

All in all the director let the actors do their job, and those that knew what they were doing did it well. I'm afraid it's a case of the writer indulging in his own work. The role needed a more attractive and exciting actor. Sorry, that's my humble opinion.

This "film" is a mess. Not one nano second it believable. The script is PAINFULLY bad, the acting equally bad, there is no direction, the story is banal and ridiculous and not even remotely human. A sad pile of porridge from beginning to end, it is an utter waste of time and film. Skip this one!