W_L

I disagree, the British board of trade inquiry did recommend changes to the process and procedures of shipboard evacuations. New maratime regulations for organizing lifeboat departures were established without class distinction. Also, both American and British inquiry took in witness accounts, so I doubt everyone was blind and death between 1912-1913. While they might not have acted on the testimony in all deliberations (no criminal charges), it did make an impact on at least one area of society. Considering the majority of transit across the atlantic was done by ocean during the time, it would amount to something similar to capping work hours in dangerous mines and factories for children under 12. While that new regulations don't remove that era's use of child labor but it was a start and at least acknowledged an issue. Same thing with the titanic. It's fine though we can disagree amicably without chewing and clawing

Agreed, the mandate system was a disastrous concept. Geopolitics is not a game, but World War I's conclusion treated it like one, creating nations and buffer states where none had existed before. For me, I like to look at the cultural developments after the war as one of the few bright spots in the whole event.

Congrats to Germany Now where's the beer?

If Money and fame were so important though, he could have gone to Oklahoma, LA, or half a dozen teams that wanted him. Cleavland hated him after he left their team in 2010, the sports writers were burning effigy after effigy against him. Yet, he is heading back there to own up it and he still loves that city despite how much strain has come between them. I think it shows a good amount of character and honor, which are things that I never thought he had much of. On your first point though, I completely agree, these guys should go through the NCAA first before the NBA. It makes my March Madness bracket that much more fun.

Darn, I thought Miley Cyrus was gonna do a revival of her old show in Montana and Montana residents were arming themselves against the invasion

Hmmm...for once the synopsis does not show the movies complete plot Velvet Goldmine was a critical flop in 1998, when it first came out, but I never heard of it until now. I now understand why reviewers were so harsh on this movie, but I am going to look at it from modern viewpoint and an eye as a film critic. I use LGBT in this description, because it is not just about two gay guys, a lesbian couple, or something that is sexually monotoned. It has a lot of meaning for the entire sexual spectrum. Brian Salde or Maxwell Demon (John Rhys Meyers) is one of the most complex biesexual characters that I have ever viewed; through his life, I ccan understand a certain longing from birth to achieve acknowledgement. The reporter (Holy Shit! That was Christian Bale pre-American Psycho and Batman, he has talent) trying to uncover his story is equally interesting and complex; he definitely could hold a great classic in the future (beyond just the Dark Knight). Also, as a gay character slowly uncovering his sexuality through the Pop Star Brian Slade, I find this relationship intensely provocative. Also, Ewan McGregor as Kurt Wild was hot, sexy, and so damned perfect. He is a different kind of gay performance and character that you don't find in non-gay porn films. He exudes sexuality and the reason for Rock musics existence. At the end, when you see him again, you see a different more reserved man. I will get back to this change between him and Brian slade later. The story reads like a rock version of "Citizen Kane", I get their motivation and their original concept (No, it is not new or revolutionary, but it is a beautiful re-interpretation of a classic). This is not a story I can review in a straight line of logic, since it begins at the end of Brian Slade's career, then uses the flashback as told by others to recount the story, i.e. "Citizen Kane" story line or a classic Film Noir. At the beginning, you see Brian destroy his career by faking his own death, but why did he do it? What happened to him? Only one of those questions were answered in this movie, but I think that's where the film needed to answer the question. Brian Slade and Curt Wild were both guys trying to transform the world and break boundaries with their music. They wanted to make a world that creativity can be made into reality, dreams can live, and love is free. However, they overreached. While Kurt Wild could make peace with his life as a gay man and be proud of what has come since; Brian Slade could not be satisfied, leading to his self destruction. There's a lot of layers of meaning in this movie, but what does it all add up to? Alas, unlike the rock music that inspired it, it has no meaning in itself. The movie raises some good points about legends and their influence on society. The movie developed good characters with complex desires and yearnings for more in life.Christian Bale's side character's journey to find Brian Slade is a pseudo-quest to seek his own sexual fantasy (I feel the same way for a younger Matt Damon ) Yet, what does he really find behind all of these stories surrounding his teenage pop idol, nothing except more questions. However, Brian Slade is no Charles Foster Kane, there is no "Rosebud" scene or a conclusion to his story. What is missing in this movie is "joining" pieces of cinematic masterpieces. It is true that modern movies don't require connections to be considered great, like "Crash" or "Momento", but you can't just leave audiences hanging there at the end or hanging our emotions around trying to figure a character through purely introspection and soul searching. The problem in this movie is that it leaves too many open holes to interpretation, some I can understand through context, and others I am merely inferring based on my views. Is that a work of a master film maker? Perhaps, but a story with too much of everything leaves you with nothing except a lot to ponder. This is not a traditional gay film, nor is it traditional Hollywood. It is something different, but utilizes something old fashioned. I will give this a rating of 7.5 out of 10, good movie for its thought provoking material, actors, and complex plots. However, it's weakness is in the emotions that remain disjointed between moments of flashbacks, an uneventful ending, and a story of self-discovery that is never fulfilled. That's it for my review of UK movies Anyone want me to do a French, German, or Italian gay or LGBT film? I prefer Italians for humor, Germans for seriousness, and French for passion? (I might head back to South America and rate Undertow, a really good gay movie if you want to try it)

Lebron James' Essay or Ode to Cleavland had me from beginning to end. He has written an amazing essay that appeals to the heart of every fan, especially Ohioans, and even though I am a Boston Celtics supporter, I must take my hat off to his essay. Even Miami fans have to admit, he is a class act to have helped them win a few championships despite the results of this season. What do you think of his Sports Illustrated Essay to return to Cleavland? http://www.si.com/nba/2014/07/11/lebron-james-cleveland-cavaliers

Yeah, I know what you mean. 0-3, Vinegar in the wound and it looks like the thing might be infected Personally, I think the head coach needs to be fired, he is not a good leader or strategist, if he can only rely on his captain. This is a team sport.

So Brazil and Netherlands: Will Brazil redeem their horrendous loss? Or will the Dutch poor vinegar on the open wound? The Dutch already have 2 goals, but Brazil can still come back from this.

My next movie will be "Velvet Goldmine" after I finish this experimental review of something bigger than any movie. With so much hype over World War I's anniversary (1914-1918), I thought, why not review World War? It's not a gay film, nor is it practical to talk about entire conflicts with many plots and diverse characters unless you are an academic or are trying to say something big. However, as a war that reshaped Europe, changed the course of history through its subsequent and concurring revolutions, and ended the era of expanding empires (Not the end of the European Imperial age that would keep going until after World War II), it is a fascinating subject to review. My view on history is different than what people are taught in school; I don't like orthodoxy, i.e. I don't buy into the romantic notion that America's founding fathers had high dreams and hopes, banded together to sign a document in one sitting, and were enlightened gods among men. In fact, they were slaveholders, pirates, and scoundrels, who screwed over their wives for the black slave girl in their house, while proclaiming that "all men" are created equal (US did not have universal suffrage until after World War I). The idealized type of history is taught to you in school to make you a "model" citizen or forced on you by politicians to inspire patriotic fervor for them. I am realist and don't care how ugly the truth is. To be honest, Historians are no better than Catholic priests in certain respects, placing one version of history as the truth, while leaving out all the details that nullifies the heroic aspects of their version of history. For World War I, I hate how pundits and commentators gloss over reality. I will try my best to do justice to World War One that had no real heroes, despite what certain European Historians like to portray. Great Britain and France were racist unethical states that rose to power through millions of "indigenous" workers in their colonies (economic slavery by any other name). Germany was an ambitious aristocratic society that ran with nobles and a king. The US was an impudent teenager; screaming for attention, because it made some new shiny toys. Russia was still living in the middle ages, where serfdom prevailed.....I can go on to introduce more of these nations like characters in a movie, but you get my point. No one in this war was heroic. With the stage set, let's begin the review: We all have heard about the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austrian Empire. However, let me ask a simple question, why did they need to antagonize Serbia? From the politically fueled riots against Serbs to the open mobilization of forces, Austria intended to fight. Russia responded the same way, so did Germany. Great Britain had been holding an arms race with Germany for the last 3 decades prior, so they jumped on the war band wagon, too. Alliance or no alliance, this war was inevitable, because there were too many nations trying to measure their cocks with a yard stick to see who is going to be the new bottom boy (There's a gay imagery for you ) There were lots of battles, lots of dead bodies, offensives and defensive movements...however, they resulted in nothing Sure empires fell and nations rose, but the story of World War I was not written on the battlefield despite its massive losses. The war was written by its revolutionaries; the technologists that developed the modern world, the poor laborers that wanted a better life for themselves and their children, and the native peoples who wanted to believe in the dream of nationhood that this war fostered. I am not a communist, not a patriot, and not an innovator, but in this review, I see this "Great War" as their stage to shine a light on human civilization. While the costs were great, what we gained as a people was far more than nations or ideologies or technologies; we gained modernity, we gained our individuality. (To Zombie, who will likely criticize my point above, I will add an additional reminder that no great act or revolution of human beings in history is ever completed in one event. Communism was a house of cards that turned into totalitarian states, Republican principles fell into disarray in Germany, and many other nasty issues were awakened by this war as well. However none of those things mattered as much as what thoughts were created, the dream of fighting for yourself and the motivations behind modern thought came from this war, unless you want to doubt a century of history.) On the other side of the world, China, my native country, had its own move away from Dynastic rule before the war in 1912 as a Republic, which at the time was divided and factional. In the far east, the only nation that gained during this war was Japan taking colonies from Germany and annexing parts of China that were under German influence. In China, World War I has a different meaning than in the west, because of the infamous Japanese "21 Demands" on China. Popular sentiment wanted a strong national government and national presence to counter naked imperialism. There was change in the air by 1918, but here's the anti-climax. The leaders of Europe (US President Woodrow Wilson was there too, but he was relegated to second fiddle against the UK and France due to his lack of foreign policy experience) tried to roll back all the changes and ideals that had sprung up during the war. They forcibly redrew the map of Europe, Africa, and Asia without regards to what the native peoples of those places wanted. You can lay a lot of the blame for World War II on this treaty, which was rotten from the overindulgent reparations to the badly designed League of Nations. By the way, President Wilson wasn't a saint either, despite what Democrats and his biographers try to revision, he had no inclination to give "Self-determination" to racial non-white groups. He was fine with segregation and his deeply settled southern views were not as enlightened as liberal apologist have tried to evoke. This was a southern Democrat, an idealistic man who won out of a populist swing. In the end, with more than 9 million bodies, nothing seems to have changed in the world. Imperialism was still alive and kicking. Racism was still the law of the land. However, beneath the placid surface of the old order, there was change in the air. The "Lost Generation" of Hemingway, T.s Elliot, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and famed editor Gertrude Stein among many others began a new movement toward defining themselves and the world. The outrage of the treaty of Versailles not only angered Germany, but it also resulted in the nationalist "May 4th Movement" in China, which many future leaders of the future communist party would be part (A reason why communism survives to this day in China was how it began under a nationalist movement). As for all of us and World War I's impact, remember Magnus Hirschfield began the institute of Sex research in Germany in 1919 under the Weimar Republic of Germany, marking the beginnings of a movement that would bring us to GA itself. While many failures will occur, including the Paragraph 175 and the holocaust that affected many gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered people in Europe; a step forward was made, because human society was beginning to challenge itself to redefine itself. Victories and defeats ebb and flow with fortune and time, but the most enduring thing of human history is thought itself, what was created due to, by, and through the war has repercussions for all of us today. So that's the story of World War I, I could've told you about Verdun or Somme, Armenia or Belgium atrocities, but I chose to focus this review on humanity's finer points of progress rather than a war without true gains to any side or heroes. As a rating, I would give World War I as a war 0 out 10, there was no reason for it except human absurdity. There were no higher reasons for war, despite what revisionist historians want you to believe. In the end, despite knowing the world has been utterly changed, none of the nations stood up to lead mankind into the future. However, as a catalyst for reflection, I give World War I 10 out of 10, because our modern world and modern gay rights' owe a lot to it. Well, I will watch the gay themed movie "Velvet Goldmine" soon and review that movie

Agree to disagree on the impact of the Titanic, I didn't say it sank the English class system just was the death knell that as a part of a long process toward modern UK. You got to admit the large loss of life among the third class passengers was atrocious and historical records from both american/british board of inquiry did hear accounts and began changes of ship evacuation without class distinction. WWI may have been the title fight, but the disaster was the qualifier to borrow a boxing analogy. Unless you believe in all the foolish hype thar is beng spun about WWI due ro the century anniversary, nothing truly happens in a vacuum or due to one all encompassing event. (Historians sometime sound like priests peddling their Almighty truth to be tbe one thing that is important). As for imperial great britain vs. Imperial US, at least we don't use "the white man's burden" as an excuse for it, pure greed is our poison.

Alright, "English" were mean and their class system was abhorrent, does that make the scots, welsh, and certain irish folk (be glad i didn't review "borstal boy") feel better As for history, I jusy despise this period, but the film was.fine. As for the Titanic, I think the stories of crew atrocities against the third class passengers during its sinking helped raise awareness that the "English" class system had gone too far. Blocking third class exit routes, putting 1st class people in boats first, and the sheer scope of it was an important part of the eventual.collapse of such a system. As for the US, we have a different issue, we ignore the poor and underprevilege, american society does not actively disparage and treat them as subhuman unlike "English" class system.

Well Kitty cat, if you want the worst fantasy universe movie: Catwoman From Berry down to the plot and costume, plain horrible. Seriously, I wonder who in Hollywood thought up this plot and if they were on drugs the entire time; there is nothing that redeems this movie.

Ah Fuck! I forgot how I felt about this kind of movie; Victorian and Edwardian era movies are my most detested historical and geographical framework. Some people like the idea of servants and masters (No not BDSM kind alas ), a rigid class based society (Movies like this make me want to drink to my grandfather and his strident Marxist-Socialist ideology), and a society so effete that it ignores its own hypocrisy (This is the British stereotype that has existed for nearly a century). I love "Titanic", because beyond Leo and Kate's romance, ithe disastermarked the death knell of British Class based society. I hate the concept of a society that wound up in itself that you must view a certain group of people as superior to you and that inferior groups below must be intellectually limited. Yet, I can't hate this movie, because what it did to depict this period it did well. It also brought about great changes to gay rights and gay film. To add an additional piece of history to this movie, the movie was first shown in 1987, the year of my birth, but it was actually written from as far back as 1913 by E.M. Forster, who everyone remembers for his novel "A Passage to India". As a teen, I had to read his novel, "A Passage to India" as a companion book in curriculum that included "To Kill a Mockingbird" (You can guess the theme for our English class was prejudice), and I didn't really think much of it. The British Empire was long gone by 2000's, so it was just another boring book that lacked Dickensian sympathy or empathy, and had no colloquial connection of Twain. His compatriot of this age Rudyard Kipling was far more popular in this era than Forster. So basically, I felt he was a minor footnote compared to other writers. Watching this movie and learning about the novel behind it, I know he was much more important to his contemporaries and the conversation of early gay rights. I know this novel was impressive in its time, the movie was revolutionary, and many things we take for granted in gay films getting mainstream would not be possible without it (a benign look at gay relationships). Let me get into the story as I close my inner debate on this movie for now: Maurice Hall is an interesting character, who grows up with an early knowledge of sexual development. However, he is puritanical at first, expressing more Christian values and simple minded endeavors. In College, he meets up with Clive, who falls in love with him. They are friends with Lord Risley, a hedonistic party boy, who also shares homosexual interests. One day, Clive admits his love for Maurice, which changes his life forever. Behind the good Christian moralist in Maurice, he is actually longing for love with guys. Maurice climbs into Clive's room and gives him a secret kiss (a scandalous act in itself by their standards). Their relationship grows even as Maurice gets kicked out of the College for angering the dean. Then, Lord Risley is caught trying to get some action with a guy. He gets inprisoned and his life is destroyed. Clive gets scared and marries some random chick, leaving Maurice heartbroken. He seeks psychological help to cure his homosexuality that basically does nothing, except line his psychiatrist pockets after a hypnosis session. As all this is happening, a background character named Alec Scudder, one of Clive's family groundskeepers, finds himself attracted to Maurice. They have a hot and passionate sexual experience There's a misunderstanding between them, Maurice thinks he is getting blackmailed by Alec, which is untrue. Alec wants to see Maurice again before he travels to Argentina with his family, so he heads to London. They fix their misunderstandings and have another deep sex session. In the end, Alec chooses to be with Maurice despite the troubles they may face, because he truly loves him. The movie is excellent, the characters are fascinating, and the story moves well. Maurice is the religious closet case at the beginning and you see him slowly removing all the layers of social chains placed upon him under British society. After the movie's 2.5 hours, you see Maurice as a modern gay man, self assertive and welcoming to finding true love despite society's issues with his cause. That's a harder mantle to wear back in those days as he could face economic ruin, social ostracism, imprisonment, or worse. Clive is a well drawn out character, but he is Maurice's counterpoint. At first, he was the openly gay one, who proposes his love for Maurice. Then, after Lord Risley's ruin and jail time, he comes to grips that he can't beat society and despite his love for Maurice must choose a "proper" path. He marries a woman, who he may never truly love, but he has no other choice in his mind. I like this character, but hate him at the same time. He is unwilling to bare himself and Maurice under social scrutiny, but wishes to keep both his outward social image intact and Maurice as a his "platonic" boyfriend. There is no such thing as having it both ways and being happy; he is lying to himself in the worst possible way. As for Alec, he's cute in the sort of scraggy boy. Also, he represents what true love is and he is willing to do whatever it takes, despite society, to be with Maurice. He is not a wealthy landowner or a professional; he is your salt of the earth servant. There's something pure about him and redemptive in a way. I have weird theory when it comes to these three men (kind of like a trinity ) , Maurice lacked love at the start of the movie. Clive brought him love for the first time, but he is corrupted by society's rigid rules and abandons Maurice to marry a woman. Alec is the redeemer of love lost and the one that brings a true and complete love to Maurice. In a way, I think E.M. Forster was using Christian Icons against Christian values; in a sense saying, "Christianity has turned against its own fundamental nature by rejecting love for its rules". Other than that, it was a long movie at almost 2.5 hours (140 minutes so 2 hours and 20 minutes excluding deleted scenes). The side characters helped drag the story out too long for my taste with the pleasantries of English small talk. I understand subtle language and innuendos, but they just don't stop. My rating for this movie.....8.5 out of 10, I don't like the period or the ongoing draggy small talk scenes, but I respect the movie and its plot. I also respect E.M Forster more now as an adult than I did as a teen. Anyone else with a movie

I'll move across the pond for the next two reviews, since I got a request to review Maurice (haven't seen that movies in years, so I will need to go search for it) and Zombie, who rarely ever agrees with my actions , are both products of Great Britain. I will start this off with a familiar movie to almost every gay guy, "Beautiful thing" (1998). I didn't know about the play until a while later, but I have not seen it on stage sadly. This is the grandfather movie of the gay film cliches; Its impact is far reaching in my generation's films. I freely admit it, I can see lines of derivative gay teenage angst plots that were born from this movie in movies like the recent 2013 Outfest award winner "Geography Club" (I have only three words to review that movie, "Gay Breakfast Club" that is actually forgettable ). Let me recap the plot, Jamie is your quiet sensitive boy, who no one understands, and Ste is your rough and tough boy, who harbors a lot of inner turmoil from an abusive home life. Jamie's mother Sandra is an ambitious woman, who wants to open a pub, but she has issues finding love for herself. Add to the mix, Leah, basically your stereotypical black drug addicted party girl with a British accent and listens to Cass Elliot instead of 50 cent, different musical taste I guess (if the film was done in America in 1998 Boyz to Men or tupac) One night Ste gets badly beaten at home and Sandra takes him in. He sleeps in the same bed with Jamie and eventually they fall for one another. The rest of the plot is simple, Ste freaks out that he ain't gay, has a big breakup with Jamie, they make up and give in to each others' love. They face society's backlash, the mother has a test of conscience and works to accepting her son's relationship, and they live happily ever after. Watching the movie now, I find it derivative and kind of boring at times due to the dated humor, probably due to knowing the story and all the characters inside and out. True, it is a well acted and paced movie, plus the characters are very memorable. I still remember LEah's freak out. I still remember Ste's wandering around looking to find himself and accepting his sexuality. I still remember Jamie's self assertive attitude that makes him a great gay characterin my book. I remember the scenes of the run down flats, which are approximate to the American subsidized housing complexes. However, the movie's own effect on gay cinema has caught up with its quality. There's an old Chinese proverb usually associated with creating dynasties and empires, but I will use it for film making in a certain genre: "You can only create greatness once, repeating its action will diminish the successors' worth, until the depravity of the successor has ruined the original greatness before it." If you have not seen this movie before, I do recommend it. If you have seen it before, I would also recommend trying it out, because you realize something about its impact on gay films. I chose to review this movie first, because its one I know very well and I loved at one point. I still like it and I know its importance now to other films that I like, but it has lost its beauty with age. Without beauty, it merely becomes a "thing", the generic gay movie of teenage angst. I'll break the mode with this rating, but I think it's fair, I rate it 8 out 10, a good movie, worth the watch if you never seen it. Also worth a re-watch, if you want to see it again. However, it has lost something over its time as the top gay movie in the world. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 90% fresh, but I feel like this movie is "seasoned" and might be getting too ripe due to time. Maybe, I am on the rating minority of this one.

Star Trek V.....Worst star trek movie for me. Trekkies have many reasons to hate this movie, but I will just use one: Uhura's dessert fan dance. When I saw this movie as a kid on TV, it robbed my childhood innocence.

Like a gay superhero movie

You have a point, I gave the producer a passing grade out of the movies potential, not its substance. The idea was novel

Budgetary constraints I guess I am just used to gay shorts There are big Hollywood movies for gays, but I am not a Brokeback fan (Personally, if I have to give a 5 or lower rating to a movie, I'd give Brokeback Mountain a 4, I just don't want to write a really negative review).

Everyone has their favorite movies, but we also have movies we deeply despise for one reason or another. Some movies were just made to be crappy, like "Scary Movie", "Date Movie", or "Epic Movie", which I get as they are really horribly done parodies of existing movies. (Not funny anymore, but they can blame the reference material) No I am talking about really bad crappers that were made under the best intentions from the film creators and actors. My most recent worst movie comes from last year's film "The Big Wedding", This is all original material and they had De Niro, Susan Surrandon, Diane Keaton, and Robin Williams. There's bad comedy and then there's...I don't even know how to describe something that makes shit look like solid gold bricks. The acting was horrible, the jokes were plain bad, the sex com was nauseating, and what on Earth is wrong with these people, divorce has been a common thing among Catholics for decades now that's the weakest situational plot thread I have ever heard. I heard this movie was bad, the worst sex-com out there, so I wanted to give it a watch. Worst mistake ever Anyone else want to share their worst movies recently or from the past and why?

Indie productions are different than traditional Hollywood productions, I get that the time constraint and plot leakage happens. Gabe reminds me of a friend I used to know in business school, just a carefree silver spoon kid, who really had no issues or problems except smoking a joint or getting laid, because he had family connections and a nice analyst job waiting for him. A guy who thinks everything in the world is great, will find slight disturbances in the norm interesting. As for the sister, she has been hinting at it for a while that she relies on Zach too much. Even at the start, she complains that he needs to watch her son and couldn't do it without him. Having a sister, who is jetting around Australia with her boyfriend, I get that kind of mentality too. Just enjoy my life and let everyone pick up my crap mentality. Still, I can see your point, it was rushed especially towards the end. A little more building in relationships between Gabe and Zach or his sister would have been interesting. However, the story's real focus was on Zach, so he basically carried the movie for the audience (another irony)

Alright this will be my last review, unless people really like reading my critiques. The last movie I am reviewing is usually found in the top 10 lists of gay films that both heterosexual and gay audiences seem to enjoy. The American indie Film "Shelter" was made in 2007, but it holds an interesting quality about it; something nostalgic, but not dated. The best way to describe it is classy, which ironically is one of the themes of this movie that I have rarely ever scene touched upon in gay film making. (Yes, to my conservative friends, I do ascribe to class theory. Only a fool or a beverage named group would believe that poverty does not create a self-sustaining population, if given the wrong materials, like an emphasis on short term "jobs" to no where and welfare without a care for the future. However, I am not here to debate the merits of using Marxist analysis from a different viewpoint. I am here to review this movie). The plot is simple, a young man, Zach, with a sister that epitomizes California's "White Trash" and an adorable little nephew, who views him as a surrogate father, struggled to make a "living" by working odd jobs at diners and supermarkets. He has dreams and ambitions too, but he also has obligations, which pushes him down into the same social crap hole his parents were likely born into. He has an off and on girlfriend, who he emotionally supports as well. His friend use him to catch free rides to parties and he hears about how life is so simple and good for them. They're living the California dream, while he is struggling to keep his life together. Then, his best friend's older brother, Shaun, comes into town from his Hollywood life of writing and a broken relationship with a guy. Shaun and Zach grew close throughout the film culminating in a kiss between them, which challenges Zack to his own sexual needs. Zach eventually breaks into a mad rush to Shaun's home and they have wild, fun, and mutually satisfying sex with a heavy So Cal Rock theme (Rock On!). As the story unfolds, Zach must deal with his nascent sexual awakening and his re-awakened amibtion to go to college. He is a talented artist, but he fears that if he leaves, no one will take care of his nephew. Shaun and him have a heated argument over his overzealous need to provide for everyone else's happiness, but not his own, and they break up. (sobs) After some soul searching and a deep subtle conversation with his now ex-girlfriend, he realizes that he needs Shaun in his life and begins the path to self assertion. There's a happy ending in the end. Alright, my thoughts: First: Let me point out, I do think Zack is gay, not a bisexual, because Zach has a giver or provider type personality that resists selfishness that is involved in personal pursuit of happiness. In love and especially gay love, there is an understated selfishness that must be obtained or else you cannot pursue it, because the world will always have responsibilities. Zach's girlfriend understood that about him; even before he understood it himself, he did not love her, but he wanted to provide for her. He had no time to ask the deeper questions about himself, Who was he? Who does he love? and What does he want? He never considered a better life until Shaun came into it and brought his hidden urges to the surface. Zach is not a closet case in this sense, he is an overly responsible man. Second, You got to love the plot's nuances on an old theme. Self discovery is not a new idea, nor is coming out after a gay experience. The character of Zach made this movie, because seldom in gay films do you see a person so crushed by the world, not for his sexuality, but just for who he is and where he comes from. He admits he's white trash more than once, he admits to himself that he will probably amount to nothing, and he is fine with that, because he loves his family (specifically his surrogate son and nephew Cody). This movie won me over, because the character was understandable, likeable, and even engaging to think about. While Shaun is fun as the romantic interest, Zach points out exactly why they're a perfect couple in the argument that broke them up; it boils down to money. Shaun and his brother Gabe can live whatever life they want, since they were from a wealthier family. Zach struggles for everything in his life. Let's be honest here, being gay is difficult enough being a salaried drone, imagine how hard it would be as a poor guy with half a dozen jobs. When survival is more important than needs; it is harder to just walk away from everything and be a gay artist. That truth is what really carries this movie for me. Third, Let's face it, this is really our gay Cinderella story Zach is just a modern day update to a classic fairy tale, but I still love it. To be honest, I rather a contemporary Cinderella story like this, where Zach refuses his needs; even being offered the chance to ride off into the sunset with his prince, As gay authors, we too often fall back on the fairy tale "prince saves the day" story of a man just walking into someone's life, getting them to awaken their gay urges, and then runs off with him to happy American suburbia. (Ugh!) There is nothing wrong with the fairy tale formula, but you can't just rely on it. Realism is something that this movie offers. That my friends is novelty and it gives this story a lot of credibility in my book, because despite everything else, it maintains Zach as a strong character and a gay man that can be admired along with being pitied. Lastly, The music was fantastic. Modern rock is my favorite genre and this movie has it in spades. There are a few pop songs as well, but the most intense emotional scenes needed a strong rock chord, which was provided wonderfully. I personally love this movie and despite my dislike of certain aspects of Souther California from a recent visit, I will still give this movie 10 out of 10. So what do you think?

There's something so wrong about this movie...............And So wonderfully enchantingly RIGHT! The 2009 Brazillian film "From Beginning to End" or (Do Começo ao Fim) is an interesting movie with great societal lessons and character study, but I have to say that last third nearly killed the film for me. Although, genuinely a good film, it had groundbreaking greatness in it, if only they would break from conventional film making. So let's start at the beginning, two half-brothers grow up together and begin bonding over little childlike games. Their bond is intense and deep, some people begin to question the nature of this bond, even the mother. However, on some level, she accepts them and their bond with each other. She recognizes that love really has no real boundaries or guidelines as she herself has lived such a life. She eventually dies of old age (no drama, no murder plot, no thrilling issues, she just dies). The two brothers mourn the loss of their mother. After her death, the two half-brothers, now in their 20's, recognizes what they truly have as love. They have a wonderfully choreographed undressing scene that slowly peels away the stigma of familial bonds and society, then give themselves to one another in sex. After this mild "climax", the film devolves into the pedestrian gay plot line (hell, it could be any romantic plot line). One of the brother's has a chance to make the Olympics swimming team and he has to make a choice between love or his chance at fame. (Tell me if you haven't heard this before like a million times). It's a controversial film with complicated situations and even multidimensional characters; the fathers of the boys range from dislike to tolerance throughout the movie. It is not a plain derivative gay film, because the adults at least are acting like adults, no bible thumping, nor "ex-gay" therapies I was awe struck by the first 2/3rds of this movie and I genuinely wanted to be involved in these two brothers' development as lovers. They were perfectly matched couple. As for the complexities of Latin American societies views to Homosexuality, I don't know if this film is indicative of how different Americans view varying sexual preferences versus Latin American countries, but there is a stark contrast if compared to other gay movies made in the US. However, despite the new ground it breaks for m, I just can't get over the last third of the movie and how predictable it was. I mean they had everything in there, the potential feamle seductress to woo one of the lovers into her embrace (BS, if he was gay and in love with his brother, no woman could even get that close to seducing him). Another problem is the last scene, the lonely lover decide mutually that he needs his other half and races to get to him.... There was so much new ground broken in this movie, contemporary questions of love and acceptance, familial bonds, social stigmas, and even views from understanding parents. For the 2/3rds of the movie, I give it a perfect 10 out of 10, for the last third a 4 for predictable sequences, half baked soap opera plots that aren't logical under a second viewing, and a "faux" Hollywood style of film making. I have nothing against Soap operas or Hollywood conventions for movies, some of my favorite movies follow these rules, but look, the movie had set a different tone early on to be different and out there. They had a chance to explore new frontiers, but chose to go back to the same formula again. I mourn for the 2/3rd of this film that had created such marvelous potential and infinite delight to be bogged down by the last 1/3rd.. In total, as an average rating, 8 out of 10, worth a good watch, but just hold your suspension of belief towards the end. It's worth it for the first two thirds up to the mid climax, then it gets soap opera-esque. ( No link for this movie, I bought on Amazon Instant video about a year ago) Next Review....I will do Shelter (One of my favorite Gay themed movies and made me fall in love with Cali culture, until quite recently when I went to California. Still a great movie that explores another side to gay life.)

Nah, Rustie and I aren't really arguing about defining art, just coming to terms. Art really has no boundaries as far as the imagination goes, but my point was just that before you reach imagination you have conception, which in itself is an immaterial and intangible basis for all art. I just had the thought that conception itself is an art before imagination, since writers have to conceive the story first prior to the imagination of readers turning it into an art form, literature. However as others have pointed, a concept without communication or expression cannot be art.

Alright, I will make this a brief review, because going into this movie, I thought I would be in love with it. It has all the elements of a movie that I should love: cute boys, steamy love triangles, science fiction plot devices (basically Back to the Future meets DK's "Do Over" without the interesting plot points), and an ex porn star. I am not saying this was a bad film, it is an enjoyable romp about a guy meeting his past self and trying to make changes to his life for the better. However, there is a difference between just enjoying an idea and loving a movie. My pet peeve about this movie was how the entire plot is a non-sequitor floating timeline, with a few plot twists near the end. The big issue with stories like this is that if you implement a "Twilight Zone" type story, you want the characters to grow emotionally and logically through the plot. The stories growth is completely articial and based around a premise that falls apart after looking deeper into it. Has Daniel Rhys (the main character played by Sean Lockhart aka Brent Corrigan former Twin porn star) really organically learned his lesson not to fall in love with the rich millionaire playboy, who will lead him down a road of drug addiction and constant rehab? Or, has he narcissistically realized that his best interests are with a guy that truly love him and with knowledge of the future will become a famous film maker? Under all the pretty story points and good messages, there's a deep narcissism that just never ends. Also, I thought the showdown scene with the father was underwhelming and non-realistic. It is a two person scene between the father and son and it looked like a canned film school short from a gay kid struggling with daddy issues. Look I get the subtext and the overt messages between showing the film within the film and the showdown of the angst he feels towards his dad, but it fell flat. Instead of showing what I had hoped was the character change to being a more assertive human being, who would reject the Hollywood fiction and live life his own way, I got a gay kid shouting at his dad for abandoning his mom. You don't need freud to explain a basic Oedipal complex. Still, despite all its flaws and pseudo-psychological mistakes, I did enjoy the movie. It was original and the story tried to tell a simple tale that if handled better could have been a real contender. Maybe the other part of my frustration is that I am expecting way too much from Sean Lockhart's acting range, especially in this indie film. He get better in later movies, but I still see him using his porn star moves and strip teases to substitute for actual acting ability. My rating is 7/10, decent, but nothing special. It might be worth a watch if you don't mind the problems and are a fan of Sean Lockhart's body Watch it for yourself and disagree if you think I am a little too harsh http://www.hulu.com/watch/348186