GAY Horror & Thriller Flicks
He was the only person in the Netherlands who ever got prosecuted for breaking the law against blasphemy. In his book "Nader tot U" (1966) he writes about making love to the incarnation of God as a one-year-old donkey. Eventually he was acquitted.
So when Reve writes about having sex with a woman, no-one in the Netherlands thinks he all of a sudden turned bisexual. It is used to emphasize the magical power this woman, who might or might not be a witch, has over him.
Jeroen Krabbé is perfectly cast as Reve. Possibly one of the best roles of his career. I alway thought Krabbé, who btw is not gay, has a slight effeminate side. Here he is able to use it with aplomb - and thank god he's not overplaying it. He also manages to imitate the constant cynicism of Reve while keeping it subtle at the same time.
The direction of Verhoeven is superb. I'm not a big fan of his,
neither of Reve of Krabbé. But somehow everything fits perfectly in this movie. There's a lot of Hitchcockian suspense. The score helps a great deal. The camerawork is very clever. The somewhat overt symbolism actually is spot on in this specific case, because this makes that the audience constantly sees what Reve is experiencing.
Haven't finished writing this review. Just a sketch. ” - emertens
This review contains spoilers!.
Hellbent is probably the best movie available at the moment, that really covers the gay-horror subgenre. First of all it's really a horror movie and not some camp spoof. There are a few funny moments, but they don't interfere with the horror plot and they don't ruin the suspense.
Secondly the protagonist is a handsome young gay guy who gets romantically involved and this subplot really works! Well at least it worked for me. This is less the case in Bite Marks, Zombies of Mass Destruction and Cthulu (see below).
At the end our hero has to rescue his lover - and succeeds in this. An "old fashioned" happy ending which in this specific case is very welcome to me.
This movie is very well made. The only questionable thing is the use of very dominant primary colors during the late night scenes. This is not the case in the daylight scenes, which are actually built on pretty smart color schemes. Because of this contrast I've actually began to like the overdone coloring of the scenes that otherwise would be plain dark.
This review is somewhat short. In future I'll try to improve it, but for now I only want to state once more, that I like this movie very, very much. I've seen it several times and it doesn't start to bore, which is quite unusual. In contrary I like it better with each repeat viewing. Usually I watch it on Christmas Day, while drinking a lot of booze. Afterwards I watch Black Christmas - the original ofcourse. Some kind of personal tradition that's rather difficult to explain... ” - emertens
First of all the cinematography by Clifton Radford. I thought the chosen compositions were clever, appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. The colors and the use of filters sometimes a bit overdone, but not too disturbing to my taste. And it's always a bit of a relief if those totally cliché dark blue, washed-out colors, which for some reason seem to be incredible popular nowadays, are absent. I'm so sick and tired of that brainless "approach of style".
Secondly - the music of Rossano Galante. According to his imdb page he is a very successful composer and the orchestrator of the music of several big Hollywood productions. (The Thing, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Repo Men, Max Payne, etc) It doesn't surprise me at all, because the music of Bite Marks is just very good! Probably the best element of the movie, when judged separately. And not a sign of thrift. A lot of scenes have 'custom' written music of their own. It supports the different types of mood and the tension perfectly.
Thirdly the movie starts with a very nice animation to present the opening credits. Well, after the prologue that is of course. It wasn't very expensive - clearly not - but at least they tried to make something out of it, instead of choosing the most obvious way: embedding some hard coded titles directly to the film. To me this animation sequence is like the frame around a painting. It adds something extra to the presentation of the film. It really sets the mood. Hearing the music, watching the animation. It all makes me want to see the movie.
The weak part is that the movie focuses to much on some gay aspects - which to be fair, are not very interesting - and not enough on creating suspense and horror. I like gay romance of course, otherwise I wouldn't have made this list. But the relationship of the main couple in this movie, two holiday hitchhikers, isn't very believable. This was done a lot better in Hellbent, although not perfectly either. The subplot about the closeted truck driver was a bit better, but in the end it seemed wasted too. This part was played by Benjamin Lutz and I must say he did an excellent job. A quite talented actor. Handsome as well.
Another weak part is the sound. Probably because of the budget.
It's not very disturbing, but sometimes you'll notice it. There's a fair chance they managed to achieve the best possible, with such limited financial resourses.
I don't get it, although I AM gay, I haven't the faintest idea why anyone would like to watch the intercourse scene in that disgustingly filthy public restroom. They could've filmed it easily in all kinds of different ways and it could be situated in a lot of different places. Clean places. Or someplace, somewhere, that adds to the romance. But there's a total absence of anything romantic during the entire picture. I'm exaggerating a bit, but it could have been done a lot better, I'm quite sure of that.
Nevertheless the story is clearly structured. It has an interesting approach on the vampire tale. And thank god, there's no tragedy and drama about becoming or being a vampire. Vampires are just dangerous monsters, which have to be destroyed without moral issues. Some parts are rather scary. Not extremely, but the suspense is there.
Some of the jokes work pretty well. I liked the references to the original Fright Night. The apple, the way Cary says "charmed", Geoffreys saying "You're so cool Brewster". It was a bit strange to see Stephen Geoffreys that "old". He actually made a remark about it himself: "I'm getting to old for this". I wonder if it was scripted. At some point there's even a very clever similarity between the scores of the movies. The music when Vogel and Brewster are sexually involved with each other is much alike the music when Dandridge and Amy are having a "close moment".
I think this film will mainly appeal to an all male gay audience. I've seen it twice now and I liked it the second time even better. It sure doesn't deserve its current low imdb rating. ” - emertens
Like "The Talented Mr. Ripley" this is not really a sincere true-love story. The main character - much alike Ripley - fulfills most prominently some kind of merged role of both prota- and antagonist at the same time. ” - emertens
The gay plot is sub-textual. But very deliberate. ” - emertens
Don't let the average imdb user rating put you off. A lot of people voted it a 10, but the calculation system happens to ignore that. ” - emertens
It's actually pretty weird that an extremely unsettling movie as this one doesn't qualify for the horror/thriller genre. The body count must be something like 15 and most of these killings happen quite graphically on screen. One of the most cynical scenes take place at a ridge that is used by criminals to dump corpses - although a sign reads, that one is not allowed to do so.
After watching this film I had a very restless sleep because of it. Almost a nightmare even. It contained so incredibly much of my own concerns and worries. All my misanthropic, pessimistic thoughts about modern-day life and society. My irritations towards antisocial behavior (loud music playing everywhere). It was throughout very easy for me to empathize with the main-character's inner moral conflicts as well as his nostalgia-based sadness (fortuitously he even liked my favorite composer's music)
To me, this gripping, subversive film is a true masterpiece. Technically it's perfect. Dramatically it's beyond that.
10/10 ” - emertens
While I've been complaining about some lack of romance in several of my other reviews on gay horror movies, 'In the Blood' doesn't have any gay romance at all. And sadly enough there's nothing to complain about. It's just not a part of the plot. Cassidy, the main character, is a closeted gay adolescent, a senior at a NYC college. His repressed homosexuality is a major plot point. They could have added a secret love or something, but actually it's of no importance to the story. He tries to live a straight life, and he actually has an attractive girlfriend. But he needs to take Viagra to have intercourse with her and even then he doesn't manage to get to the "climax" (or whatever it's called in English).
He also suffers from having some nasty visions of his sister Jessica covered in blood. This of course is related to the horror part of the movie. A serial killer on campus is killing girls, who all more or less have the same profile as Jessica has. Right from the start of the movie it is made clear that these visions occur at the same time when Cassidy's real sexual feelings unwillingly take part of him. There's a very logical but nevertheless clever explanation to this. It may be not very realistic, but that's beside the point. Seeing the future never is realistic. This explanation is given later on in the movie by Cassidy's aunt. She tells him that these foretelling visions will become more clear, when he has free, fulfilling sex.
A modest trouvaille, isn't it? Or is that an oxymoron?
A huge dilemma for Cassidy. To save his sister, he must have his first gay sex experience. And it needs to be a good one too.
It may sound all very comical, in fact it is served deadpan and in total earnest.
A lot of reviewers seemed to hate the ending. (So here come some spoilers). I haven't the faintest idea why. This movie is partly a whodunit, like for instance Scream. There are just a few people who'll make a probable killer. Cassidy actually is the first one. He's having these strange visions, and at first we don't know why. Was he is spectator, or is he seeing things he's planning to do? We really don't know. The second one is the new boyfriend of Jessica, Michael, a right Casanova. Is he just taking advantage of her and did also date the previous victims? We don't know. The third one is the dean. He has a lot of documentation collected about the killings. Is it just because he wants to warn the girls and to track down the killer? And why did he talk Jessica's out of her plans to dye her hair? As I said - a straight whodunit.
There are a few other people involved, but they would make a less probable assassin. The most important one is a male prostitute Cassidy has been visiting. At the end there's some huge mix-up. Cassidy thinks Michael is the killer, Michael thinks it is the prostitute. And Jessica has had some interfering visions as well. This actually makes sense because of the aunt's story we already knew it was an inheritable talent.
To me it all seemed very plausible. The only less logical aspect was the visions Jessica had about the dean. This could have been let out. The newspaper explained enough. But that's just a small detail.
So in short. I liked the ending.
And I liked the movie too. ” - emertens
I remember some really nice cinematography. Probably that happened to be its most notable aspect.
The main character is gay and he has a relationship. But - if I remember well - it didn't get much screentime in the movie. It all seemed rather blunt.
The movie felt a bit dreamy, a nice different approach on Lovecraft. But somehow a bit shallow. The ending was rather a let down.
I really have to rewatch it, before I can write something more useful. ” - emertens
In Zombies of Mass Destruction the main focus seems to be on criticizing small town prejudice. I don't have a problem with that. Actually, I fully agree with most of the political statements expressed in this movie. The problem however is, that this is all been done in a rather blunt naive way.
This movie has three protagonist. An Iranian girl and a gay male couple. So when a zombie plague is spreading, these three get the blame.
As covered by a tv news report, some terrorists claim responsibility for the outbreak. A neighbor of the Iranian girl is immediately convinced she's collaborating with the enemy.
Later on in different plot-line, the gay couple get imprisoned by some religious fanatics. These so-called true Christians consider the zombie outbreak as the start of Armageddon.
Eventually the Iranian girl as well as one of the gay guys, each in their own subplot, are both strapped to a chair, with the intention to be tortured.
This movie boast a melting pot of different genres. None of these really seemed to work. It wasn't very scary and there wasn't much suspense or action. I think some kind of "witch hunt" on the protagonists in a little village overrun by zombies would have had much more potential as idea. Then the continuous confrontation with and between the small town inhabitants and the zombies, would create a lot of possibilities on all kind of levels. Certainly much more than the chair-tying torture-porn cliché.
Furthermore it wasn't very funny. The satire was way too simplistic.
That's really a weak point. If you want to make some kind of statement about narrow-mindedness you have to be very cunning to make it work. And don't spare the audience. Usually they're far to ignorant to feel addressed.
There are a lot examples how it should/could be done, varying from the comedies of the Boulting Brothers (Heavens Above is a fine example about the hypocrisy in religion) to for instance the mockumentaries of Christopher Guest.
Alas, the movie wasn't very romantic either. There isn't much to say about this. It just wasn't. Even Bite Marks scored a lot better in this aspect.
Technically this movie at first seems more mature than Hellbent or Bitemarks. This actually isn't the case, it's just more mainstream-like build. There's constant some cameramovement, if little. So they used a steady-cam, I guess. Very annoying, when used otherwise than for a POV. The late-night scenes appear quite dark, although it's perfectly possible to see whats happening. This was done by using just a few sharp bright lights, shining - out of frame - from above or behind the characters. It worked - but it wasn't very pretty. After a while it gets very tiresome constantly watching people whose facial expressions are covered in shadow.
But my overall conclusion about the technical aspects of this movie, is that it was rather decent. Very functional, to say the least. But it lacked of aesthetics.
When I've watched a movie and cannot recall anything about the music afterwards, it probably wasn't very interesting. Some imdb reviewers complained about the sound. It didn't annoy me much.
This movie wasn't so bad. The first time I saw it, I did enjoy it.
But the second time was quite a bore. ” - emertens
Horror comedy. ” - emertens
This specific rain is so dangerously acid, it burns through wooden roofs and even metal within a limit amount of time. Needless to say, it also burns right through clothing, skin and flesh almost instantly. So without protection you're dead in a few minutes. And of course the protagonists in the movie are just backpackers with no kind of protection whatsoever.
Ron Oliver is a rather decent director. Most of his (TV) movies work quite well. This one is a bit uneven, although the premise is rather interesting. And with the premise, I mean just that basic idea of an highly acid rain, while it's almost impossible to find some proper place for shelter. That's a pretty scary idea. And so it was in the movie.
The directing, cinematography and editing are all done cleverly enough. The problem is the slightly preachy story which seemed to be built out of a combination of banality and a lot of illogical circumstantial aspects.
Maybe the budget was a bit of a problem too. When there's an acid rain pouring down, it shouldn't just affect cars and buildings... There shouldn't be a leaf left on a tree in the whole forest.
These kind of inconsistencies are difficult to avoid when you're trying to make a big time disaster flick while there are only "supplies" for a TV movie in stock.
And oh, I almost forgot, there are two gay protagonists.
But... hardly any romance. ” - emertens
I read in an external review that the director was just 22 years of age during filming, in which case the movie must have been shot before November 1997. (This is of course very well possible). His only effort as a director to date. Much of the crew and cast weren't very experienced either, with a few exceptions.
As most critics point out, the story is some kind of allegory in which "being a wolf" serves as metaphor to "being gay". Society doesn't understand these outcast and regards them as dangerous. Misguided and led by a very hypocritical church, it condemns and hunts these so-called "wolves".
It isn't very clear what the makers were striving for. The gay-wolf parable is very clear right from the start. Rather simplistic and a bit pretentious.
A lot of reviewers call it a fairy tale. But don't expect something like The Company of Wolves.
The gay wolfmen are sometimes referred to as werewolves. They aren't. Don't expect a horror movie.
There's another plot in which two old "hags" try to murder their employer. It feels a bit 'Agatha Christie' but it doesn't become a detective story. There isn't much suspense. There isn't much mystery.
It's not a thought-provoking drama. It neither is a provocative satire. But... it IS a bit romantic, a tiny bit. And a little bit sad.
So I'm actually saying the same as all the other reviewer did.
Could I recommend this movie?
Should I ...?
Well alright: Watch it!
Choose a rainy Sunday afternoon, while reading a not-so interesting newspaper, or book at the same time. ” - emertens
There's very little horror. And alas, it neither contains much black humor. But there's a lot of satire.
It isn't a very good movie, but it has a very good feel to it. And it is rather original. Don't expect to much and you'll probably be pleasant surprised.
I'm always a bit surprised this movie was already made in 2000. For some reason it seems from much later date to me. ” - emertens
However for those who don't like early romantic opera, it's probably a lost case.
There's a lot of intended gay subtext.
It comments on yuppie decadence, although it flirts with it shamelessly at the same time. ” - emertens
Lloyd Kaufman has a guest/cameo appearance for literally 15 seconds. Rounded upwards.
This tells us two things.
1) This flick is a real cheapo. Even John Carradine's role in 'Red Zone Cuba' had more substance.
2) Anyone familiar with Troma pictures now knows the type of genre this movie is trying to present.
The combination of both, actually gives a fair description of this movie: a low-budget, amateurish Troma wannabe. It sounds a bit like a pleonasm, since Troma pictures glorifies in low-budget amateurism. (As it does in bad taste.)
Well, that said, it was a rather amusing film. Not at all bad. Especially the first half had some funny sequences.
Although there is a reasonable amount of of gore, it never gets scary.
The technical values are digestible. They could be a lot worse.
The gay guy is of course Peter Stickels.
He has played in several gay movies, as well as in several horror movies.
At the end one of the main characters reveals he is gay. Homosexuality however, never actually is a subject. So don't expect anything romantic. It's just a minor plot-twist without any necessary meaning. Unless perhaps it was used as an excuse for his death. He is killed soon after his "confession". ” - emertens
A good tense movie with a very dubious ending. ” - emertens
But as said: it's just a small subplot. ” - emertens
8.5/10 ” - emertens
The story is somewhat over-the-top, with a few too many twists. So it lacked some credibility. The plot has of course an overly potential base. A gay activist, who's continuously outing closeted prominent personalities, hires Straches to find the guy who tried to kill him. To make it even "worse", the activist is widely regarded as a compulsive liar. See, that creates a comfortable amount of possibilities to twist and turn the story as much as you like.
I found the second movie more subtle in its approach. Nevertheless the first one still is entertaining enough. ” - emertens
Maybe it's because the plot deals with a different kind of antagonists. This time the crimes are not related to gay discrimination. It's about a gang of "professional" criminals chasing a huge amount of cash. They're not too faint-hearted to torture or kill. And that's quite an understatement.
Actually I like it very much the plot is not again concerning some gay liberation matter. As long as there's a nice deal of romance between Strachey and Tim, it's all the better. ” - emertens
It should've been tagged horror. Some torture scenes are pretty strong.
One or two nude scenes are rather overt. A bit too much for some people I assume.
7.5/10 ” - emertens
Haven't seen the movie yet.... ” - emertens
I thought it's supposed to be some kind of remake of
Must see them both. ” - emertens
If I would have to make a list of my favorite movies of any genre randomly, 12 Angry Men would probably be on top. Sidney Lumet is a director whom I admire greatly. Unfortunately Deathtrap has some undeniable flaws and a few serious mistakes.
The first one is Dyan Cannon. I was really stupefied about her outrageous abominable performance. While I thought this couldn't have been surpassed unnoticed, I tried to find some information about this on the imdb. To my astonishment all I found were favorable reviews... How on earth is this possible? Really?! In cases like these I seriously begin to doubt my sanity. But thank god ... I read on the Wikipedia Cannon was nominated for a Golden Raspberry Award for "Worst Supporting Actress". She should have won, but in fact the award went to a 11 year old kid (still 10 during filming). Some competition, I must say. In Deathtrap Cannon seemed to lack the ability to convince in toto. She didn't manage to deliver any of her lines phonetically in a natural way, nor did the phrasing, the intonation or the amount of expression seem to be appropriate to the dramatic situation. Her body language was amateurish to the bone. When I read that some reviewers thought she was cute, I was just puzzled. I haven't the faintest idea when she ever might have been cute for one single moment. I'm really without a clue. Some other reviewer thought she was funny and they liked her screams. I think a performance like this could have been funny in a Christopher Guest mockumentary about some amateur actors trying to make a Mel Brooks rip-off. And funny screams? I remember when I was still in kindergarten some kids thought exaggerating screaming and yelling at any given moment was funny. Well it wasn't. It was equally annoying. The only excuse for a performance like this, is that Lumet wanted some elements of amateur theater in his movie, since it was based on a play. But in that case the movie is quite uneven. Sometimes the camerawork is very dignified, especially during the scenes of violence. There are some outdoor scenes. And I don't think Caine or Reeve deliberately overacted. If they did, they should've spiced it up, a bit more. Nope, none of these things seems to suggest that Lumet wanted his movie to look like a stage play right from the start. There are far more clever ways to manage this, than just by two extremely bad performances.
The other one of course is the Helga Ten Dorp character, brought to the screen by Irene Worth. That said, she could perhaps pass as an parody of a preposterously bad stage performer. I quite agree with those who thought she was completely annoying. While watching her I continuously felt the urge to change DVDs and watch The Blithe Spirit instead, just because of the tremendous magnificent role of Margaret Rutherford as the eccentric medium madame Arcati. It would be such a relief.
I was very impressed by the performance of Reeve. His character changed with ease and in a very believable way, along with every plot twist. At first a reasonable, easy-going-type student, which later on developed to a much more sturdy, self-convinced and eventually rather sinister guy. In those scenes where he had to express some serious violent anger, he was very scary and convincing. He also seemed very relaxed during the gay kiss moment. This all added to the strangeness of the plot twists.
Caine was good enough, more or less what we're used to, although he seemed somewhat uncomfortable continuously. He was less convincing than Reeve. Perhaps Reeve was very eager to get rid of his alleged type-casting destination. He sure gave it all.
Unlike most other reviewers I didn't find the script very good. Neither the dialogue nor the interaction did have much in common with reality. Some things depended far too much on coincidences. What if the wife didn't have her heart-attack at the appropriate moment? Was this really the most effective way they could think off to kill her? Did these two guys really love each other?It didn't seem a big deal to both of them trying to kill the other one. Why does a real psychic almost falls over a human body? Nope, this wasn't a very clever script. ” - emertens
Actually I think it's even slightly too overt to be just subtext. Both "antagonists" are gay without any doubt.
This movie is based on the Leopold and Loop murders. ” - emertens
Victor Salva is a good director. His movies are creepy and scary in an old fashioned way - I mean that very positively - and with a lot of suspense. I'm pretty sure he knows his classics quite well. Sometimes his movies even remind me of those of Alfred Hitchcock. Not as a whole of course, but for instance in the way some scenes are built. Most of his pictures are unjustified underrated, probably because of his past (And let's hope it stays the past).
Not only is he one of the few contemporary directors who provides some hope to the future of horror film, he also provides a little hope a few of them might have gay protagonists someday. ” - emertens
I added it, because it's all about the horrors of war. In different ways. Sometimes visually very overt...
When aircraft pilots are shot you see the blood come out of their mouths in a very graphical way.
There's a lot of gay subtext, and I mean really a lot, especially in the dramatic ending, but also before. I believe men are kissing each other about 6 or 7 times, not always in an erotic way, but it's very strange to see in a movie from 1927. There's even some rear male nudity.
A very good, very beautiful movie. But not a horror movie in the traditional sense.
” - emertens
A supporting character is gay or two actually
And at the beginning of the movie, there's a song called "I'm Gay (but not in that way)."
It contained a couple of nice gruesome killings. Parts of the movie swap from unconvincing camp to plain silliness. The parody parts are not very clever, and they miss some sharp edges as well. Moreover the movie borrows elements from a large range of (horror) movies, but it fails to reveal for what purpose.
I still enjoyed it. Probably a bit more than it deserved.
6.5/10 for entertainment.
Edit: I don't agree any more with my first little review above.
I've seen the movie a lot of times since then, and it got better with each repeat view. Especially the treatment of the music is very well done. First of all it quite often supports very synchronized the on-screen action in detail. So it's more than just adding mood or atmosphere to a sequence of subsequent events. I also like the use of musical themes, or even reoccurring typical sounds (such as the vocal exercises of Leanne Miller(?))
The supporting cast is also rather funny, which is important to enhance a musical's re-watch values.
So I need to re-write my review.
I've raised my vote several times, and it's now on a 9/10 ” - emertens
Rather good movie. ” - emertens
Sometimes it's a bit difficult to decide whether a movie fits a list or not. This list started as one about "gay horror movies", but slowly more and more other genre-types are dripping in.
I've been hesitating about adding:
Anders als Du und Ich (aka Bewildered Youth)
Advice & Consent
Oscar Wilde (1960)
The Trials of Oscar Wilde (also 1960)
But I haven't decided yet. ” - emertens
” - emertens
Perhaps, for some reason, DeCoteau might've paid some more effort than usual. Maybe because the plot involved something he truly thought strong off. Or maybe he was impressed by the "big shot" actors... And let's not forget, a director isn't the only one responsible for the final result.
The most impressionable aspect of this movie is its actors: James Coburn, Christopher Plummer and Ron Silver.
Coburn and Plummer are Oscar awarded actors. Not for the roles they played in this movie, but they are still fairly impressive.
According to the film's imdb trivia page, director Ken Russell started the direction. I don't think much of the movie is his work. While it sincerely is mind-bending that it didn't end up being total crap, a lot of moments in this movie are easily recognizable as DeCoteau's work. Actually, over years, most of the crew members have clearly proven that they DO possess some talent - to a certain degree at least. Except for one: David DeCoteau! And although this TV movie might be his best work, a masterpiece it ain't.
Unlike in his later work, this movie shows barely any gay (semi-)erotic visuals. The story is about a reporter, who is recovering from a heart-attack. So he and his family move to a nice village in the country to find some piece and quiet. There's actually already some nice tension upon their arrival in town. Everything is just a bit too perfect to be believable. The movie reminded me of "The Stepford Wives" and even "The Wicker Man". There's something really creepy about townsfolk playing together in some nasty evil scheme. Especially when their motives are disturbingly "common". In this case they are "just" fanatic christians. Quite unnerving since this type of orthodox religious people really does exist.
The reporter unwillingly picks up a story about a homosexual man, who's suspected about killing his partner. There's of course no mystery who really killed him, but that doesn't ruin the suspense.
The movie has some surprising action, some serious horror and is rather fast paced.
But alas... there actually isn't anything gay romantic.
” - emertens
However since it's from the same director as the brilliant "No Night is Too Long" (see above), I really must give it a retry. ” - emertens
Nevertheless it has a very relaxed feeling to it.
Most of the cast is perfect. Todd, Curtis and Atticus are all very funny characters.
There are actually two episodes that deal with homosexuality. This one and Terrible Twin Turf Tussle in which Jenny - one of the main characters - starts a lesbian relation.
The best episode to me is 2 Girls, 1 Tongue. This one is almost completely sung - some kind of camp metal-musical. Quite original, i must say. ” - emertens
It's in black and white, but that doesn't fool anyone. It's clearly made recently, and rather amateuristic.
However I enjoyed it more than I probably should have. ” - emertens
I thought it was mildly amusing. I wasn't impressed by it's alleged weirdness. It's certainly not as outrageous wacky as Eraserhead or Terror Firmer (to name a few).
Sometimes the movie seems to "derange" a bit out of style. For instance, there's a scene in a restaurant where the main character waits - more or less in real time - for his order to arrive. It was a bit funny - although it was done before (The Chinese Restaurant episode of Seinfeld, the "behold a real minute" scene in Vargtimmen.) But here it seemed out of place.
However it all was a bit unusual and I was entertained while watching. ” - emertens
One begins with: "A truly disturbing film"
The second one with: "Great gay film with an evil twist!"
... So it might be appropriate to this list. Again: I haven't seen it yet! ” - emertens
Trailer on Youtube ” - emertens
Nevertheless there are several not-too-stereotypical homosexual characters in the film, while most of the common gay-related themes (such as discrimination and secrecy) aren't a part of the plot. Which is a good thing. We've had more than enough of that. ” - emertens
Good movie. Scary and funny. ” - emertens