For want of a good editor...
This film is about a young man, David, who flies into Spokane, Wash., to attend his brother's wedding. There, he meets James. James knows David is gay, but James also doesn't fit well into the married brother's clique of friends. The two get to know each other, and then David suggests they go smoke some weed in James' car.
Under the influence, James inquires nervously about "how fags do it." The conversation is one almost any gay man has heard, and it provokes a lot of laughter from the audience. James' homo-curiosity is more than obvious, but he is unwilling to run with it.
David hijacks the poor schlub, and off they go to a local strip joint. After several hours fondling female strippers' boobs and pouring money down the drain, they head back to David's hotel. David is about to call it a night, when James hugs him friendly-like. Only, there's "a moment." They kiss. David takes James to his hotel room.
Here, the film finally falls apart. For more than 15 minutes, David gently and gradually seduces James by playing straight porn on his hotel room TV, getting the hunky straight stud drunk, kissing him, removing his shirt and pants, and then fellating him and putting a condom on him. James doesn't feel comfortable actually having sex, however, so the two men masturbate. The next morning, James sneaks out.
The lighting was so extremely poor throughout that it was nearly impossible to see anything going on in the truck or the hotel room. At one point, as the two naked men are getting it on, an audience member shouted, "Turn up the contrast!" No kidding: A filmmaker who teases the audience by purposefully keeping the lighting crappy so as to hide the nudity of his two actors is engaged in the worse kind of audience-manipulation. Either be honest and keep a strategically placed thigh or bedsheet over the genitalia, or be honest and show full-frontal nudity. Don't cheat.
But in the end, the real flaw with this movie is that there's no reason for it to exist. Is the movie saying something about closeted straight men? Or the nature of gay-straight hook-ups? Are we supposed to care about James, or David for that matter? Other than pure voyeurism, is there any reason why we should be watching this?
I don't think so, and for that reason the film fails pretty badly.
This film is about a young man, David, who flies into Spokane, Wash., to attend his brother's wedding. There, he meets James. James knows David is gay, but James also doesn't fit well into the married brother's clique of friends. The two get to know each other, and then David suggests they go smoke some weed in James' car.
Under the influence, James inquires nervously about "how fags do it." The conversation is one almost any gay man has heard, and it provokes a lot of laughter from the audience. James' homo-curiosity is more than obvious, but he is unwilling to run with it.
David hijacks the poor schlub, and off they go to a local strip joint. After several hours fondling female strippers' boobs and pouring money down the drain, they head back to David's hotel. David is about to call it a night, when James hugs him friendly-like. Only, there's "a moment." They kiss. David takes James to his hotel room.
Here, the film finally falls apart. For more than 15 minutes, David gently and gradually seduces James by playing straight porn on his hotel room TV, getting the hunky straight stud drunk, kissing him, removing his shirt and pants, and then fellating him and putting a condom on him. James doesn't feel comfortable actually having sex, however, so the two men masturbate. The next morning, James sneaks out.
The lighting was so extremely poor throughout that it was nearly impossible to see anything going on in the truck or the hotel room. At one point, as the two naked men are getting it on, an audience member shouted, "Turn up the contrast!" No kidding: A filmmaker who teases the audience by purposefully keeping the lighting crappy so as to hide the nudity of his two actors is engaged in the worse kind of audience-manipulation. Either be honest and keep a strategically placed thigh or bedsheet over the genitalia, or be honest and show full-frontal nudity. Don't cheat.
But in the end, the real flaw with this movie is that there's no reason for it to exist. Is the movie saying something about closeted straight men? Or the nature of gay-straight hook-ups? Are we supposed to care about James, or David for that matter? Other than pure voyeurism, is there any reason why we should be watching this?
I don't think so, and for that reason the film fails pretty badly.