This film came at the end of the "gay indie" era that started with Priscilla Queen of the Desert (1994), Philadelphia (1993) and Tales of the City (1993), further aided by the incredible success of Pulp Fiction in 1994. "Gay film" became all the rage for about a decade ("The Birdcage," "Jeffrey," "Broken Hearts Club" and others), morphing eventually into the "woke" cinema era we're in as of this writing, a place where an effort has been made to depict inclusion as the norm. In that way "Almost Normal" was a bit ahead of its time in depicting a character who wants to fit in but never does, proving ultimately no one is "normal" and that the idea of peer normalcy itself is an unsuccessful way to approach things to begin with.
J. Andrew Kreitch is quite believable and charismatic as Brad, a 40-year-old gay man living in 2005 who hasn't resolved everything in himself for whatever reason. Through a literal deus ex machina he goes back to his teen years in 1985 (no surprise, the year "Back to the Future" came out) to find that everyone is gay and being straight is undesirable, and his (male) high school crush is actually in love with him. However, once ensconced Brad finds himself uncontrollably, and uncomfortably (at least at first) attracted to a girl who, in his "real" life, is his pal and sister by marriage to his brother--Julie, played by the talented and attractive Joan Laukner. Eventually Brad learns to fight for what he is, regardless of what that may be, and having done so finds himself back home, like Dorothy returning from her dreamworld of OZ to Kansas (there's even a reference to a dog companion). Having been through his adventures Brad is able to resolve his insecurities and is thus ready to love himself, and another man, completely. The tone of the film resembles a bad 80s sitcom, whether by design or accident, ultimately ending up cheerful and surprisingly complex in its exposition. The turf covered is similar to another indie-gay film from a few years later, "Were the World Mine," in its exploration of the idea of homosexuality as a specific character trait that can be turned on or off as an experiment, an idea that is as old as the hills but worthy of exploring nonetheless. It's too bad director Marc Moody doesn't have any more credits on IMDB; he seems to be a funny guy who made a decent no-budget film and was just getting warmed up.
"Almost Normal," much like the more polished "Were the World Mine," has been almost universally lambasted and I've always been intrigued to understand why. The budget of "Almost Normal" is non-existent, to the point it has the sheen of bad 90s porn...all the more reason to cheer when the film finds the right look and feel and rises above its limits, which it does more often than not. Aside from the principals the acting is sub-par but not any more annoying than the level of acting found in the 80s sitcoms it emulates. The wigs, score, costumes and set designs are cheap and depict cues that are from the disco era 70s, which couldn't be more remote from the mid-80s, a misstep that is unfortunate and confusing for someone who is the age of the film's protagonist (did the director originally write this to be a 90s-to-70s movie one wonders?). There are plot holes galore (if our hero has proof he's from the 2000s, which he does, the movie is basically done, isn't it?) and the logic of the premise fails fairly often. But this isn't that kind of movie. It's charming, ridiculously sincere, determinedly cringe-worthy, occasionally witty and genuinely tries--and succeeds--to entertain...I can't help but root for it, and I think the premise is smart and timely, a "coming out" story for anyone who is bored with the traditional coming out story. It really does spark conversation of what gender is and how it works, and did it at a time when the subject was still fairly new in the public mind of the era.
So why the abject hatred? I sincerely hope it isn't because people read in this film that the protagonist suddenly "turns straight" or "decides" to do so. It does rather play that way if you don't think about it fully. I hope no one objected because the film failed to embrace a gay-only Valhalla, which is completely at odds with the whole point of the narrative. I hope no one took the events of the story literally, as portraying a world in which straight people are "normal" and gay people are doomed to be outsiders looking in, when the movie keeps gently pointing out the flaws in that model and leaning towards the value of a world of inclusion (including a tiny hint of racial inclusion here and there). More than anything I hope people aren't objecting to the idea that a movie that is "supposed to be" about the world of a gay man depicts the sensuality of a man and woman falling in love despite living in a society that objects to their love, as a way to illustrate to anyone who watches the film the often-frustrating, always-complex issues involved in being true to oneself amongst one's sometimes-unsupportive peers and social groups--the message of the whole thing, I suspect.
If any of the above reasons are why this cute, thought-provoking comedy is/was so reviled then we as thinking gay and gay-sympathetic people still have a lot of work to do it seems.
J. Andrew Kreitch is quite believable and charismatic as Brad, a 40-year-old gay man living in 2005 who hasn't resolved everything in himself for whatever reason. Through a literal deus ex machina he goes back to his teen years in 1985 (no surprise, the year "Back to the Future" came out) to find that everyone is gay and being straight is undesirable, and his (male) high school crush is actually in love with him. However, once ensconced Brad finds himself uncontrollably, and uncomfortably (at least at first) attracted to a girl who, in his "real" life, is his pal and sister by marriage to his brother--Julie, played by the talented and attractive Joan Laukner. Eventually Brad learns to fight for what he is, regardless of what that may be, and having done so finds himself back home, like Dorothy returning from her dreamworld of OZ to Kansas (there's even a reference to a dog companion). Having been through his adventures Brad is able to resolve his insecurities and is thus ready to love himself, and another man, completely. The tone of the film resembles a bad 80s sitcom, whether by design or accident, ultimately ending up cheerful and surprisingly complex in its exposition. The turf covered is similar to another indie-gay film from a few years later, "Were the World Mine," in its exploration of the idea of homosexuality as a specific character trait that can be turned on or off as an experiment, an idea that is as old as the hills but worthy of exploring nonetheless. It's too bad director Marc Moody doesn't have any more credits on IMDB; he seems to be a funny guy who made a decent no-budget film and was just getting warmed up.
"Almost Normal," much like the more polished "Were the World Mine," has been almost universally lambasted and I've always been intrigued to understand why. The budget of "Almost Normal" is non-existent, to the point it has the sheen of bad 90s porn...all the more reason to cheer when the film finds the right look and feel and rises above its limits, which it does more often than not. Aside from the principals the acting is sub-par but not any more annoying than the level of acting found in the 80s sitcoms it emulates. The wigs, score, costumes and set designs are cheap and depict cues that are from the disco era 70s, which couldn't be more remote from the mid-80s, a misstep that is unfortunate and confusing for someone who is the age of the film's protagonist (did the director originally write this to be a 90s-to-70s movie one wonders?). There are plot holes galore (if our hero has proof he's from the 2000s, which he does, the movie is basically done, isn't it?) and the logic of the premise fails fairly often. But this isn't that kind of movie. It's charming, ridiculously sincere, determinedly cringe-worthy, occasionally witty and genuinely tries--and succeeds--to entertain...I can't help but root for it, and I think the premise is smart and timely, a "coming out" story for anyone who is bored with the traditional coming out story. It really does spark conversation of what gender is and how it works, and did it at a time when the subject was still fairly new in the public mind of the era.
So why the abject hatred? I sincerely hope it isn't because people read in this film that the protagonist suddenly "turns straight" or "decides" to do so. It does rather play that way if you don't think about it fully. I hope no one objected because the film failed to embrace a gay-only Valhalla, which is completely at odds with the whole point of the narrative. I hope no one took the events of the story literally, as portraying a world in which straight people are "normal" and gay people are doomed to be outsiders looking in, when the movie keeps gently pointing out the flaws in that model and leaning towards the value of a world of inclusion (including a tiny hint of racial inclusion here and there). More than anything I hope people aren't objecting to the idea that a movie that is "supposed to be" about the world of a gay man depicts the sensuality of a man and woman falling in love despite living in a society that objects to their love, as a way to illustrate to anyone who watches the film the often-frustrating, always-complex issues involved in being true to oneself amongst one's sometimes-unsupportive peers and social groups--the message of the whole thing, I suspect.
If any of the above reasons are why this cute, thought-provoking comedy is/was so reviled then we as thinking gay and gay-sympathetic people still have a lot of work to do it seems.