Is It Just Me?

Yes 'is it just me' is a well intentioned little film. But when did watching a gay movie become like watching a Christian film, or even worse a Tyler Perry movie! So many gay films of the last 10+ years have been so limp and predictable and this one is no exception. You know exactly what is going to happen and it features the usual gallery of gay indie clichés, the fag-hag, the slutty friend and the dryly funny/ miserable old queen. Thankfully the performances are good and characters likable. Believe me I get it, there's little money in gay cinema and we need our rom-coms too but we need more genre benders like Hellbent and Another Gay Movie, I can't keep watching the same story just to support gay indie films. Shelter did it best, that felt like a 90s movie, the glory days of gay cinema. Is it just me? I don't think so.

I really like this romantic comedy! The story is really engaging. I find myself feeling so connected with Blaine's pain and sorrow. I love the ending as it touches me a lot. I enjoyed watching it a lot!

Just saw this film at the NC Gay and Lesbian Film Festival, and I was shocked to see it only got 5/10 starts on here. I have to say this is at *least* 9 stars! As far as the "gay movie" genre goes, you can't go into one expecting Casablanca. The plot is not earth-shattering, and honestly it gets a bit hokey at times (maybe it got dragged out a bit too long). That said, this film is definitely on the top of my list of great gay movies! Bruce Gray really steals the show with his Ernie character; the audience was in stitches during all of his scenes. The ending made it all worth while, it may even bring a little tear to your eye. Absolutely fits the definition of "charming" :-)

I liked the concept for this movie and the poster makes it look like a fun romantic comedy with-a-big-load-of-misunderstandings, which caused me to have big hopes it would live up to that.

Unfortunately everything from the main characters performance to the (honestly awful) dialogue to cutting and editing reminded me of the amateur movies of the sort you'd see high schoolers upload to youtube. They are fine and fun in their own medium, seen for what they are, but it did not do well as a full length film pretending to be professional. Unfortunate, because had the same movie been made with a better writer I think it would be a lot better.

Also, worth to notice: there are exactly three women in this entire movie. I don't mean characters, I'm talking out of everyone, background characters and all. That is honestly a little bit hilarious. Where does these people live?

I was really rooting for this one--the "gay rom-com" can be a wonderful thing that indulges one's fantasies and even conveys a truth or two. There is still much territory to be mined in stories about dating in the digital age, life in big cities, coming of age as a gay man in a more tolerant society, the relationships between gay men and women and young gay men and their elders, but I guess we'll have to wait a little longer for those stories. Here we have a fantasy that is so far from reality that it's not fun for the viewer, shaking his head in disbelief. It's as if the author of the film wants to have his cake and eat it without so much as a glance into a cookbook to see how much actual work cake-baking requires to get such pleasant results.

First the "one note joke" of the film, that two people who have had at least 2 nights of intimate phone calls (although, other than phone sex, it appears all they do is say, "I like that TOO!") would not pick up right away that a mistake has been made when they meet, just doesn't work. This concept would be perfect for a short film or sitcom (specifically Three's Company) but is a tough one to sustain for 90 minutes. Because all it would take is one or two sentences to clear up the whole mess (and end the movie), and because no one SAYS those sentences, we are left believing our protagonists are stupid people, and it's difficult to enjoy the process of their discovery or even like them (despite being portrayed by guys who are handsome and not bad actors--you can't blame them for some of the wince-inducing dialog). I looked at my watch halfway through the film with disbelief...the "reveal" (that even a 4 year old could see coming--would anyone rent a movie like this to NOT see the heros get together eventually?) was going to be delayed for another 45 minutes? Yes.

Second, the world of this film is curious to the point of drawing one out of the movie. I know the coffee shop where some of the action takes place, and the magazine that is highlighted, which would seem to indicate the film takes place in West Hollywood...if so, it's an alternate universe where everyone is white, under 30, gay or gay-friendly. One of the bars looks suspiciously like a set built in someone's garage (we only see 2 walls of it). No one really seems to work...do these people have hobbies? What do they do all day when they aren't involved in our protagonist finding or not finding the man of his dreams? How do they know each other? Why do they CARE about each other? The women we encounter are by and large fag hags who exist only to comfort or antagonize their gay companions (the one whose only personality trait is having sex with a riding crop in particular). There is one man who appears to be (gasp!) over 50 and he is treated, as is often the case in films but not real life, like some wise sage, a knowing gay Gandalf who again exists for no other purpose than to support the young heroes. Meanwhile, his sudden, and constant, intrusions into his hot young ward's life are creepy and borderline criminal. Bruce Gray delivers some fun quips but was clearly not "directed," though he seems to do his best. Meanwhile--what if the old man and the young kid had found something in common? Or if Xander had turned out to be ugly or of some ethnic persuasion Blaine found initially distasteful? Now there are some challenges. Well he SAID he was in love with the PERSON didn't he?

But mostly I found the central conceit of the film the hardest to swallow...Blaine, like most love-sick protagonists in rom-com films, is supposed to be a sort of undiscovered Cinderella: if only a guy would show up in his life everything would be better. This fallacy is the essence of good rom-coms of course, but ignores the truth, which is that a "good" relationship is born out of trust and develops gradually over time. In the same way that a person with little experience would see older gay men only as quippy, neutered fairies, gal-pals as emotional tampons and go-go boys as hot-pantsed (it's not a "g-string" btw) older brothers, one might look at a "good relationship" between two people as something built on a couple great phone calls and attractive looks. Oh, if only.

What has Blaine offered? What has changed about him by the end of the film? He got everything he wanted and didn't have to do anything but admit he made a mistake that was so foolish and ill-conceived it would be a deal-breaker even for someone desperate, let alone a perfect knight in shining cowboy suit (at least until he sneaks into Blaine's apartment to "sing"...well, to each his own--frankly I might have called the cops). People who say they want to take long walks on the beach with someone should try taking one themselves first--it can be really nice, and then when you do have someone you can share your location with them. People who say they want to cuddle in bed on Sunday with someone ought to be made aware that sometimes people don't smell that good first thing in the morning, but if you care about them you get over it.

Well, again--this isn't reality, it's fantasy, and for all its faults the film looked pretty good for a micro-budget, had many cute moments, and I thought about it enough to warrant writing something on IMDb about it. I hope for many more films that try to tackle the issues of this one, and I hope they succeed in the attempt where this one failed.