Leaving Metropolis (2002) User Reviews

visually intriguing

[pogostiks · 6/10 · 19 March 2007]

Warning: Some Spoilers The strange thing about this film is that despite its weaknesses, it still works. It generally keeps your interest to the end, even though there were obviously scenes that didn't make the cut that probably should have, at least to make certain things a little clearer. The main character, the painter, wasn't really charismatic enough - you don't really see the relationship between him and his boss developing. The are both suddenly "in love" with almost no sense of tension, subtext or reason. All the other people in the film were quite adequate. The fag-hag best friend is one of the most realistic alcoholics I've seen in film. Without staggering or slurring her words, she gives you a definite sense that she is seeing everything through a glass darkly. The transsexual for once makes you really think of her as a woman, without exaggerating anything. The first time we see her without one of her wigs on is truly a shock. The wife-victim is perhaps the least finely drawn of the characters, and her initial reaction to the situation is not quite as believable as it should be... but somehow she still makes us care about her hurt.

I think the best thing about this film is the cinematography. The interior shots were created with a colour-scheme which would have been worthy of an Almodovar film. I think that one of the things that really makes this film (sort of) work is that visually we are rarely asked to look at something unappealing. All of the naked bodies (male or female) are wonderful to look at, and they are shown often enough to basically seduce us into caring more than we probably should have.

I get the feeling that the film could have worked better if they had added only two or three more scenes which would have allowed for some more character motivation and development. Some people may not like the fact that (one more time) there is a gay in the film that dies of AIDS... but that has been one of the realities of gay life for the last 20 years, and I see no reason to necessarily avoid it. All in all, not a great film, but an interesting one that at least makes us care about some if not all of the characters. An A for effort, a B for results.

Good acting, above average (but not great) script

[bison257 · 7/10 · 26 May 2004]

I think I'm willing to give this flick a bit more credit than some of the other commentators. While I think there were some problems with the ending, overall the script worked pretty well. I do agree the part of Violet could have been beefed up a bit more; still, I think this was a fairly engaging movie about love & desire. I thought Ruptash as David was convincing. The only things that seem forced are the constant references to "Superman"; I know that this is supposed to be the subtext for movie, but it feels like the director/writer just stuck it in to hammer home his message. Even so, I think this movie works well for a portrayal of someone who's finding out things about himself he never suspected (Corazza as Matt). This may work better as a play, as did the director/writer's "Unidentified Human Remains and the True Nature of Love" vs. the movie "Love and Human Remains" (although I thought it was a pretty good movie).

I think LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS is the better of the two screenplays.

[poets-1 · 6/10 · 28 December 2004]

I would like to have seen Fraser's play, POOR SUPER MAN, largely because there are plaintive allusions to Superman in the film that make me know they were, in some context not necessarily evident, important. I think the film became confused: fading pre-op transsexual, nasty self-loathing, fag hag friend with a drinking problem, a closeted straight man too innocent for life-- with an accompanying jealous wife-- and a Virgil-like artist guide who seems compelled to lead them all through the Circles of Hell.

I was not surprised that the artist and his straight man foil have sex; steamy and straightforward sex. I was shocked, however, that so much of the movie then seemed to pivot on the obvious. The only vital thing I saw were the paintings of straight man Matt which artist David had conjured out of desire and the experience of desire ( who said TS Eliot was a dessicated old bag? He knew this story backwards and forwards!). These were both titillating and of heroic dimension.

Maybe we should have skipped the film and gone, instead, to the exhibition.

I suggest one see LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS and LEAVING METROPOLIS together; LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS is the better of the two, but, together, one gets a real glimpse of Fraser's enormous talent.

A Problematic Transition from Stage to Screen

[kaneastro · 5 November 2002]

This Canadian effort is accomplished playwright Brad Fraser's film adaptation of his stage play POOR SUPERMAN, in which a celebrated but frustrated artist rediscovers his muse, in the form of a supposedly straight man who's running a downtown diner with his wife. It takes no stretch of the imagination to guess what the basic plot is.

From the beginning, lawyers for Warner Bros. and Marvel Comics had threatened suit if the Superman imagery from the play were used in the film. The play was written at the height of public awareness of the AIDS epidemic in North America (ca. 1993), and was replete with metaphor carried by the very imagery lacking in the film adaptation. Just as the protagonist is seemingly the last of his race (gay men not yet victimized by AIDS), Superman was the last survivor of his Kryptonian race. Gay people were in the closet as Superman was masquerading as Clark Kent. So, the film was bound to have major problems once it was cleansed of much of this context.

Fraser seems to have compensated for his loss by increasing the gymbot quotient; indeed, the male flesh watchers in the audience were treated to a parade of pecs, abs, and asses. Fraser, who answered questions for the audience after the film, insisting he was working on the principle for "equal opportunity sex scenes," ended up showing much more explicit straight lovemaking scenes. Coming in at a short 89 minutes, this film had me walking away remembering most these scenes with the wife's extra perky breasts.

LEAVING METROPOLIS's dialog started out very stilted and the characterizations seemed too heavy handed when translated to film, but as the plot wore on, the uneven acting brought occasional glimpses of brilliance. Troy Ruptash as David the gay artist (in the past, seen on TV in episodes of ER, JAG, THE WEST WING, and BOSTON PUBLIC) put on an occasionally emotionally believing performance. But it is Canadian actor Vince Corazza, a young but veteran TV movie actor, who shone with a great job as the tormented married guy, Matt. Newcomer Thom Allison as David's transgendered, AIDS-inflicted best friend Shannon only endeared with the queeny quips, and fell short trying to bring out the gravity of her situation. David's boozy mentor, Kryla (Lynda Boyd), and Matt's wife, Violet (Cherilee Taylor), weren't given much more than base characterizations to work with.

In the end, we don't care much why David didn't seem to think too much about the implications of his helping to break up a marriage, because we don't see much of what Fraser is trying to say about David himself.

Few remarkable moments

[larapha · 7/10 · 19 November 2016]

I came twice to watch this film in a lapse of more than ten years. What motivated to write a review was the recall I had from it, when the character David (Troy Huptash) the painter, curses his best friend Kryla (Lynda Boyd) Faghag. That shocked me, coming from a gay man. And that was one of the few memoirs I had from the film. Seeing it a second time just showed I was right: it has nothing remarkable. In particular, I still have the feeling that Huptash acting has nothing profound – he seemed to read his lines. I would say that Matt (Vincent Corazza) character is deeper. He really shows he's torn between this wife and his new found lover David. Besides, Corazza is a piece of a man, well build developed and a good actor. Overall, it's a film to be watched, perhaps even twice as I did. Another predicate is to say it aged well. The conflicts shown are undying and worth reflection from the viewer.

Acting?

[kmcfadden · 3/10 · 5 January 2005]

I guess we are all VERY different-at least when it comes to our opinion of the acting. I think the premise was good, very real (my partner and I were both straight-married when we met), the location is unique, the supporting cast interesting, the acting.... terrible! The main actor's skill may be fine for stage where melodrama is a good thing, here, I couldn't stop wondering who slept with whom to get this part. The wife was a bad actress most of the time, the rest of the cast were fine however. Just way to much drama and too little script development.

I don't think we need happy endings and this movie lacked meat, but if you can get over the acting, which I couldn't, it is a fair movie to watch, then to forget.

"How could I ever have drowned in someone as shallow as you"

[M_INC_KW · 8/10 · 12 June 2004]

What a great line.

I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.

I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.

Some writers should never direct. Like this one.

[atwiththestars · 3/10 · 24 February 2022]

The play is brilliant. If you ever have a chance go see it. But, make sure that it's not done by an amateur theatre company because that's what this movie felt like. For such an amazing play, the direction was completely uninspired. The play itself has so much potential for great visual interpretation, but the director who is the writer fails miserably at it. What a wasted opportunity.

Great independent film

[lyrischertenor · 10/10 · 15 February 2005]

I was just really able to appreciate this film. Sure there were some lines that I didn't like and and I was a little unclear about some plot aspects and I wished we could have seen what happens to the characters after the film ended. But overall, I really loved the message of the film and the originality of it. This is a film about love, sexuality, and relationships. It was really beautiful. Most of what I must praise highest is the acting. Every single person was casted perfectly for what their unique talents offered. Corazza's is a VERY believable and truthful actor. His acting lends himself to innocence and sympathy -- just what Matt needed. Taylor was brilliant. She exudes power and assurance. And she played every one of her very difficult lines absolutely perfectly. She was perfection. Allison was surprising convincing and excellent. I say surprising because for a man dressed in woman's clothing, this is the first movie where I actually LIKED the character and this character was believable and not a stupid stereotype. Shannon was real person for me. Boyd was absolutely excellent. She seems to be the most experienced and a clear veteran of the art. They were so lucky to get her for this. She's a world-class actress. This had excellent ensemble acting.

This film was just really enjoyable. I really found the writer's (Fraser) commentary to be especially interesting. This film was daring, original, and well-directed. A little unbelievable at points, but enjoyable none the less.

Far underrated

[handy56 · 10/10 · 31 May 2004]

Two hot-bodied hunks dominate this Canadian gay drama about an artist who falls in love with a married "straight" guy. This independent Canadian drama from Brad Fraser, the writer of Love and Human Remains focues on David, a controversial gay painter in the remote Canadian province of Manitoba. His financial success has brought him fame, money and a dull life. He basically hangs out with Kryla, a straight woman and Shannon, an HIV positive trans woman who is also his roommate. To get some inspiration, he takes a job as a waiter at a small cafe run by a married couple, Matt and Violet. The last thing he expects to do is fall in love with Matt, but that's just what happens. David starts painting again -- homages to Matt, his new love wreaking havoc on the marriage and on David. While Leaving Metropolis feels like an old-style "gay movie" -- poor writing and stilted characters, it does have something to recommend. There are several fairly intense sex scenes, both straight and gay and these two guys aren't shy about showing us their bodies. No full-frontal nude shots, but plenty of underwear and chest showing and these two boys have a lot to look at. After some research we learned that the film is based on Fraser's stage play Poor Super Man which had a whole different premise to it. The play emphasized David's personal feelings toward the comic book hero Superman and how he was just as perfect as his hero. Of course, what the play was showing was that no one is perfect. Unfortunately that storyline has been trimmed down in the film. Just a simple gay melodrama with some sweet skin.

A great story, with problems in the film - Contains spoilers

[tevanson · 8/10 · 17 October 2002]

This film is basically a gay love triangle. David is a famous painter with "painter's block." He has a live-in, HIV-positive, pre-op transsexual black live-in friend, Shannon. He has a famous-newspaper-columnist fag-hag friend, Kryla. To get his muse back, David decides to become a waiter again. He ends up waiting tables at a small diner owned by Matt and Violet, a married couple (recently married? it's not clear). David is immediately attracted to Matt. Soon, as David encourages Matt's secret talent for drawing comic-book characters and boosting Matt's self-esteem, Matt begins to fall for David. David then paints a series of erotic images of Matt. The film ends predictably enough: Lots of tragedy (divorce, death, friends falling out, etc.) but also a "hopeful ending" (everyone starts over anew).

Vincent Corazza as Matt is perhaps the best thing about this film. His physical presence (someone ice me down!) is almost charismatic. But his acting skills are exceedingly strong. He acts with his body, his face, and his voice and makes Matt's confusion about his love for Violet and David believable and moving.

Cherilee Taylor as Violet is less effective, although this is probably due to the lack of character development the script gives her to work with. The most telling moment in the film is when she tells a reporter that she collects "wedding couple" dolls. While this has obvious implications and meaning for her character, this is hardly what one would consider "deep characterization." Most of the time, Violet is simply supposed to look dumbly confused by Matt's refusal to spend time with her (while he's off doing the nasty with David). Taylor's effectiveness as an actress comes out best in her final scene, as she confronts her ex-husband outside the art gallery where David's paintings of Matt are shown. The anguish, honesty and intensity of her skills are on display best here.

Troy Ruptash as David and Lynda Boyd as Kryla are the film's weakest links. Ruptash is simply unconvincing as the steely-hearted David (the man so traumatized by the deaths of his many friends to AIDS that he cannot love). He fails to carry off the campy/bitchy/queenie comments his character is given, and his confidence in every scene makes it difficult to believe the character is really blocked or that the character is suffering an emotional tempest beneath the locked-down surface. Boyd's biggest problem is that she is given not much more than a caricature to work with -- the tough-as-nails newspaper columnist who can't find love. Kim Cattrall on "Sex and the City" does this a hundred times better.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "Leaving Metropolis" is the script and editing. The dialogue is stilted and unnatural, the scenes are truncated and missing sections (due to sloppy editing or bad writing is hard to tell), there is much exposition and characterization missing, and time seems to pass without any visual or verbal clues being given until it's too late. The film's conclusion -- especially the scenes with David in the bath house, Shannon's death-scene, and David pouring Shannon's ashes over the streets of Winnipeg -- seem pointless and serve to drag down the film's momentum. The final scenes themselves (Violet carrying on at the diner, David packing up to move and reconciling with Kryla, Matt at the train station) seem maudlin and uninspired....even trite. The film's editing seems clumsy and clunky. There is little style or point to the cuts that are made. Even simple editing choices like "jump cut or match-on-action" seem to occur randomly rather than with purpose. (True, copyright problems forced director-writer Fraser to cut out most references to Superman, the film's primary cultural reference and main metaphor. This creates blatant holes in the film, which are not present in the stage version, "Poor Superman.")

None of this is to suggest that "Leaving Metropolis" is a bad film. In fact, for all its faults, the film still works. There is a certain fascination with Matt's internal debate over his own sexuality, his love for Violet and David, and whether to tell Violet about his affair. Kryla's initial complaints (that David is simply a homewrecker) seem just bitchy at first, but take on a poignancy and morality that is shocking (and surprising, perhaps, to gay audiences that might not prize marriage or monogamy) by the film's end. The plot works itself out fairly predictably, which is unfortunate given the complex issues it presents.

Two final notes: First, the soundtrack is goofily "WB" -- too much guitar-driven lesbian-rock or oddly-chosen hard-rock (a la the old Canadian band, Rush). Second, there is a fair amount of nudity -- both male and female, heterosexual and homosexual. The film actually could have done without it, but to my mind it's a nice plus given Corazza's fantastic body.

Too Close To The Material

[RitchCS · 11 April 2004]

This comment contains a huge spoiler which actually is the reason I'm writing it. More times than most when a writer hands his book, screenplay, story, etc. over to a studio where a new screen adaptation is required, plus a new director, the film is usually unrecognizable from the author's original intent. This movie is one of those rare times when a new script and definitely a new director was needed. When a playwright/stage director/moviemaker goes to put his work on screen, he quite often cannot look at the finished product objectively.

Listening to Brad Fraser's commentary on the DVD, he explains so many things that he thought the viewer should've known, but in his concept they were never made clear. For example, he tells us that when the husband enters the bus station, that folded piece of paper under his arm is his acceptance letter from a school for cartooning. That would be great if only the viewer had been told that or even a close up of the paper. But in Fraser's mind, we should have figured that out and where the husband was going. Duh... Fraser keeps telling us 'hidden' things to look for. In his mind he filmed it, so why were we so stupid NOT to notice? I realize that Brad Fraser was the god of this film. Everything in it is his own creation and he and only he should have the right to control each and every destiny. Whether Fraser would like to call this a gay movie or not is up to him.

To me it's in the vein of a lot of gay movies which are oxymorons.

"GAY" movie without a happy ending. What's gay about it? Why do gay writers or producers of gay films insist on unhappy endings. Gays are either depicted as stereotype sissy faggots...or dying Camille's.

Can't someone, some time, write a serious drama about gays with good acting and let the two heroes ride off into the sunset? The acting in "Leaving Metropolis" is some of the best I've ever seen, especially Vince Corazza and Cherilee Taylor. They play so well together it makes you wonder why a straight masculine husband would leave his wife for a guy who is so fey? Look at the way Troy smokes a cigarette...it's one step above Bette Davis. Brad keeps talking about his low budget of one and a quarter million dollars. Damn! I've seen better movies with half the budget. Sorry Brad, but the movie you THOUGHT you made and the movie that the viewer sees are worlds apart. After all that the husband and artist went through, not to mention us the audience, the least you could do would be to have the heroes wind up together. Great ideas but sloppy executions!

Moving, Amusing, Bitter-Sweet but Never Saccharin

[7821cmr · 10/10 · 29 June 2005]

Leaving Metropolis recalled from the far reaches of my mind lines from the 1816 Lord Byron poem, When We Two Parted:

In secret we met--

In silence I grieve,

That thy heart could forget,

Thy spirit deceive.

If I should meet thee

After long years,

How should I greet thee?

With silence and tears.

This entertaining film is well-acted, intelligently-written and directed with great sensitivity. But it hit too close to home for comfort, which is perhaps one reason why I liked it. The story never over-reaches. The character arcs, as in all good stories, propel the plot forward building ever-increasing tension that is all the more palpable for its exquisite subtlety. Typically, the denouement in most gay-theme films either lacks credibility or is utterly predictable. Neither is the case with this exceptional film. When the lights come down and ninety minutes of screen time pass like five, when one is uplifted for having met the characters but saddened for having to depart from them too soon, when one experiences pathos and ethos in measure enough for an honest cathartic moment--that, for me, marks a worthwhile, captivating, artful film. Bravo! Bravo!

Insightful, believable brilliant film

[stevehansen4 · 10/10 · 3 May 2005]

From the description in the television guide, I wasn't sure if I'd like this one. But, thanks to 'Here!' channel, I got to see it uninterrupted and found it to be a super film ... a very insightful story of very believable characters by an extremely talented, perfectly-cast, fascinating group of actors(none of whom I have ever seen before, but hope to see often). Of course, the brilliant author/director had 'something to do with it'.

I found each character to be fully drawn and could identify with each of them ... something I don't see often in films.

I want to see more about these people. Thank you all for sharing with us.

Please, folks, do not hesitate to dive into this one with both feet and your whole heart.

From light to misery

[terryhall2 · 5 November 2006]

SPOILERS The best thing about this film is the eroticism of the love scenes, in particular the reality of them with the handsome Mr Corazza. The one with the two guys naked together before the artist's girlfriend walks in is nice to watch. The movie concerns a rather dislikeable artist who needs a job to stimulate his creativity and takes a position as a waiter in a small cafe/restaurant in Winnipeg. The husband and wife team welcome his ideas and treat him as a friend, but the artist, who seems constantly indifferent to the husband, has actually fallen in love with him and fantasises about him through his paintings. The husband likes the artist and is moved to see his portraits so beautifully executed. The two men start an affair which has sad repercussions, particularly for the husband, who is a good man brought down by an artist who seems intent on breaking up the guy's marriage (and then doesn't even want him afterwards) The wife is left running her cafe alone, the husband takes a trip somewhere we do not know and the artist is left alone with the ashes of his dear friend, trans-sexual Shannon. The two threads that run through the film are incongruous- the constant references to Superman (since I believe this came from the title of the stage-play) and the AIDS story. The actor who played Shannon played her well, but it did not fit the rest of the film which could have been a whole lot lighter and instructive had it not gone done the usual route of gay suffering and death - a fine start to a film leading to a depressing ending. Overall, Vince Corazzo stood out, I was irritated by Josh (the artist) but that's just a personal thing.

This film conveys every human emotion/

[jaybob · 10/10 · 18 April 2009]

This is a 2002 film written & directed by Brad Fraser. It is based on his play POOR SUPER MAN.

This is only his second screenplay, his first was the equally excellent LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS.

There are only 5 characters in the film.

We have a supposedly straight young couple,who own a small diner, a successful gay artist, who takes a part time job as a waiter in this diner,his best friend who used to be a guy,& another friend,who also was born a guy, his story is not a very happy one.

Yes we do have both type sex scenes, & they are exceptionally very well handled.

Brad Fraser writes with great charm & wit,he has created wonderful, complex people,we may disagree with some thoughts BUT we care for each one. There are enough light humorous scenes in the first hour,so we can accept the sadness towards the ending.

The reference to Superman is part of the authors wit.

The actors are from Canadien & American TV. they are Troy Ruptash, Vince Corazz, Lynda Boyd, Charlee Taylor & Thom Allison.

I hope all 5 become real big stars.

The movie was filmed in Winnipeg,Alberta,Canada.

The only release it got was in various film festivals

It did win the Grande Prize at the Montreal World Film Festival in 2002.

It should have had more honours, it is that good a movie.

Rent this & see it, I am sure you all will like it.

Ratings; **** (out of 4) 97 points (out of 100) IMDb 10 (out of 10)