Like so many versions of this same story, this is yet another retelling of the "innocent kid gets lost in the big city world of sex for pay". The original aspect to this is that we also see the character of Tim (also the writer/director...surprise!), a closeted photographer who gets jobs photographing young boys, supposedly to convince himself that he is just doing it for money. While this actually COULD have been an extremely intelligent and moving story, it falls back on far too many cliches, namely 1-dimensional villains (abusive father, "hot" pimp, clueless girlfriend) which deliver far too many predictable face-palm moments. Like too many gay-themed films, there is an over-reliance on extremely-long close-ups, body-shots (including the periform lead taking a shower...repeatedly). The montage and "cute kid" mugging for the camera for extremely long periods of time just don't add anything to this film other than boredom. Congrats to the creator, Brian, for not having body issues and literally putting it all out there, but this really needed a professional script-reader and director to give it an original look/feel overall-- but in its current form it just looks like a soft-porn after-school special warning against porn.
7 Reviews
Long Shots! Part Un
thesar-22 September 2019
Warning: Spoilers
Annnnd hold. Hold it. Stay. Don't move. Just five more minutes of this shot and you can take a break...
Is this about the meet-up app or just capitalizing on it? Actually, this movie is 82 minutes long and about half that runtime is approximately 4-5 very lengthy and uncomfortable shots. Curious if they had enough for a feature-length and when they realized: No, they stopped the editing process.
The movie's about two coming out stories from two completely different backgrounds. One's a 16-year-old teenager whose dad, seconds after saying he didn't care he was gay, mocks him verbally and physically for it. So, boy leaves and he's off to pursue the exciting world of modelling in the Big Apple! Okay, maybe that's the grinding part of the title.
Story #2 involves an up-and-coming photographer and soon-to-be married man ("Tim") who's questioning his sexuality. And lusts over underage boys. Sooo...not sure if I'm supposed to support him?
The acting was questionable. The connecting character between the stories, a hotshot modelling/photographer entrepreneur, acted like a soap opera diva and/or villain on Queer as Folk. While he was okay and the boy was not that bad, the only believable actor was the closeted photographer from Story #2. And that's giving him a lot of leeway.
Some of the New York City shots were very pretty and stylized, but the movie lacked real heart and most of the actors, sadly, were just doing what the script told them to. I do appreciate what the filmmaker was trying to accomplish and the movie does look polished. Just felt the lack of depth, and that's too bad.
Also, some of the scenes were unintentionally hilarious. At least I got some enjoyment of those. Examples: Dad's overreaction to baseball scenes on TV when nothing was happening - almost like he's never watched sports before. Also, "Villain" Boss Man tells the 16-year-old to go enjoy the beautiful, sunny day out at the beach and cut to the cloudiest and apparently coldest day. We're told "Spring is coming" and "Summer is probably gonna be hot following." So I assume it's winter? Granted, I've never been to NYC, but I guess it's a lot colder there in the winter than what the actors were wearing and those are not really beach days.
Kinda would've liked to see a more fleshed out story between the two main characters. Especially since Tim seemed to be the only character I latched onto since the actor could act.
While I wouldn't necessarily recommend the movie (it's not terrible, nor am I upset I saw it, it's just..there)Skip the next paragraph to avoid spoilers:
"Protagonist/Main character 16 year old uses Grinder app to seek men to escape abusive father and start a new lifetyle. Eventually finding a "model agency" whose owner is an abusive pedophile whom abuses and rapes the boys ages 16-18, remains the antagonist with constant rapings, manipulations, and physical abuse that the protagonist thinks is ok to live with (since he has no other place to stay). Another character, a photographer for the agency, is seen as a character who cheats on his fiance to escape his straight life sexuality. He tries falling in love with protagonist 16 year old and falls short to head agency abuser claiming that the 16 year old is his to himself. A journey of a 16 year old homosexual male finding out that what seems to be a model agency is just a pedophile running a porn magazine company for minors. The disgust and realizations that enlighten the industry of pornography is revealed in an enticing way in this film. Slow and artsy, this story awakens the horrors ..."
***
Final thoughts: Funny story. My borderline homophobic coworker, is always eager to recommend movies to me. I watched his other recommendation, "Hooper," and actually liked it. He told me about "Grinder," said I could find it on Netflix and it's a great little action flick. Well, I did find the movie, but on Amazon, instead, and I STRONGLY doubt this is the movie he meant to recommend or even saw. IMDb also touts this as a "thriller" so I thought *maybe* he saw it, but they got that wrong. There may be some intense scenes, but this is as much a thriller as Saving Private Ryan is a comedy.
Is this about the meet-up app or just capitalizing on it? Actually, this movie is 82 minutes long and about half that runtime is approximately 4-5 very lengthy and uncomfortable shots. Curious if they had enough for a feature-length and when they realized: No, they stopped the editing process.
The movie's about two coming out stories from two completely different backgrounds. One's a 16-year-old teenager whose dad, seconds after saying he didn't care he was gay, mocks him verbally and physically for it. So, boy leaves and he's off to pursue the exciting world of modelling in the Big Apple! Okay, maybe that's the grinding part of the title.
Story #2 involves an up-and-coming photographer and soon-to-be married man ("Tim") who's questioning his sexuality. And lusts over underage boys. Sooo...not sure if I'm supposed to support him?
The acting was questionable. The connecting character between the stories, a hotshot modelling/photographer entrepreneur, acted like a soap opera diva and/or villain on Queer as Folk. While he was okay and the boy was not that bad, the only believable actor was the closeted photographer from Story #2. And that's giving him a lot of leeway.
Some of the New York City shots were very pretty and stylized, but the movie lacked real heart and most of the actors, sadly, were just doing what the script told them to. I do appreciate what the filmmaker was trying to accomplish and the movie does look polished. Just felt the lack of depth, and that's too bad.
Also, some of the scenes were unintentionally hilarious. At least I got some enjoyment of those. Examples: Dad's overreaction to baseball scenes on TV when nothing was happening - almost like he's never watched sports before. Also, "Villain" Boss Man tells the 16-year-old to go enjoy the beautiful, sunny day out at the beach and cut to the cloudiest and apparently coldest day. We're told "Spring is coming" and "Summer is probably gonna be hot following." So I assume it's winter? Granted, I've never been to NYC, but I guess it's a lot colder there in the winter than what the actors were wearing and those are not really beach days.
Kinda would've liked to see a more fleshed out story between the two main characters. Especially since Tim seemed to be the only character I latched onto since the actor could act.
While I wouldn't necessarily recommend the movie (it's not terrible, nor am I upset I saw it, it's just..there)Skip the next paragraph to avoid spoilers:
"Protagonist/Main character 16 year old uses Grinder app to seek men to escape abusive father and start a new lifetyle. Eventually finding a "model agency" whose owner is an abusive pedophile whom abuses and rapes the boys ages 16-18, remains the antagonist with constant rapings, manipulations, and physical abuse that the protagonist thinks is ok to live with (since he has no other place to stay). Another character, a photographer for the agency, is seen as a character who cheats on his fiance to escape his straight life sexuality. He tries falling in love with protagonist 16 year old and falls short to head agency abuser claiming that the 16 year old is his to himself. A journey of a 16 year old homosexual male finding out that what seems to be a model agency is just a pedophile running a porn magazine company for minors. The disgust and realizations that enlighten the industry of pornography is revealed in an enticing way in this film. Slow and artsy, this story awakens the horrors ..."
***
Final thoughts: Funny story. My borderline homophobic coworker, is always eager to recommend movies to me. I watched his other recommendation, "Hooper," and actually liked it. He told me about "Grinder," said I could find it on Netflix and it's a great little action flick. Well, I did find the movie, but on Amazon, instead, and I STRONGLY doubt this is the movie he meant to recommend or even saw. IMDb also touts this as a "thriller" so I thought *maybe* he saw it, but they got that wrong. There may be some intense scenes, but this is as much a thriller as Saving Private Ryan is a comedy.
Nice story, poor execution, disastrous music and sound
amheba26 July 2021
This film should be a must in every filmmakers studies as to in how many ways the audible part of a film can ruin all that's been photographed.
The story is good, the cinematography was nice, the editing was OK, the acting was so so. But the audio made this film feel just terrible. The sound is completely flat throughout the film. It doesn't matter if a character moves around or distance or if there's music score on top, the voices are always at the same level making the actors seem much worse than they actually are. There's absolutely no ambient sound which adds up to the I filmed it in my living room feel. And the music is just terrible. Apart from being bad and cheesy, it has no connection to what you're seeing on screen. It's the same type of music which sounds made at home with a basic tool for all types of scenes and often starting in one scene to suddenly stop at some point on a later scene. There are even scenes where the music is so center stage that you can hardly understand what the characters are saying and this goes on for a couple of minutes.
I think with proper sound and music this film would have come much better off, at least decent.
I give it one extra star cause I do like bad B movies feel. But this is not a bad B film, it's just very badly executed.
The story is good, the cinematography was nice, the editing was OK, the acting was so so. But the audio made this film feel just terrible. The sound is completely flat throughout the film. It doesn't matter if a character moves around or distance or if there's music score on top, the voices are always at the same level making the actors seem much worse than they actually are. There's absolutely no ambient sound which adds up to the I filmed it in my living room feel. And the music is just terrible. Apart from being bad and cheesy, it has no connection to what you're seeing on screen. It's the same type of music which sounds made at home with a basic tool for all types of scenes and often starting in one scene to suddenly stop at some point on a later scene. There are even scenes where the music is so center stage that you can hardly understand what the characters are saying and this goes on for a couple of minutes.
I think with proper sound and music this film would have come much better off, at least decent.
I give it one extra star cause I do like bad B movies feel. But this is not a bad B film, it's just very badly executed.
A very badly conceived and executed movie that should never have been made
jm1070110 June 2018
Stupid, boring and completely unbelievable. Badly written, badly directed and badly cast. No actor should write and direct a movie that shows him (and no one else) showering, repeatedly, full-on naked, every part in closeup. It makes him seem like an exhibitionist who made a movie only so he could do that. It's not sexy or even interesting.
Way way WAY too many minutes-long closeups of faces looking directly into a mirror or the camera, grimacing or trying to look shocked or trying to portray some other unknown emotion. A very badly conceived and executed movie that should never have been made.
Way way WAY too many minutes-long closeups of faces looking directly into a mirror or the camera, grimacing or trying to look shocked or trying to portray some other unknown emotion. A very badly conceived and executed movie that should never have been made.
Don't bother
clark-9617214 August 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Too many long close ups. The main character is 16 and his extremely attractive modelling agent is hitting on him? Doesn't make sense to me. The photographer swears he's straight to his gay best friend who he spent months sleeping with. Then proceeds to get barebacked by a random guy in a bar bathroom...
So is he just not attracted to his friend anymore? Because that makes much more sense than to screw some random guy.
Anyway I wouldn't bother, only giving it a 3 because there were some attractive guys
I should've watched the whole film first...1 star
So is he just not attracted to his friend anymore? Because that makes much more sense than to screw some random guy.
Anyway I wouldn't bother, only giving it a 3 because there were some attractive guys
I should've watched the whole film first...1 star
Complete waste of time
scott-8489729 December 2019
I literally fast forwarded this movie and missed nothing. This a poorly written, directed and acted 10 minute film stretched into 1:20 minutes. I can't even say it's slow because there is no story line to be slow about. I kept asking when will the movie begin? Don't waste your time.
Other reviewers are correct!
SteverB5 September 2023
I am not prone to give films a 1-star review. As a film student from way back in the day, I understand the effort that goes into making a piece of fiction into a coherent (or not) film, and I very seldom find a film SO bad that it deserves the lowest possible score. Then along came "Grinder."
The film is not just badly written, acted, directed, and photographed, I can only think of ONE slightly redeeming feature and that is the performance by Tyler Austin, playing the protagonist, Luke. And that isn't saying much because he had very little to do, where he should have had A LOT of performance to give, but the script shut down anything we might have seen because it was so bland and uninteresting.
At only a, thankfully, 82-minute running time, I was STILL checking the time left, and that started at about 20 minutes in. The long, padding shots leading to nothing were annoying, and there were several of them. The camera is just sitting on a tripod while an actor emotes into it. That's NOT interesting if there is no point and there was never a point. In fairness, although others have said that the actor/director playing Tim showered innumerable times during the film -- again, stupid filler footage -- it only happened twice, but again, just as filler for no real reason. He runs. He's sweaty. He showers. We don't need to be there for it all.
The film should have been, at best, a short film less than 30 minutes long, if it had to be made at all. Jon Fleming, of "Dante's Cove" fame, was ridiculous in his attempt to "be mean." I don't think he has that capability and an extended scene of him trying to do so just comes off as cringing to the point of turning to stone. Skip this. It won't even rise to the level of a cult classic. It's not something you can say is so bad, it's good. It's just really bad.
The film is not just badly written, acted, directed, and photographed, I can only think of ONE slightly redeeming feature and that is the performance by Tyler Austin, playing the protagonist, Luke. And that isn't saying much because he had very little to do, where he should have had A LOT of performance to give, but the script shut down anything we might have seen because it was so bland and uninteresting.
At only a, thankfully, 82-minute running time, I was STILL checking the time left, and that started at about 20 minutes in. The long, padding shots leading to nothing were annoying, and there were several of them. The camera is just sitting on a tripod while an actor emotes into it. That's NOT interesting if there is no point and there was never a point. In fairness, although others have said that the actor/director playing Tim showered innumerable times during the film -- again, stupid filler footage -- it only happened twice, but again, just as filler for no real reason. He runs. He's sweaty. He showers. We don't need to be there for it all.
The film should have been, at best, a short film less than 30 minutes long, if it had to be made at all. Jon Fleming, of "Dante's Cove" fame, was ridiculous in his attempt to "be mean." I don't think he has that capability and an extended scene of him trying to do so just comes off as cringing to the point of turning to stone. Skip this. It won't even rise to the level of a cult classic. It's not something you can say is so bad, it's good. It's just really bad.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
