WAR OF THE WORLDS (1953)

War of the Worlds is probably one of (if not the) first sci-fi event movies. It's the Independence Day of its era. There's a lot to like about the movie, and for the most part it holds up extremely well. It's hard to imagine how completely flippin' old this movie is when you consider that it was originally released more than half a century ago. Something about that fact just does not compute. I remember seeing this on t.v. as a kid and being impressed more than I ever was with Godzilla movies, which I actually enjoyed more...it was just that the aliens in this movie were so menacing, and I remember wondering how they made everything look so real. Well, now that I'm an old middle-aged fart living in the age of CGI, the efx in this movie aren't quite as impressive today...but when you consider this flick on its own terms and in the context of when it was made and released, you can't help but be totally blown away.

The first thing to know about the movie is that it clearly signals to its audience the cold war gender roles of the 50s. Now, as you can probably tell from this cap, the film was made in the early 50s, which means the 40s are still a heavy influence. Look at that unsuspecting crowd noticing what looks like a meteor as it falls from the sky and lands in a fiery blast of light just over the first hill on the horizon outside of town. There isn't a juvenile delinquent among them, no rock-n-roll influence, no black people. (There is, to be fair, a latino, which is a step in the right direction). This movie is telegraphing a new society that is post WWII, Cold War, Christian (notice the priest) conformist culture. An idealized conformist culture under attack by EVIL ALIENS!!!
I imagine the character of Sylvia Van Buren must have been cringe-inducing to the many women who had worked during the war years only to be forced back into the kitchen and motherhood once their husbands returned and the war was over. Even though she's got an advanced degree, she spends the movie either (when she's being productive) praising the male characters, serving coffee and donuts, or (when she's not being productive) fainting, screaming and having hysterics. Now, not to bag on the actress that plays Sylvia, she does a great job. It's just that Sylvia is most definitely a woman of the 50s: no femme fatale, no gritty know it all, none of that 40s b.s. Like I said it's all about the new conformism, and Sylvia conforms quite perfectly.

Believe it or not, there is a QUEER QUOTIENT in this film and if you blink you'll miss it. It's at the beginning, right before the crowd outside the theater reacts to the falling meteorite. Look at that big hunk of early 50s man working the marquee! Look at the ass on that guy! Not to mention the legs just itching to burst out of those painted-on jeans. YUM!
Here's the hapless trio of volunteers who are charged with keeping an eye on the smoldering rock overnight, who decide that, once the rock opens up and an alien being comes out, that being friendly is the best way to respond. Comic relief abounds. One guy says, "What do you say to an alien from another planet?" or something to that effect, to which the other guy replies "Welcome to California." The commentary comes in handy during moments like these to shet some light on how impressive, scary and spectacular this movie was in its day. Joe Dante (director of Gremlins) provides commentary along with some older guys who saw the film upon its initial release when they were like 12, the perfect age for boys to see a movie like this.

Of course, we all know what happens when those peace-loving, tree-hugging, commie pacifist namby-pambies try to make nice with the alien invaders: THEY GET DISINTEGRATED by the ALIEN HEAT RAY! Let the attack begin!
The attack sequences are still pretty impressive even if you can tell they're done with miniatures. Still, even in this age of CGI perfection, it's fun to watch a movie like this made so long ago and see what a great job they did of pulling off such visual illusions. The commentary, again, comes in handy in explaining how they made those death rays shoot out, how big the space ships were, etc. Remember, this is 1953. These efx, while dated, are certainly nothing to sneeze at and are quite impressive and deserving of admiration.
Unfortunately, somehow in the digital transfer and stuff, the contrast is different and in some scenes you can clearly see the strings holding up the spaceships, even though according to the commentary they were not visible on the film when the movie played in theaters.
But onto some of the more successful efx. Here's a general getting zapped and disintegrated by one of the mysterious green SKELETON BEAMS that shoot out of the alien ships.

Here's a tasty breakfast Sylvia manages to whip up while she and the hot scientist she's got a crush on hide out in an abandoned house. Of course, bacon and eggs are the perfect relief when the end of the world happens! In fact, I'll just take the bacon, thanks, that'll be enough for me. And I don't need the end of the world to happen. I'll just take the bacon. Please.
Oh, but damn! Before bacon can be consumed, another of those pesky alien meteorites nearly destroys the house, trapping Sylvia and the hot scientist inside. Again, an impressive effect for its time and for several decades after, IMO.
Then there's the whole "beat the clock" portion of the flick, where humanity tries to figure out how to beat the aliens once they (humanity) have realized that conventional weapons don't work. Here they've hooked up a camera and monitor to a severed alien eye/anal probe thingy, and so they get to "see what the aliens see." It's a cheesy scene that borders on the psychedelic but you can just imagine how hi-tech it must have seemed at the time.

And here's the money shot, that of L.A. City Hall being blasted to smithereens. Didn't I tell ya it's just like Independence Day? Except no African Americans. None. We've come a long way!

At the end of the day, humanity is saved when the aliens dare to try destroying a church in downtown L.A. were our protagonists have managed to reunite after a long, horrific separation. As the heterosexual couple embraces inside the church, and as the alien beings aim their deadly weapons, something...MIRACULUOUS happens. All of a sudden, the aliens succumb to GERMS and they all simultaneously die. Humanity, heterosexuality and cold-war conformity are all SAVED by the implied hand of a Christian God, who apparently has all the other religions of the world under his umbrella of safety as well.
There's also a gorgeous shot of the building I work in, which is always fun for me. Being the old War Dept. Building in L.A. it tends to pop up in films from back then and it's always a thrill to see it. I think I'll start a collection of screen caps from old movies, just to see how many I can collect.

Overall, this movie is a classic sci-fi popcorn blockbuster event and it's definitely worth watching on a Saturday afternoon when you have no errands to run and nothing else you feel like doing but sitting around in your undies, eating popcorn, forsaking the gym and vedging out. The commentary track is definitely worth checking out if you are a film buff, sci-fi fan, or some other geek who likes to hear other people discuss a movie as you watch it with them. There's also a well-made documentary that is typical of its kind...not exactly ground-breaking, but you do get to see many of the film's leads and production staff and hear a lot of anectdotes about acting in the movie, and how they made the special effects, and reactions to the film at the time it was released. Hey, if you've read this far, renting this flick if probably a no-brainer. Or you can buy it for $6.99. There's not really anything wrong with it. It's perfect, distinctly American, crowd-pleasing sci-fi popcorn fare from another era. And how can you pass up a chance to experience Sylvia's many hysterical outbursts?

DR. JEKYLL & MR. HYDE (1931)

Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde (1931) is a dazzling gem from old Hollywood that surprised me in so many exciting ways. It's one of those stories that is so embedded in our cultural history that you just assume you know everything there is to know about it. What I didn't know was how sophisticated this movie is, both in content and execution. Frederic March plays the title role, for which he won an Oscar, so that gives you a sense of the prestige the film had at the time. The director is Rouben Mamoulian, someone I never heard of but will definitely make a point of investigating. (It turns out I have seen one of his other films and enjoyed it: Blood and Sand starring Tyrone Power). Of course, the story is about a respected gentleman who, constrained by the social mores of Victorian society, decides that the only way to rid oneself of one's inner "nasty" urges is to bring them out, and then let them go. Conveniently, he is a doctor who has discovered a potion that he believes will do just that.Now, Dr. Jekyll is engaged to a beautiful, prim, respectable, rich girl and they love each other dearly. He's pressuring her to marry him right away despite her father's insistence that they wait for several months. The sexual tension is apparent in their first scene together, or, at least Jekyll's sexual tension is apparent. The subtext here is that he wants to have sex with her ASAP, and screw convention and screw her father, and he does a good job of trying to talk her into it. Of course, her virtue is stronger than his lust, and eventually wins out. The early scenes in the movie are so idyllic and stylized, the characters so noble and virtuous, and it's a great set up. It's beautiful, but it's also suffocating.

Another fabulous discovery I made watching this movie is an actress by the name of Miriam Hopkins, who plays a low class wench who's all too willing to provide sexual company in exchange for some money. Dr. Jekyll saves her from her brutish boyfriend, and she proceeds to seduce him in the first of several fantastic scenes these two have together. This movie is post Hays Code, so the overt sexual behavior and symbolism in this scene is quite a surprise. On the commentary you find out that much of it was excised for many years in subsequent releases of the film, and even upon its initial release in certain parts of the country. This is the scene in which Dr. Jekyll's inner demon is summoned, and unfortunately for the seductive summoner (Ivy is her character's name), the demon doesn't forget her.

Mamoulian used a lot of symbolism and directing techniques that frankly I had no idea were in existence at the time this film was made. Think about it: this film was shot just after the stock market crash of '29 during the Great Depression. It was practically the 20s, as the 30s had just started. And yet, this director is using techniques I thought were invented by the likes of Jonathan Demme, Hitchcock and Brian DePalma. The cap above is one example, which happens right after Jekyll and his colleague leave Ivy's apartment. As they leave, she whispers to Jekyll "Come back!" in a seductive whisper as she dangles her bare leg over the side of the bed. The men leave, continue walking down the street, discuss the business of keeping onseself respectable, and all the while her voice continues to whisper its invitation, and the image of her dangling leg never leaves the screen. The men have left her apartment, but she hasn't left their heads.

Another interesting technique the director uses is that of a subjective camera. The first time we see both Jekyll and Hyde, we see them as reflections of themselves in mirrors. Mirrors, as a matter of fact, figure prominently throughout the movie. It really is an interesting (not to mention effective) method of making the viewer identify with both the good and evil personas of the main character.

Another interesting aspect of this film is that Hyde is not a monster, as I had always assumed, but a man. He's just a man who is not constrained by the social and moral rules of society. So when he first makes his transformations, he is presented as an almost comical figure, not a monster. He's like a big kid acting out on his impulses without restraint. And this, at first, isn't scary. This part of the movie also delivers one of its best elements: the acting fireworks that goes on between March and Hopkins. Hyde tracks her down and meets her on her own turf (a tavern), where he basically overpowers her and makes her his own. The verbal and physical sparring between the two is a sight to behold. On the commentary track you learn that Hopkins was quite the diva, hated by the likes of Bette Davis and tons of other actors of her era due to her tendency to upstage everyone else. She's amazing in this flick, however, and the energy between her and March is electric.

One quick note about these subjective shots of characters looking directly into the camera at various points throughout the film to convey a wide range of emotions. I thought Demme used it to great effect in Philadephia as a way to make the viewer feel the pain of homophobia and prejudice face to face. Here, it's used to much greater effect because of the wide range of emotions the actors show you: fear, seduction, love, lust, it's all here.

Eventually, Ivy becomes Hyde's kept woman in an apartment in SoHo. This cap is great for showing how, even though he becomes uglier and more wild with each transformation, so does he become more vain and cocky. I can't say enough about the acting dynamic between these two actors in every scene they share. There are about 5 or 6 of them and they are all magnificent to behold. This film really belongs to these two characters, and specifically, to these two actors.

Mamoulian also makes use of the split screen throughout the film to highlight the dual nature of Jekyll/Hyde and the compartmentalization of his life as his two selves live out their roles. Of course, what happens is that, once Hyde is let out, Jekyll loses control of him and the two lives threaten to collide. I, as a gay man (and I doubt I'm alone in this), can definitely relate to this aspect of the story. But it's men in general who feel this type of duality, which I find interesting. I wonder if women just don't, as a rule, deal with the same type of issues of needing to control their inner wild animal, or if as a society we're just taught (and therefore assume) that it isn't an issue for them. Note that the women are not having any struggle with who they are: the virgin and the whore are separate characters who never try to escape their assigned roles. It's the men who talk about the struggle, and it's Jekyll/Hyde who acts it out. And yet, it's the women who come to represent each side of the male's identity.

This cap is from March's and Hopkins' final scene together, and it's amazing: melodramatic and brutal, it's when Hyde's emotions and instincts boil over into something beyond human. There have already been allusions to the sadistic sexual nature of Hyde and we know by this point that Ivy suffers at his hands as he satiates his perverse desires. Nevertheless, even though she's a bad girl, we've come to empathize with her and it's sad to see her demise.Going back to the idea of the women representing the male's indentities, it's interesting that the male decides to destroy that which represents his wicked self rather than the actual wicked self...

This flick is a really great rental. The commentary by Greg Mank is informative and entertaining, not just about the film but about the actors and the era. The 1941 version of the film starring Spencer Tracy is also on the disc, and it's sadly inferior in almost every way (in spite of its stellar cast, which includes Ingrid Bergman as Ivy and Lana Turner as Jekyll's virtuous fiancee). The gem here is the 1931 version, and it's certainly a sight to behold. It includes restored scenes that were thought to have been lost for decades (which you'll only know about if you listen to the commentary). Considering that this film is nearly a century old, it's amazing how well it holds up and still resonates. Aside from the obvious theatricality of it and the slower pacing of the era, it's an outstanding movie and I highly recommend it.

EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978).

There is SO MUCH going on in this film that I don't even know where to begin. Eyes of Laura Mars is an oft-maligned Faye Dunaway vehicle from the late 70s that holds up extremely well in spite of its flaws. It's a melodramatic mystery thriller about a famous fashion photographer/provacateur (Laura Mars, played by Dunaway) whose inner circle is systematically murdered by an icepick wielding maniac. Mars has visions of each murder and can "see" them as they occur through the killer's eyes. Suspects abound, Dunaway overacts within an inch of her life, and romance blossoms amidst all of the chaos. As a straight up thriller, it's debatable whether or not it succeeds or fails. But as a piece of filmmaking, as a tour de force for its actors, as a wildly careening melodrama, and as a time capsule of a bygone era, it is an amazing piece of work well worth watching...over and over again.

Try to imagine a world before cable tv, before Project Runway, before (gasp!) America's Next Top Model (Tyra Banks was most likely pooping her diapers and eating her own boogers when this movie came out). Imagine me, a young impressionable 12 year old gay boy staying up late on weekends to watch R-rated movies on ON TV (the precursor to HBO-if you need an explanation, do your own research, but it's worth checking out)...movies I barely understood such as Midnight Express, Luna and Equus...titillating at times, yes, but just as often quite disturbing and confusing, to say the least. This was a time when the fashion industry was a mysterious netherworld populated by barely human grown-ups who didn't move in the same reality as any of the ones in the suburbia I lived in.
The focal point of the film is Faye Dunaway, and it's to her credit that she manages to hold your attention amid all of the other things going on. She looks fabulous...except for those teeth. My God, the teeth! Teeth have changed, that's for sure. We're living in much-improved teeth times. Back to the film. Expertly shot in New York City, and seething with models, murders, nudity, cityscapes and loud disco music, the movie comes close at times to instigating sensory overload. The confident direction by Irvin Kershner (who went on to direct The Empire Strikes Back) masterfully switches between calm, frivolity, suspense and chaos to keep the viewer interested and just a bit on edge. Dunaway took this role right after winning her Best Actress Oscar for Network, so she was at her career high point. But her intensity and acting style is definitely a throwback to the 1950s and 60s, at least in this flick. Dunaway Acts in this flick, capital A. Watching her performance, you can kind of see Mommie Dearest lurking around the next corner, even if Faye obviously didn't. Her acting isn't terrible, it's just about 3 decibles higher than the rest of the cast. Her performance in this flick elevates it closer to a level of camp that it otherwise wouldn't be at if starring a more understated actress.

It may be difficult to imagine, but the subject matter of Dunaway's photo art in the film was considered so outrageous at the time as to be unrealistic. This movie was definitely ahead of its time in that respect. I also remember thinking that the models (such as the one in the first picture above) surely weren't acting like real models...but now, after seasons of ANTM and PW, I know that is exactly how they behave. The flick is aware of itself as a commentary not only on society's consumption of sex and violence (one of the movie's sly messages is that this is where we're headed, using tits and guns to sell perfume--another seemingly unrealistic aspect at the time that has come to fruition in subsequent years) but of the media's fascination with said subject matter and its role in delivering it to the public, even while it complains about its existence. Many of the photos used were taken by Helmut Newton.

One of the funnest parts of the film is the make-believe fashion shoot set pieces that punctuate the film. Again, I keep coming back to this, but while still over the top, they were completely outrageous at the time the film was released and a few steps beyond the imaginable at the time. Now, I could totally see this as a challenge on ANTM, with the judges critiquing the aspiring models' peformances the whole time. (She's just LYING there, I'm really getting no sense of WHO SHE IS). The above shoot was filmed on location in Columbus Circle during rush hour over 4 days, so there's great crowd reaction shots that go along with it. It must have been a lot of fun (and a lot fo work) to shoot.

There's another photo shoot sequence that takes place in a warehouse as a classic disco song called "Let's All Chant" plays on the soundtrack. That song, by the way, was big in the clubs, but not on the radio, another example of this films off the chart hip quotient. It's an amazing sequence, and I've only used one photo from it (above). I enjoy this movie so much on a visual level, and I've done all these screen caps, but don't want to use too many. This could be one of the first movies to continually use contemporary songs on its soundtrack to enhance the scenes or add to the mood. I think American Graffiti used the same technique with old tunes, but this film (minus its thriller elements) is clearly the precursor to 80s music-imbued films like Top Gun, Flashdance and Footloose.

Just to get back to how old this movie is, I remember being utterly FASCINATED and ENTHRALLED when Laura Mars explains to Detective/Love Interest Neville (well-played by a young, fit, but not quite hot Tommy Lee Jones) how her visions occur, using a video camera and a monitor to illustrate her point. It was so high tech! WOW! I got all excited just seeing that scene, it seemed like a whole new era was upon us. Little did I know that the video era was right around the corner. This scene also leads us to the most clunky and awkward portion of the film: the budding romance between Mars and Detective Neville. I won't go too deeply into it because in the long run it serves its purpose, but boy...very much a square peg in a circle hole. Weird and not all that convincing. But it doesn't ruin the film, just adds to its camp quotient.

Here's a shot of Dunaway and a young Raul Julia, who plays her alcoholic man-whore of an ex-husband, and the prime suspect in the murders. He's trouble all right, and it's somewhat shocking to see him so young and healthy looking. One of the best aspects of this film is the male characters that surround Faye's: her ex-husband, the detective, her manager, her driver...she's surrounded by strong male characters, and yet she distrusts all of them to a certain degree. She obviously derives comfort from their strength, but she is threatened by it as well. It's an interesting feminist subtext to the film that isn't ever really explored in any depth, but I noticed it and I like it.

And finally, last but not least, the Queer Quotient. What would a film about high fashion be without a token gay character? In this film, it's an amazing actor by the name of Rene Auberjonois who plays Donald Phelps, Mars' manager. He's actually a great character, especially considering this is the mid to late 1970s. But then, it's totally pre-AIDS, pre-Moral Majority conservative backlash, so this was kind of a step toward treating gay characters with respect. He's a strong, no-nonsense, take no bullshit character, and I have always remembered him. The cap above is from a scene in which a black cop starts to tease him for being gay, asking him to give him a little bit of that (wink wink) Rona Barrett (if you don't know who Rona Barett is, go do your homework). Donald replies, without missing a beat, "Frankly (wink wink), I don't do Rona Barrett!" It's very empowering and funny, and quite refreshing especially considering the era from which it came.This final cap is a scene from Donald's birthday bash, which takes place in his somewhat creepy apartment with a collection of somewhat creepy guests...but no Village People! You know, us gay people, we like our birthdays. Those our OUR days, after surviving another year of putting up with the world's b.s. Donald plays a pivotal role throughout the movie, and unfortunately doesn't make it through to the end, but then, neither does hardly anyone else, so you can't really take it as anti-gay. Ultimately, it's a very gay-positive role, quite possibly the best of its time up to that point.

Overall, this film is a wonder. I enjoy it immensely for lots of different reasons, obviously, hence the long post and many screen caps. Bottom line is: as a thriller/mystery, it's pretty good but not great. As a time capsule, as a piece of filmmaking with amazing set design, stunning New York backdrops, and quite a bit of overacting from Ms. Dunaway, which ultimately raises the camp factor to a level of enjoyability that makes it a more fun gay viewing, it's fabulous. The Director's Commentary is thoughtful and informative, highly recommended on a second viewing.

THE MORNING AFTER (1986)

I was excited to receive The Morning After from Netflix. I remember the Los Angeles setting as being one of the best parts of the film and was eager to see it in all its full color widescreen glory on dvd. The main attraction is Jane Fonda's performance which, as is often the case, rises above the material. Her turn as an aging, alcoholic almost-actress is flawless, and it's the one thing about the movie that is above reproach. The film also stars Jeff Bridges, looking rather fair-skinned and beefy as a racist ex-cop who befriends Jane's character after she wakes up one morning in some dead guy's bed with blood all over the place and no memory of how she got there or what transpired the night before. Shades of the Blue Gardenia, anyone? Why yes, now that you mention it...





Ok, so, where to begin? The film has its strengths: Jane's performance is amazing. She's washed up, bleached out, and yes, aerobicized to nothing but bone and sinew, but we can kind of buy it as she's supposed to be a woman who eats nothing but booze. The film's got some comic moments, chief among them a scene in an airport where she's trying to b.s. her way onto a booked flight, which she delivers expertly. She also does a fantastic job at playing an obnoxious self-pitying drunk. There are scenes where she sort of turns on the Bridges character in that mean, goading way that drunks do. It's like, I dare ya to hit me because I'm so obnoxious and drunk. I dare ya!

Jane's chemistry with Bridges is good. They play off each other well and he sort of just lets her do her thing, which is what codependents do when their pet drunk is in the room. Bridges plays this ex-cop from Bakersfield who drops casual racial epithets like "spade" and "beaner" in what looks like an effort to make the audience find him charming. Of course, Jane's character is miffed at the prejudice he spits out, but then, she's just a drunk with her own prejudices, against gays, who appear to be the only fans her character has left. Ultimately, this is a film populated by talented actors who, no matter how good a job they do, can't save this film from being anything else than the giant turd that it is.

What becomes apparent as this film progresses is that, despite its 80s kitsch value (scenes in downtown L.A. loft apartements and Beverly Hills hair salons are wonderfully gawdy in that way only movies from the 80s can be), as a thriller it really sucks. Sidney Lumet just really sucked at directing this movie, and he really sucks at the commentary as well. To hear him drone on about how hard it is to make a good suspense movie is almost laughable. After admitting at the outset that he hasn't watched the film in years (always a bad sign on a commentary track...shouldn't you be prepared?) he then at one point says "Let's just watch this scene play out because Jane is so wonderful in it." Yeah, I already did that you moron, the commentary track is for talking. He's like 100 years old and totally clueless. Sometimes he talks about directing. He thinks he's doing something unique by giving us shots like this one (above), framed just so, with lots of competing colors because that's what L.A. is to him. Ok. But that was probably the camera operator guy who framed that shot, not the director. Other than Mr. Lumet being an incredibly boring old windbag, the story is really bad and unbelievable: the way it unfolds, the fact that Bridges even takes an interest in Fonda's character is kind of beyond reality and they never bother to try explaining it in any meaningful way.

At another point on the commentary, Lumet talks about how great he thinks the score is. Which is funny. Because it's really bad. When it's not "suspense music" it's really sappy soft jazz at moments where Jane's character is being humanized, such as when she gushes over Bridges' Nancy Drew collection, or when Bridges makes her an impromptu candle light dinner. It's used in a very 70s way in this decidedly 80s movie. Ultimately, Jane's character gets back to herself by, what else, getting her hair done. By her estranged husband played by Raul Julia (another great actor in this ridiculously bad film), who's a hairdresser...who's actually trying to frame Jane for the dead guy's murder. Like Jane's bleached hair in the opening shot, this film's a washed up dried out mess. In my book it doesn't even deserve to be a guilty pleasure, which makes me sad cauz I kinda thought it was until I watched it again.

But now let me get to the Queer Quotient. I think the biggest bummer about it is the outright homophobia in the film. The 80s were not an easy decade for gays, and movies like this (i.e. by the big studios) didn't make it any easier.

The morning she wakes up next to a dead guy, she manages to have a good laugh on the phone with her husband when he tells her she pissed off a potential employer by calling her "A dyke. A greasy diesel dyke." Jane laughs, then says "Why would I say that?" "Because she is one. But you have to say it?" Yuk Yuk. I must balance this dialogue with one that was actually a bit empowering on its face: a detective questioning Raul's character at his salon says (about the salon): "It's a great place for a stud...or are you a fag, Jackie?" Jackie (Raul's character) walks up into the detective's personal space and replies: "How bad do you wanna know?" Which shuts that cop right up, and would be kick ass from a gay perspective if Raul's character was gay, but he's not...because a gay would never challenge a straight like that. I don't know, bad gay juju all around in this flick. This film is typical of many from the era in that it goes out of it's way to throw in homophobic dialogue and negative gay stereotypes.

Here's Bruce Vilanch, who's aparently been a shapeless amoeba with bad hair for at least the past 25 years, in a brief turn as a swishy bartender who cashes a check on Thanksgiving day for Jane's character in a gay bar populated by a couple of Village People.Here's one of the Jane character's gays in his God-awful bedroom, nursing a hangover and talking about the fabulous party he threw last night.

Here's an example of the decor in his apartment. Very tasteful and cosmopolitan!

Oh, and did I forget to mention that he's a drag queen? Jane's character needs a new set of clothes and that's why she's there. He offers some comic relief which isn't all that bad in itself, but this whole sequence took me back to being like 20 years old and not knowing how I was supposed to be a man and be gay and I was trying to figure it out and then I'd see a movie like this and it was like so offensive and upsetting. It's like, no, that's not what I am. But is that what I'm supposed to be? Very confusing. In a completely unexpected way, this film took me back (emotionally and mentally and - thank God - temporarily) to a state of confusion and turmoil from my young adult life that I am so thankful to have survived. It also made me kind of mad at the people who made this shit. I suppose you could argue that visibility is better than nothing, but I don't know...I just don't know if this kind of visibility serves any purpose other than reinforcing negative stereotypes. Thank God for movies like Parting Glances, which came out the same year, were far and few between, but were a big help. The gays in this flick are very comforting to the straights of the world, and could be campy fun today to the gays, but since I was there at the time, I don't find them amusing. But maybe that's just me being a humorless jerk!

Anyway, all in all: watchable. Acting good. Direction and story not so much. Director's commentary: Zzzzzzzzzzzz. 80s kitsch factor is huge, but overall...it's a dud.

THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL (2008)

There's nothing like a well-made Eurocentric costume drama to make me get my gay on. I'm not sure what the connection is, but when it works, I'm putty in the hands of whomever happens to be closest to me. The Other Boleyn Girl far exceeded my expectations and I enjoyed it immensely. I'm a sucker for these flicks when they're done well: Elizabeth, Girl With a Pearl Earring, Wuthering Heights, Sense and Sensibility, Shakespeare In Love...I could go on and on, but won't. Let's just get down to it, shall we?

One of the most enjoyable things about this flick is Eric Bana as Henry VIII. I don't know what's in the water down under, but in my next life I'd better be there to enjoy the results. Bana is a prime specimen of New Zealand man, and I never get tired of looking at him or listening to him talk. What's so great about this role is that he really plays up the arrogance and sense of entitlement of a king, particularly Henry VIII, sort of the King of Kings if you ask me, and he pulls it off perfectly, which is very attractive. Not just any man could do that, you know. Imagine Henry VIII as a young, hot, virile man, before he went all Marlon Brando trying to satiate all his manly appetites. ::Sigh:: Thankfully, we are treated to a sex scene wherein he takes his shirt off, which causes much strain on the Pause button, in my house anyway. But enough about me and my obsessions. Let's move on.

Natalie Portman was actually fantastic in this flick. I sat through the execrable Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones for the sake of my young nephew, and was not impressed with her turn as Princess Abadalamaba, or whatever. When I rented Closer, I could tell she had talent, but at times she appeared to be in over her head in that one: while her stripping scene with Clive Owen was genius, the scenes where she cried and played sad were pretty bad. I sort of chalk it up to her just not having the life experience to play the role. But in this flick she's totally on the mark. She is a bona-fide adult actress (albeit a young one) and I think she'll probably be around for quite a while. Kudos to Natalie!

Scarlett Johansson does her wounded naif routine to great effect, but there are no surprises in her performance. It's a great performance, but we've already seen it. But look at that fabulous dress! This film is full of them!

Speaking of dresses, as you might have guessed, another fabulous element of the film is the costumes. And the set design. OH MY GOD, it's like, almost too much. Many scenes were staged like paintings and it was just a feast for the eyes. Add in all the drama going on and it's a regular festival of juicy high stakes political/sexual intrigue. BTW, Kristin Scott Thomas (above) deserves a mention as the wisened mother of the Boleyn girls, who must sit back and watch the train wreck of what was once her family, powerless to stop it because her idiot husband is the boss. Oh yes, there's also quite the feminist angle in this movie. I think it's another reason I love it so much, as a gay man, because you get to see how the "powerless" women had to maneuver and manipulate things to get what they wanted, and how it didn't always work out the way they intended, and that sometimes the consequences were hella high.

Overall, it's a great rental. The extras are good, if you're into that stuff. There are a couple of documentaries that are interesting, one about the making of and one about the position of women in the Tudor era, both interesting. The Extras are generous and fairly interesting. The film itself, while not exactly packing the dramatic punch of Elizabeth, still delivers on its own merits and is well worth the time to watch it. A job very well done by all involved!