Ultime trahison

2 hours of my life wasted. Was this a college film project or something?

Well, what can I say, I enjoyed this flick and I think the previous negative reviews were quite harsh on it.

Okay, I see all its flaws and they are many, mainly (a) the female character which is totally absurd both as a role and the terrible way it was acted, and (b) the laughable ending. B-acting and B-writing all the way on those two items.

But, those two points aside, the rest of the film was pretty decent in most aspects; production, direction, script, photography, it was all decent enough to watch easily, and sometimes it was really good -- minus the horrible sound management. So, I think Lockhart deserves some credit here, because telling a story decently is not a small achievement on such a low budget and little directing experience. I was not bored, not even for a minute. On the contrary, I was quite taken and amused on several moments, thanks to the warm romantic story and great chemistry of the couple. Their beauty didn't hurt either.

Lockhart's acting was no surprise, he was his usual playful, spicy, sexy-cute, delicious self. His acting is okay, but not as controlled as it should be if he aims to a proper mainstream career. He has some serious studying to do on this craft before he gets to be as good as it takes for this purpose. He has potential and soul and charisma, and he certainly has something special about him that makes him very memorable and likable. But his acting needs work in order to get rid of his occasional shallow amateurish mannerisms -- which he obviously adopted during his glorious (but alas, poorly directed) pornstar days.

But the other guy... Man, now THAT was a surprise. Because, in my humble opinion, Jack Brockett CAN ACT. He totally can act, and the way he went through this role was great. Seriously, the guy has huge potential, mind my words and remember his name. And he is very beautiful. Super hot body/movement (the boy can move) and a very expressive face, with stunning rare eyes; very intense and handsome face indeed.

Anyway, that was an overall amusing film, and quite sweet and touching at moments, much better than e.g. "Judas Kiss" to my poor taste. I'm referring to Judas for comparison, because those two films are the only ones out of the numerous gay films I've seen which are supposed to be "gay themed" but they are actually not about gays AT ALL. Both films could have straight lead characters of any gender and still tell the exact same stories. Both films are not about homosexuality. They take the sexual status of the characters as a guilt-free/comment-free matter of fact, and they just tell a story about those persons. Congratulations to both film-makers, for really starting a new era on cinema: An era where random stories will include random gender/relationship combinations, just like e.g. nowadays people of all races and colors are randomly included into mainstream storytelling -- something unthinkable, say, 60 years ago. The goal is that in the near future no one will pay attention to any film protagonist's sexual orientation (unless the story particularly focuses on it). This is already happening with support characters in many mainstream movies. Well, it's about time it happens with the leads as well, and films like "Triple Crossed" make a definite step towards that direction. Such a healthy way to picture gays --without any misery, self-pity, bad endings, damnation--, such a relief.

(FYI, I'm a straight woman.)

Can I just start by saying, when is Jack Brockett gonna do some more stuff? That man is brutally hot, and he carried the movie with strong acting throughout.

As for the rest of the cast, they really try, and while the end product is more uncomfortable and awkward than anything, everyone has their moments. I went in with very, very low expectations, and I think that helped. I enjoyed the film despite the cheese and clumsy execution. Its heart is in the right place. I liked some of the concepts and ideas, but I feel like much of it was wasted on rushed scenes and an attempt to force in a twist. There was some potential in the story, even with the illogical elements, but the creators didn't seem to have the tools necessary to make it work. Not a budget issue, just an experience issue, I'm guessing. Like I said, they tried.

My biggest frustration is that this sort of theme is really rare in gay films, so you have to accept the lower quality stuff or go without entirely. I can't think of a single other gay thriller off the top of my head that doesn't just lead to misery. Typically you can have "uplifting/hopeful but cheesy and clunky" or "beautiful and high quality but bleak and tragic," and it gets old. Here's hoping things are truly changing in the genre.

Overall, you could find this movie entertaining if you go in with the understanding that it's akin to a student film where the director had to cast their friends. For me, a gorgeous, brooding man making out with another reasonably attractive dude with that theme of protectiveness/betrayal hanging over them was enough for me. I knew what I was getting into. If you do, too, then give this a shot. Otherwise, look elsewhere.

For a movie filmed with a relatively small purse, Mr. Lockhart's "Triple Crossed" was surprisingly good. These were the nice surprises, to my reckoning: First, unlike too many low-cost films I've seen before, the settings here were brightly lit. The scenes were not dull and fuzzy, but sharp and clear, even during night scenes with long shadows. Second, no mike boom slid into the picture frame, or any such A/V or technical blunders. So after a few minutes, I relaxed to enjoy the picture for what it was worth. If you are wanting "Oscar" material, then stay away. However, if you are looking for a suspense drama once in a while, to be amused and entertained, as I do, then you already know pretty much what to look for, and you may find this one is just as good as any other of that type--and better than many of them.

Third, the plot was realistic; intrigues such as those dealt with here have been used in film before, and things like that do happen even in real life. Yet there are enough twists to keep one guessing about the outcome. Who will be "triple-crossed"?

Fourth, the blocking was technically flawless, frankly. The camera seemed to catch the action meant to be caught, and the characters' positions did not clash with that. There were few, if any, fancy angles or such, nor were any needed for this film. Quite enough was going on in the story that such devices would have been lost here. Too bad though that the view of the valley had not been more panoramic. During the hiking scene, on the ridge, I wanted the camera to swing 180 degrees around to take in that gorgeous landscape of the valley!

Fifth, the script was standard for this genre: no words of wisdom or memorable phrases. But therefore it also wasn't overwrought, too expository, or "preachy" (thank God!). Overall, I was entertained, and that was the whole point of watching it.

This is a low budget movie that is every bit second class as it can be, but it has a first class twist to the plot. It surprised me and changed my mind a little on this movie. Here's the set-up - rich bitch hires homeless ex-army dude to snuff out her now dead half brother's boyfriend. Why, because half brother left large inheritance to boyfriend and she wants it back.

You'll know what happens early on in the movie - ex-army dude falls for dead half brothers boyfriend (the guy he's suppose to snuff out). So if you decide to catch this cheap flick and you want to see a lot of California scenery and two hot dudes in bed getting it on, start from the beginning.

But if you want to see the good part of this flick skip the first hour and watch the last 30 or so minutes. Believe me you'll know exactly whats going on and you'll see the plot twist and understand it too. I never heard of Jack Brockett, or Sean Paul Lockhart and which is which I don't know but one of them did some fairly decent acting - considering this grade B movie!!