LaissezFaire_Aggeliki
Joined Jul 2012
Welcome to the new profile
We're making some updates, and some features will be temporarily unavailable while we enhance your experience. The previous version will not be accessible after 7/14. Stay tuned for the upcoming relaunch.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings147
LaissezFaire_Aggeliki's rating
Reviews2
LaissezFaire_Aggeliki's rating
Your movie is so, SO tender and funny, and so pleasing to the eyes and ears. I enjoyed it very much!
The lead acting is good enough -- I'm guessing because it's obviously directed to the smallest detail. Even the secondary characters are well written, funny and surprisingly well developed for such small supporting roles in such a low-budget production.
I gave it only 6/10 because the script and production are basic. Not bad at all, just basic. It's the simplest of love stories, just a real life love story in a real life urban/suburb setting. But the film has a heart and soul. I'm sure when a bigger budget comes your way you'll do some amazing work, because your overall direction was relatively amazing in this little film.
I also have to mention the music (as I understand partly your own composition), which is of great taste and really worth noticing and remembering. Bravo!
As for the nudity and sex... Well, nudity is always a delight for me to see, and this was no exception. I loved it, it was real and beautiful. And the sex was embedded so naturally into this film that it wasn't more provocative than eating or swimming. It's a miracle how explicit sex was filmed so normally and tenderly. It was just sex, real and beautiful.
I really hope you'll make more movies of this wonderful (but so miserably rare) genre. Thank you, dear sir! Please keep on.
The lead acting is good enough -- I'm guessing because it's obviously directed to the smallest detail. Even the secondary characters are well written, funny and surprisingly well developed for such small supporting roles in such a low-budget production.
I gave it only 6/10 because the script and production are basic. Not bad at all, just basic. It's the simplest of love stories, just a real life love story in a real life urban/suburb setting. But the film has a heart and soul. I'm sure when a bigger budget comes your way you'll do some amazing work, because your overall direction was relatively amazing in this little film.
I also have to mention the music (as I understand partly your own composition), which is of great taste and really worth noticing and remembering. Bravo!
As for the nudity and sex... Well, nudity is always a delight for me to see, and this was no exception. I loved it, it was real and beautiful. And the sex was embedded so naturally into this film that it wasn't more provocative than eating or swimming. It's a miracle how explicit sex was filmed so normally and tenderly. It was just sex, real and beautiful.
I really hope you'll make more movies of this wonderful (but so miserably rare) genre. Thank you, dear sir! Please keep on.
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.)
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.)