I saw this film last week, on a trip to Florida to attend the 18th annual Tampa Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, which I must admit, has grown into a fairly large stop on the gay festival circuit.
The more mundane shows (IMHO) anywhere on the circuit are those films which merely try to be gay versions of straight stories. Why such a large number of gay filmmakers still try to be 'mainstream' is beyond me.
"2 Minutes Later" is a crime-fighting/comedy film with some flesh and sex (not excessive, but certainly more than necessary). It tried to equal the sex & violence quotient seen in similar straight films. This film's director, who was present the night I attended, got on stage before the film screened, and said that his film was meant just as fun entertainment; nothing more, nothing less. -- and to the person who accompanied me to this screening, that's what it was. To me it was just a gay reworking of many straight suspense films, with a major plot element (spoiler) borrowed from "Blow-Up." It had a fair amount of tepid comedy added into the mix, justifying the director's statement that it could be called 'light entertainment.'
Much to my dismay, --and very likely to the chagrin of the filmmaker present (and to the management of the fabulous Tampa Theatre, a splendidly renovated 'atmostpheric,' built in 1926) the film was shown through the wrong lens! What I mean is, it appears to have been a film that may have been produced with an aspect ratio of 1:1.85, but it was shown through a 1:1.33 lens. Everyone was just a bit too thin, too tall, --and all the cars were a foot, or so, more compact. I tried to ignore this technical problem (which wasn't easy) and see the film the way it's producer intended me to. It had it's fun moments, but I was glad when it ended. Almost glad, that is, because "The End" credit, itself, brought it's own "oh, no" moment. It came on-screen with a question mark (?) added after a few seconds, a la "The Blob."
The leading lady, who was also present in the theater that night -and who accompanied the filmmaker on stage before the curtain went up, was the best actor in this film. As improbable as her character was, her lines were better than those of the leading man, --who was likely chosen for his shy boy-next-door 'look' rather than for any acting ability. I'm not knocking him, nor the filmmaker, nor anyone else associated with this production. It was obvious that the budget wasn't big, but neither was the thought put into this. Better films have been made on smaller budgets.
It seemed to me that it borrowed an awful lot of bits and pieces from many other films, --besides the obvious big 'bit' borrowed from "Blow-Up."
Overall, a mediocre effort. I rated it 5.
--D.--
The more mundane shows (IMHO) anywhere on the circuit are those films which merely try to be gay versions of straight stories. Why such a large number of gay filmmakers still try to be 'mainstream' is beyond me.
"2 Minutes Later" is a crime-fighting/comedy film with some flesh and sex (not excessive, but certainly more than necessary). It tried to equal the sex & violence quotient seen in similar straight films. This film's director, who was present the night I attended, got on stage before the film screened, and said that his film was meant just as fun entertainment; nothing more, nothing less. -- and to the person who accompanied me to this screening, that's what it was. To me it was just a gay reworking of many straight suspense films, with a major plot element (spoiler) borrowed from "Blow-Up." It had a fair amount of tepid comedy added into the mix, justifying the director's statement that it could be called 'light entertainment.'
Much to my dismay, --and very likely to the chagrin of the filmmaker present (and to the management of the fabulous Tampa Theatre, a splendidly renovated 'atmostpheric,' built in 1926) the film was shown through the wrong lens! What I mean is, it appears to have been a film that may have been produced with an aspect ratio of 1:1.85, but it was shown through a 1:1.33 lens. Everyone was just a bit too thin, too tall, --and all the cars were a foot, or so, more compact. I tried to ignore this technical problem (which wasn't easy) and see the film the way it's producer intended me to. It had it's fun moments, but I was glad when it ended. Almost glad, that is, because "The End" credit, itself, brought it's own "oh, no" moment. It came on-screen with a question mark (?) added after a few seconds, a la "The Blob."
The leading lady, who was also present in the theater that night -and who accompanied the filmmaker on stage before the curtain went up, was the best actor in this film. As improbable as her character was, her lines were better than those of the leading man, --who was likely chosen for his shy boy-next-door 'look' rather than for any acting ability. I'm not knocking him, nor the filmmaker, nor anyone else associated with this production. It was obvious that the budget wasn't big, but neither was the thought put into this. Better films have been made on smaller budgets.
It seemed to me that it borrowed an awful lot of bits and pieces from many other films, --besides the obvious big 'bit' borrowed from "Blow-Up."
Overall, a mediocre effort. I rated it 5.
--D.--