martyboy00
Joined Sep 2002
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews3
martyboy00's rating
I saw this on October 1st, 2006 at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I had the chance to briefly meet the writer/director and he is amazing! (and very humble)
I've read the negative comments on this movie and I could not disagree with them more. The judgments they have made on the film are based on it being a realistic comedy when in fact it is a farce. It is sad the we have homogenized the categories of film so much that we really don't get to see outstanding examples of the diverse genres out there. "Desperate Housewives" (another guilty pleasure and a national hit) almost didn't make it to the airwaves because Marc Cherry was selling it as a farce and people did not know what that was. Sad, because Shakespeare did very well with the genre. "DH" had to be categorized as a soap opera before the networks would pick it up. Here is the definition of "farce":
1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character. 2. humor of the type displayed in such works. 3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.
That said, this is a great movie that is hilarious to experience. I was one of many that despite the reviews and comments LOVED the first movie. It was not without flaw, but overall, it was wonderful. This one was in my opinion slightly better. Yes, it had stereotypes and ridiculous situations (see definition of farce above). That structure allowed some very clever dialogue, some hilarious scenes, and some mockery of society's need to categorize "gay" into any specific pigeon hole. This movie makes fun of those stereotypes, and in the process gives you the chance for introspection after the film.
I think the actors (male and female) do an incredible job. Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) has done a body transformation since the first installment. She looked good in the first one, she looks amazing in this one. Both Emily and Jim are fun to watch. The hot guys... well, they are very enjoyable to watch. I was a little afraid that I wouldn't like the character of Marc in this sequel (he was played by Ryan Carnes, now famous for his role in "Desperate Housewives" as Bree's son's boyfriend... in the sequel he is played by Brett Chukerman). By the second scene Brett was in, I was hooked. He did a great job of taking over an existing character.
Overall, if you go into this film seeking reality, you will walk away disappointed. If you go in looking for a good time and realize it is supposed to be a farce, you will leave with a smile on your face from the laughter and poignant moments in the film. Mink Stole's final scene in the movie actually brought a tear to my eye. What gay son wouldn't want to hear her comments? :)
I would say, check it out.
I've read the negative comments on this movie and I could not disagree with them more. The judgments they have made on the film are based on it being a realistic comedy when in fact it is a farce. It is sad the we have homogenized the categories of film so much that we really don't get to see outstanding examples of the diverse genres out there. "Desperate Housewives" (another guilty pleasure and a national hit) almost didn't make it to the airwaves because Marc Cherry was selling it as a farce and people did not know what that was. Sad, because Shakespeare did very well with the genre. "DH" had to be categorized as a soap opera before the networks would pick it up. Here is the definition of "farce":
1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character. 2. humor of the type displayed in such works. 3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham.
That said, this is a great movie that is hilarious to experience. I was one of many that despite the reviews and comments LOVED the first movie. It was not without flaw, but overall, it was wonderful. This one was in my opinion slightly better. Yes, it had stereotypes and ridiculous situations (see definition of farce above). That structure allowed some very clever dialogue, some hilarious scenes, and some mockery of society's need to categorize "gay" into any specific pigeon hole. This movie makes fun of those stereotypes, and in the process gives you the chance for introspection after the film.
I think the actors (male and female) do an incredible job. Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) has done a body transformation since the first installment. She looked good in the first one, she looks amazing in this one. Both Emily and Jim are fun to watch. The hot guys... well, they are very enjoyable to watch. I was a little afraid that I wouldn't like the character of Marc in this sequel (he was played by Ryan Carnes, now famous for his role in "Desperate Housewives" as Bree's son's boyfriend... in the sequel he is played by Brett Chukerman). By the second scene Brett was in, I was hooked. He did a great job of taking over an existing character.
Overall, if you go into this film seeking reality, you will walk away disappointed. If you go in looking for a good time and realize it is supposed to be a farce, you will leave with a smile on your face from the laughter and poignant moments in the film. Mink Stole's final scene in the movie actually brought a tear to my eye. What gay son wouldn't want to hear her comments? :)
I would say, check it out.
I enjoyed the movie very much. The opening titles.... WOW! Very nice. I left feeling as if I had seen a great movie.
Tonight, I watched the original "Superman" on Cinemax... this movie very much follows suit in every way, but the visuals are such more better. (Amazing what 28 years of technology can do, huh?) Rather than the 2 sequels that followed the original movie, if you are watching them, I would probably want to see this one right after the original.
This is not about the script or performances (and totally nit-picky) but I just wondered how the ages matched with the original actors at the time the original movie was made. Itwas interesting to learn that both actors portraying Superman were very close in age. Christopher Reeves was only a matter of months younger than Brandon Routh when each filmed his "Superman" movie. However, the 2 actresses portraying Lois Lane were not so close. Margot Kidder was 30 when she played Lois. Kate Bosworth was 23. So, during the 5 year absence of Superman (hope that is not a spoiler), he gained a few months (which I would expect slow aging for him as a Kryptonian), but Lois actually lost 7 years.. making her 12 years younger than she would have been if were were in real time. I know.. totally didn't matter to me... just couldn't help but look it up.
I really really enjoyed this movie and would highly recommend it!
Tonight, I watched the original "Superman" on Cinemax... this movie very much follows suit in every way, but the visuals are such more better. (Amazing what 28 years of technology can do, huh?) Rather than the 2 sequels that followed the original movie, if you are watching them, I would probably want to see this one right after the original.
This is not about the script or performances (and totally nit-picky) but I just wondered how the ages matched with the original actors at the time the original movie was made. Itwas interesting to learn that both actors portraying Superman were very close in age. Christopher Reeves was only a matter of months younger than Brandon Routh when each filmed his "Superman" movie. However, the 2 actresses portraying Lois Lane were not so close. Margot Kidder was 30 when she played Lois. Kate Bosworth was 23. So, during the 5 year absence of Superman (hope that is not a spoiler), he gained a few months (which I would expect slow aging for him as a Kryptonian), but Lois actually lost 7 years.. making her 12 years younger than she would have been if were were in real time. I know.. totally didn't matter to me... just couldn't help but look it up.
I really really enjoyed this movie and would highly recommend it!
Much like life, this movie is hard to categorize. The title has 2 meanings: The "trip" in the latter part of the movie, and the "trip" we each take thru life. The characters span a period from '73-'86... and although I wish we could see more of each one, the changes each goes thru speak for themselves. With witty dialogue, humor, an incredible sound track, and historical footage that helps create the environment in which these character are living and being influenced... this movie truly Educates, Entertains, and Entrances. Although this is an independent film, it has the look, feel, and quality of a studio film (including actors that create "familiarity" quickly) The content and dialogue has quality that surpasses 95% of studio films made over the past decade. In 92 minutes, this film manages to make you actually care about the characters involved. Having become an adult during the '80s, it also brought back a lot of memories of what was happening during that time (and taught me a lot of what was happening in the gay world in the 70's). This is a Must See Mu-V.... I want to see this again... and I definitely want the soundtrack... Congrats to Miles Swaim who wrote and directed this "Destined to be a Classic"!!!!! Hope he does a lot more....