Amazon.com

In Common Ground director Donna Deitch (Desert Hearts) uses three stories to explore attitudes toward homosexuality in the fictional small town of Homer, Connecticut, over a period of almost half a century. "A Friend of Dorothy's" tells the story of a girl who returns to Homer in 1954 after leaving the Navy.When it emerges that she was discharged after being arrested in a gay bar, she is ostracized by everyone except the owner of a local diner, a woman who has her own reasons for wanting to help Dorothy to escape. "M. Roberts" is set in 1974, when a gay teacher (Steven Weber) has to decide whether to jeopardize his career in order to help a troubled pupil who has been targeted by homophobic bullies. Finally, in present-day Homer, "Andy & Amos" follows the preparations for a gay wedding. While protesters gather on the town commons, Amos's father (Ed Asner) has to choose between long-held prejudices and his love for his son. Thanks to a Harvey Fierstein script that combines sexual politics with humor and believable characters, this is the most successful part of Common Ground. Ed Asner's gradual realization that his son's monogamous, long-term gay relationship is more conventional than most heterosexual marriages is deftly handled, achieving a balance between message and drama that the other stories lack.

Despite the credentials of their authors (playwrights Paula Vogel and Terrence McNally) the first two segments feel more like lectures than stories. Their impact is weakened by clumsy dialogue (Dorothy's mother actually says, "I have no daughter") and stereotypical characters. The film's message is an important one: the road to equality is built upon the struggles and sacrifices of past generations. Unfortunately Common Ground is too uneven to deliver that message with the force it deserves. --Simon Leake ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Lived this life
As an openly gay man who was routinely beaten in high school, served for eight years in the Air Force and has enjoyed a wonderful committed relationship for sixteen years - this movie rang totally true.

The kids today have no comprehension of what we suffered and how those who came before us suffered. They can't even being to comprehend that being gay once meant prison, commitment to mental institutions, being outcast, unemployable, and being open to blackmail. Our lives were on the fringe and police abuse and exploitation were the suffrance.

In the 1950's it was routine to have to pay off police - who could arrest you at any time. Vice cops routinely patrolled streets and areas where gays frequented, looking to make an arrest - on the basis of a glance held too long. Usually, the arrests meant severe beatings. The arrests usually mean the loss of a job, losing your apartment and losing your family.

This film does a good job of laying out how underground we had to be in order to survive - being a Friend of Dorothy's meant a hell of alot more, just to survive. It was in many respects our underground railroad.

Our freedoms didn't come because the hostile elements in society gave up. We have them today because every generation made the world a little bit more tolerant. Every generation pushed a little bit harder. Every generation suffered so we would have it better.

For our straight friends, this is a testament to their willingness to help us change the world and to embrace civil rights for all. Above all else, this film is a valentine and a caution to all of us that our current civil rights can be upended and we can return to the world of the 1950's.

A good collection of stories betrayed by bad filmaking
I hate to have to disagree with so many positive reviews, but I really couldn't stand this movie. If Jonathan Taylor Thomas, my personal crush, weren't in it, I'd have shut it off after the first twenty minutes. The script is awful, with scenes lending more to groans than tears, and the whole thing is just awfully trite. There is no strong message, no interesting metaphors, no aesthetically pleasing filmography...it's just a really long, really boring excuse to say "we're here, we're queer, and we're oppressed!"

But if you, like me, enjoy drooling over Jonathan, then just fastforward through the first 45 minutes and you'll be all set. It's awfully frustrating, though, to see him portray a gay character when he's not, declaredly, gay. I can only dream!

Loved it, loved it, loved it.
Great film.

However, I couldn't help but notice what an UGLY OLD HAG Margot Kidder has turned into! YIKES! I could hardly stand to look at her. LMAO

Excellent and Timely
Unforunately, this video is still very relavent today. Contrary to Mr. Diamond's comments - LGBTQ youth are still beaten and murdered today and are four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide (Mass. Youth Behavior 2000). I was harassed severely in high school and had to transfer due to physical threats. To say that youth today do not know what it was like is just plain wrong. As an active member of several queer youth organizations trust me, we know and we are grateful. But we have our own issues that maybe you are ignoring Mr. Diamond.

This movie is moving, and hey, JTT IS HOT!

Mark Snyder
20 yrs old.

One of the best
I felt this film was very well made and acted. The stories are powerful and informitive. I would buy it again if I didn't already own it. A fantastic look at the change of acceptance over about 40 years in one small town. Lots of exceptional actors doing exceptional acting. This will entertain and can be used as a learning tool that is tactful and otherwise done in very good taste. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A superior, made-for-cable film, this Home Box Office adaptation of Randy Shilts's chronicle detailing the emergence of AIDS in America and the fight against bureaucracy and society for a cure is a taut, outrageous, and affecting true-life drama. Matthew Modine (Birdy, Married to the Mob) is featured as a doctor with the Centers for Disease Control at the time when the first reports of a disease plaguing the gay community were heard. Modine and his colleagues embark on an investigation that resembles a compelling detective story as they try to track the source of the disease and discover a cure. Their efforts are thwarted by an ambivalent government and a turf war between French physicians and a celebrated American researcher (Alan Alda) who seems to place his own glory above the dead and the dying. Featuring heartfelt performances from a stellar cast including Richard Gere, Glenne Headly, Anjelica Huston, Steve Martin, Ian McKellen, Saul Rubinek, and Lily Tomlin, this impassioned film stands as an impressive and important document of one of the darkest eras in modern human history, and a tribute to the spirit of those who sought to save lives. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Pulling on your emotions
This made-for-HBO movie definitely transcends the "disease of the week" genre that it's part of. Based on the book by Randy Shilts, it chronicles the struggle of science vs. politics vs. morality in the early days of the AIDS crisis. Our point of view character is Dr. Don Francis (Matthew Modine), a passionate young scientist with the Centers for Disease Control. He and his colleagues, both at the CDC and France's Pasteur Institute, seem to be the only ones who remember that there are real people dying of this mysterious disease. Dr. Robert Gallo (Alan Alda)is one of the few human "villians" of the piece, more interested in writing himself into the history of the disease than in helping anyone. Two other notable performances are those of Lily Tomlin as the tough, no-nonsense Dr. Selma Dritz) and Ian McKellan as Congressional aide Bill Krause, who as part of San Francisco's gay community, is in the epicenter of the crisis.

Watching this movie, I got very angry. The blood banks, for example, were more worried about money than lives. One of the best scenes in the movie is where Dr. Francis stands up at a meeting and screams at reps from the blood industry, "How many dead hemophiliacs do you need?" before they do something about it. (That was a reenactment of a real outburst, not a fictional event.) An end title tells us that "By the time President Reagan made his first speech on AIDS, 25,000 people had died." Between events like these and Gallo's blatant scientific misconduct, it's hard to avoid being incensed.

The acting is excellent, especially Modine and Alda, who even look a little like the men they're playing. Modine brings an incredible amount of passion and frustration to Dr. Francis. I especially like McKellan's character, an older gay man who is not a stereotype. Several familiar character actors show up as supporting players, and some very famous faces (Steve Martin, Richard Gere, Phil Collins, Swoosie Kurtz, and Anjelica Huston) make cameo appearances.

If you're looking for something light and fluffy, this is not the movie for you. If you want something that will make you think, with some fine acting and a realistic script, this is for you. (Watch this, then go read Shilts' book.)

An eye-opener!
Having gotten poliomyelitis in 1953, I see comparisons between the two diseases. People with AIDS suffered prejudice and lack of information of how the disease is passed just like those who got polio. There was isolation and fear with both. Polio killed as did AIDS, but Polio was not necessarily a death sentence as was AIDS (at least at first). Polio children were often pitied,especially if they were crippled. But, much money was raised from the public sector by the National Foundation to pay for braces, operations, etc. The story of AIDS is as tragic as the disease itself. It is a gripping story that everyone should know. This movie shows clearly how it happened and why money was hard to get. It certainly kept my attention throughout. All the actors did a wonderful job with their respective roles. Even Alan Alda was convincing as Dr. Gallo, the researcher. (Alda was a polio survivor.) Lily Tomlin was wonderful as was Matthew Modine, and all the rest. My advise is not to watch this movie on the same day as you see Tom Hanks' "Philadelphia" (another great movie). At least for me, I can only take so much injustice in one day. I now want to read the book by Randy Shilts.

And the Band Played Good.
'And the Band Played On' is an excellent film about the true story of the discovery of the AIDS virus from the late 1970s' into the 1980s'. It has an All-Star cast that bring delight to the screen. More interesting than 'Philadelphia'.

Lies and lying liars who tell them!
I actually got this from a blog from Dean's World (Dean is a liberal) who nailed the problem with this movie:

"Reagan had an excellent record on gay rights issues--to the extent that anyone at that level of office in that day and age could be said to have such a record, anyway, since he had publicly supported gay rights measures and, while he did ally with some conservative Christian forces, never once backed any anti-gay legislation and was always personally gay-friendly. While it's true that there were things his administration could have done better about the early AIDS crisis, this is true for just about everyone in the 1980s--gay rights activists, local and national elected officials of both parties and at all levels of government--responded poorly. If any of you saw that execrable HBO movie And The Band Played On, you should be aware that it gave a horribly politically slanted accounting, but the book it was based on, And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts, was a much fairer and more damning book. Shilts would never have approved that attrocious movie. The book is must-reading, for Shilts (who was gay, lived in San Francisco, and himself eventually died of AIDS) documents in excruciating detail how local government officials, gay rights activists, judges, and career civil servants in many cases conspired to keep the plague from being recognized and to prevent government from even getting involved. Shilts was unsparing in his indictment of everyone at all levels and in both parties, and if he was sometimes harsh on the Reagan administration, he was usually even harsher with others, including gay rights activists he personally knew and who were responsible for preventing government from taking direct action to stop the plague in its tracks.

It's great reading. And a good supplement, by the way, is David Horowitz' autobiography Radical Son, because in the last half of the book Horowitz talks about how he befriended Randy Shilts and saw himself how radical left-wing gay activists fought tooth and nail to prevent government from taking any action to stop the plague or even recognize that a plague was spreading. And how gay men who tried to act against it were often attacked as liars and traitors and sellouts to "the fundamentalists." It's powerful reading.

Oh, and by the way, there is also a consistent rumor floating around parts of the gay community that the Reagan administration wanted to put AIDS victims into concentration camps. Just so you know, that too is a myth.

It's remarkable what some people think they know that simply isn't true."

What about region 4 in Australia?
I have just ordered this DVD movie thru Amazon. Unfortunately, in Australia, this movie is not available to purchase for private sale in either a DVD or VHS format. This is not the only movie that is unavailable down under, but was the first on my list to purchase thru Amazon. That says it all. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A sensitive yet humorous adaptation of the stage play, this 1970 film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) is one of the first films to openly address gay issues in a matter-of-fact style that largely avoids stereotyping. Shot on one set and featuring a birthday party as the festive setting, a group of friends assemble to celebrate, reminisce, and discuss their lives and the travails of being gay, even as one friend insists he's straight. The night turns from a light celebration to a sometimes-vindictive ordeal of revelation and betrayal, as each man in turn must confess his true feelings. Performed by the original cast of the stage production, the film may feel dated to some, but it still manages to be truthful and entertaining as it explores a subject that to this day is not often addressed. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (42)

'I don't understand any of it... I never did' ... Michael
Mart Crowley's 'The Boys in the Band' is a minor masterpiece of American cinema that was also instrumental in thrusting gay life and issues into the American mainstream.

Based upon the 1968 Off-Broadway play, this 1970 film adaption by William Friedkin retains all of the stage cast and most of the dialogue. The story is simple enough, Michael Connelly is throwing a party for his friend Harold when an old college roommate, who is presumably straight, arrives and throws the party into turmoil. Michael, who clearly has had a drinking problem, hits the bottle again as a result of the conflict. Kenneth Nelson gives a brilliant performance as Michael who is quickly unravelling with every drink and who begins to tear down his friends one by one. The party climaxes in a 'truth' game which proves oddly cathartic to everyone but Michael.

Many issues have arisen over the years with 'The Boys in the Band'. Were these men mostly stereotypes? Is this work still relevant to gay life? What does it say about where we are in light of where we've been?

Your answers to these questions may well depend on your age. For myself, when first viewing this as a 22 year old in 1987, I found it amusing but ultimately sad and upsetting. A dozen years later of being out in gay life, I have come to learn how masterful this work is and that while times have changed in many ways for the better, many of the issues that the 'boys' were dealing with back then are still being dealt with today. Issues of religious and societal intolerance and the attempt to forge a positive gay identity in an often hostile world are still very much with us today.

I believe the reason 'The Boys in the Band' is so humorous is that the camp humor of that time was largely a coping mechanism of sorts. This is black humor at its best, showing us the brutal honesty of a situation while exposing the many absurdities in it at the same time.

In the end Michael states 'I don't understand any of it, I never did.'... food for thought...

Also: Pick up a copy of '3 Plays by Mart Crowley'. The story of Michael Connelly pre and post "Boys in the Band" is powerfully explored in these two additional plays. (Read the forward 1st!)

A "Must" for all Gay Men
As a friend once put it, the first time you see it (usually in college or freshly minted out-of-the-closet) you're horrified because it is full of self-loathing queens. The second time, in your twenties or after a bit moving in the stream of gay life, you're into it because it's campy and fun. The third time, once you've been around a block more times than you can remember, you love it because it's TRUE! While certainly not to be included in any catalogue of PRIDE-ful moments (and as such was the source of great controversy in the 1970s), this is a film that touches on crucial aspects of gay identity that have remained fairly constant in the post-Stonewall period, a series of questions: sexual and emotional fidelity, pride, self-hatred, fraternal destruction, and gay friendship. Or, another way to put it and to borrow Adrienne Rich's phraseology, "lies, secrets, and silence." The telephone game is the dramatic high point of the film (don't try this at home kids, unless you're three sheets to the wind and have an old rotary phone in the garage!), underscoring the complicated histories gay men bring to their desires. For others, this is the low point of self-loathing, but I find the actors rescue the scene with tenderness and emotive power. For me, the saving grace of the film and its central message is the denouement of Harold's committment to his friendship with the hideous lush Michael, who, after suffering a night of Michael's Gin and Ton witticisms honed to a razor sharp edge while languidly flipping through "The Films of Joan Crawford" (a nice touch), and after reading him within an inch of his life, tells Michael, with real feeling, "Call you tomorrow." And who can't appreciate friendship like that? With this, the film brings to the fore the essence of gay survival, which is friendship, and for that is worthy of viewing and LOVE (and a DVD).

What I am Michael...
Exquisite movie--beautifully directed and smart acting by the cast. It's as if not more timely now than it was then.

Leading 20th Century Work
I think "Boys in the Band" is one of the best plays of the 20th century. It's far, far more than a bunch of self-hating queens camping it up. For one thing, look at how succinctly the playwright develops his characters with just one line: "Cheese it. Here comes the socialite nun!"

A better way to think about the play is as a tragedy concerning the emotional life of Michael, who exemplifies so many of killer competitor types of the 20th century.

When Harold says to Michael, "You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be," he's making a larger point that what Michael is really afraid of is his own humanity, not just being seen as a big fairy.

An Important Film on Humanity - Gay or Not
Mart Crowley will always be remembered for this gem of a film (based on the stage play) because of its evocative and dead-on treatment of humanity, particularly that of gay men.

The movie, like the stage play, is set in a New York City apartment. Seven gay men (and one gay prostitute) are going to be attending a bithday party hosted by Michael. As the film opens, we are visually introduced to the main characters. We then see Michael's smart and proper apartment and know that he is preparing for the party. Michael's weekend boyfriend Donald arrives and they talk about everything from anxiety attacks to financial woes to the effects of alcohol.

Suddenly, everything is turned on its head as Michael gets a very odd and uncharacteristic phone call from his college roommate, Alan. Alan is in town and wants to meet up with Michael, but Michael isn't sure that Alan should arrive in the middle of a birthday party for gay men. Alan breaks down and begs to see Michael. They agree on a quick drink and Michael and Donald explore how they are going to handle a straight man at a gay party.

Thinking the doorbell is Alan, Michael opens it to find that Emory, Hank and Larry have arrived. He tells them what is going on and then Bernard, another guest, arrives. Michael demands that everyone play it cool and straight while Alan is there.

As the party gets underway with appetizers and music, Michael gets a phone call from Alan expressing regrets about his breakdown and suggests they get together for lunch the next day. Michael is relieved and the party starts to flow even better.

Michael, Bernard, Emory, and Larry begin a dance routine they learned on Fire Island and don't hear the doorbell. When Hank answers the door, it isn't Harold, but Alan, who has dropped by unannounced. He sees Michael and the other men dancing and there is a grand uncomfortable moment as the party comes to a screeching halt.

Alan and Michael talk and then as Alan gets ready to leave, a fight ensued between Alan and Emory with Emory ending up with a bloody face.

The rest of the movie is a very real, very poignant look at human nature. There is an attempt to expose someone in the closet, a look at fidelity within a gay relationship, the fear of growing old and a wonderfully crafted discussion on the nature of beauty.

Although all of the actors in the film are excellent, Cliff Gorman as the effiminate Emory steals the show. (Gorman, incidentially, would go on to portray Lenny Bruce in the stage play "Lenny" and would receive high acclaim for his work only to be replaced by Dustin Hoffman for the movie version.)

What makes the film work for all mature audiences is that the character portrayals are seemless. We can all see some of our own faults in at least one of the characters.

The only drawback is that this film is not yet out on DVD, although it should be!

If you get a chance to see this film, do so. It is a very fine piece of film that deserves all the acclaim it gets. ... Read more

Reviews (72)

A look at relationships over time
There are 3 stories to this movie, with the setting being the same house for all three stories.

The first story is set in the 1950's and shows the sorrow of having to keep a lesbian relationship secret. Vanessa Redgrave's utter destruction over the death of her partner and her being unable to show the full extent of her loss. From the hospital to the gold digging relatives, no one offers her true comfort for what she has rightfully lost and she must grieve alone.

For me, the second story was the best. Set in the 1970's, it tells the story of a feminist who falls in love with a masculine dressed woman. The passion is overwhelming. There is a nude scene that really shows pure sexual passion. Michelle Williams potrayal of the feminist is a moving and wonderful thing to watch.

The final story is about 2 women trying to conceive a baby. While I'm not sure about the chemistry between Ellen DeGeneres and Sharon Stone, I do think Sharon Stone gives a tender portrayal of a loving woman. I found the watching of the children in the park to be a little creepy and unnecessary.

Even if you aren't a lesbian, just the acting and the emotions of relating to other women is worth the rental or purchase price.

Incerdibly Touching
I thought "If These Walls Could Talk 2" was great, with the great performances. Thank god for HBO, I've seen it many times on it, and it's sort of a guilty pleasure. I can't help but watch it everytime it comes on. I thought every story was very moving, with the perfect cast to pull it all off. I thought the first segment was very touching, but I couldn't really relate to it, so it was hard to really get into it. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the second and third segments. The second segment with Michelle Williams, Nia Long, and Chloe Sevigny were fantastic. It struck a chord in me, I realized how biased the world can be towards one another. I liked the irony of one lesbian being incredibly ignorant to another, because they weren't "lesbian" enough. It revealed to me how cynical we all can be. I disagree with a lot of the reviews about the third segment, I thought it was great! It was humorous and heart-felt. It is by far, Ellen DeGeneres's best performance. Sharon Stone was so comical, which the enitre movie needed. Ellen and Sharon had great chemistry, in my opinion. The seemed very believable, from the passion towards one-another, to the commitment of trying to conceive. They were a truly loving and commited couple, which I respected very much. I recommend this movie to anyone, lesbian, gay, bi, or straight, it's a terrific movie.

I fell...
in love with Chloe Sevigney (segment 2) after I saw her in this film. She's absolutely amazing. Okay, this isn't a review but I really had to add this to amazon.

If This Bathroom Could Get a Word In
I've got the pitch for IF THESE WALLS COULD TALK 3:

Pro-choice lesbians who are politically-active athiests! Cher and Sharon Stone survive a Sam Peckinpah-styled shootout when crazed religious fanatics open fire on them for helping poor confused young girls into the local abortion clinic. When Chloe Sevigny, their adopted daughter, dies in the attack, Cher and Sharon decide to instead turn their attention to removing all crosses and nativity scenes from America.
Just as the religious fanatics take aim at them at the last nativity scene, Ellen Degeneres appears as angel to stop the violence and magically transform all Americans into loving, tolerant gays and lesbians. The abortion debate essentially disappears since children must now be shipped into the States as the populations growth drops to zero.
Unfortunately, none of them now believe in God or angels, so they open fire on the angel and the entire world is destroyed in a ripping special effects climax.
You can't tell me that wouldn't be more entertaining or informative than anything in the first two WALLS films.

I had the same problem with the first WALLS film that I had with this one: drama sidestepped to make a political statement. Most of the America isn't gay or lesbian, so the film could've been more interesting by seeing reactions to the characters' lesbianism in families and work and so forth.
Instead, we see that lesbian relationships can be just as cutesy and bland as the most lame straight love stories.
The horrible injustice of the first segment could've been cleared up through a simple will.
The second was the most interesting.
The third was like watching a Hallmark card commercial at one frame per half-hour.

HBO has all the tools to make a daring, provocative film. Maybe someday they will.

honest, sweet, and relatable
i thought this was a really good movie. The third part with ellen and sharon was my favorite and the part that i identified with the most. i love the part right before the love scene when ellen asks sharon why they are watching TV. i love how sharon turns the TV off. it is so cute. i have always liked 'Thank You' by Dido but this movie made me like it even more. i didn't relate as much to the second part but thought that all the actresses did a great job. the first part was sad and i'm glad that they put that in the movie. one of my favorite movies! ... Read more

Reviews (10)

Ironic Movie
I liked the movie when I saw it in the early 80s because of the break through "love" scenes and the sports theme. Right now I'm listening to a late night talk show interview with Mariel Hemmingway! I was drawn to this site because I was looking for some info on Jodi Anderson who acts in the movie. I knew her because she worked out in my gym in the 1980s and also worked there. In reality the sports part could have been based on her. In 1980 when she was 22 she won both the pentathlon and the long jump in the Olympic trials for the boycotted Moscow games. She also represented the USA in the pentathlon in the 1984 LA Olympics but was injured and withdrew. Considering the fame (and money) that USA female track athletes achieved in 1984 and later, the boycott was a tragedy for her and the other athletes most of whom are relatively unknown.

Dated babes work up a sweat
I'm sorry I cannot agree with the majority about this movie. Maybe it's one of those 'you gotta be there to get it' things (it might have been breathtaking in the 80's) but I found this film dated and sexist. The relationship between the two girl is unconvincing and titilating. The coach/athlete thing undevelopped, inexplicable. The only good thing going for it is that it is an ok sports movie, with some nice scenes depicting training. These however were inevitable intersperced with slow motion takes of the female athletes' crotches taken from various angles, fitting for a movie heavy on the sexploitation angle. I realise that this may have been a 'breakthrough' movie, maybe depicting for the first time a pretty actress taking a leak while babbling some juvenile dribble, or helping her boyfriend hold his d...... while he takes a leak as a sign of their intimacy, but frankly, that I can do without. Perhaps the movie could have been cut down and saved but I think even then all you would be left with is a cool 'eighties' soundtrack and two girls running around a track. All I can say is at least 'Charlies Angels' wasn't pretentious!

Perfect Chemistry To Produce A Superlative Guy Movie
This film has EXACTLY the right ingredients for being one of the best Guy Flicks of all time. First, the behind-the-scenes look at athletic training techniques is incomparable. The preparation methods are highly educational, the stretching, the warm-ups, the cool-downs -- actually seeing these activities demonstrated is invaluable for aspiring athletes. Also, the details about various events were intriguing -- setting the blocks for sprinting, determining one's "pace" for high-jumping, the muscular ballet employed for the shot put. Watching Coach Scott Glenn (Urban Cowboy's "Wes Hightower") was inspirational, he obviously knew how to get the most from a team member. And the work-outs themselves were marvelous, the long runs, the hill-climbs, the post-workout massages and other physical therapy, with particular attention to specific body areas -- all of this information is extremely important for any male athlete, and should probably be viewed several times, numerous times, again and again, in order to ensure full comprehension and complete appreciation.

I Love it!
I can see why this movie is on the list of favorites. It was very moving and showed the extreme emotions that love causes. I would highly recommend it.

Personal Best?
Let's see: early on in the movie Mariel Hemmingway does a nude scene as a shy 15-year-old being seduced by the 35-year-old lesbian who got her stoned. It's not child pornography only because Ms. Hemmingway wasn't a teenager anymore; but she does look the part in part because she didn't get her implants yet.
Aren't Catholic dioceses being sued because they didn't do enough to prevent the seduction of teenagers by homosexuals? And is AOL/Time-Warner ever going to be sued by someone whose seducer used this movie as a recruiting film? ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Readers of John Berendt's bestselling novel were bound to be at least somewhat disappointed by this big-screen adaptation, but despite mixed reaction from critics and audiences, there's still plenty to admire about director Clint Eastwood's take on the material. Readers will surely miss the rich atmosphere and societal detail that Berendt brought to his "Savannah story," and the movie can only scratch the surface of Georgian history, tradition, and wealthy decadence underlying Berendt's fact-based murder mystery. Still, Eastwood maintains an assured focus on the wonderful eccentrics of Savannah, most notably a gay Savannah antiques dealer (superbly played by Kevin Spacey), who may or may not have killed his friend and alleged lover (Jude Law). John Cusack plays the Town & Country journalist who arrives in Savannah to find much more than he bargained for--including the city's legendary drag queen Lady Chablis (playing "herself")--and John Lee Hancock's smoothly adapted screenplay succeeds in bringing Berendt's characters vividly to life with plenty of flavorful dialogue. --Jeff Shannon ... Read more

Reviews (104)

Dark at "Midnight"
The echoes of Southern Gothic don't come much more gothic than "Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," Clint Eastwood's flawed adaptation of the bestselling true crime book. While the movie only dips briefly into the genteel decadence of the upper-crust South, and the general air of Savannah, it does have its fun moments and good acting.

John Kelso (John Cusack) has come to Georgia to cover the famous Christmas party of the wealthy James Williams (Kevin Spacey). As well as Williams, Kelso ends up befriending a bevy of eccentrics, including some happy-go-lucky partygoers and the Lady Chablis (played by... the Lady Chablis), a drag queen with a mischievous sense of humor.

But things go wrong after the party. Williams' employee/boyfriend Billy Carl Hanson (Jude Law) is found dead after a fight with Williams -- and Williams seems like the most likely suspect. As a not-so-pleasant trial begins, Kelso sets out to unravel the mystery of what really went on that night, and what the truth behind Hanson's death is.

The biggest flaw of "Midnight" is that it is way too short for the material it stems from -- several years and multiple trials are compressed into a matter of weeks, and many of the endearingly freaky people of Savannah are given short shrift. Only the Lady Chablis gets enough time -- the guy with the flies and poison, for example, is touched on but never dealt with.

But as far as execution goes, much of "Midnight" is quite charming -- warm, sleepy and a little overgrown, much like the vision of Savannah it shows. Even a midnight voodoo session doesn't break the mood. And Eastwood manages to give us a charming view of the eccentricities of "Gone With the Wind on mescaline." (Exhibit A: The guy walking an invisible, deceased dog)

Both Cusack and Spacey do an excellent job bringing their characters to life: Cusack always seems a little out of the current, a realistic outsider, while Spacey exudes grace, charm and a sort of apologetic pride. Jude Law, for the brief time we see him, does a good job as the redneck hellraiser. And who can forget the Lady Chablis? Chablis is pretty clearly having a wonderful time (playing herself, no less). The one cast flaw is Alison Eastwood, who doesn't seem to bother acting.

While "Midnight of Good and Evil" fails to live up to its promise, it is a charming and funny look at the deep South. Well-acted but patchily adapted, this is an amusing movie if you don't expect it to stick too closely to the book.

A timeless piece of eccentric south
I have lived in the south all my life. Watching this movie reminded me of how beautiful and special this place is. Clint Eastwood's interpretation of John Berendt's piece of literary art was splendid in its own right. It reminded me of how rich our heritage is. The music, the superb casting (no one can deny the talent of the great Kevin Spacey) and the seemingly endless parade of characters kept me enthralled from the beginning. It's not often a film can pull at my heartstrings, teach me something about tolerance and history, reveal such beauty and amuse me at the same time. The movie so moved me that I read the book. Although somewhat different, each form was intriguing. I have just returned from Savannah. I was constantly reminded of the story of Jim Williams as I walked the squares and felt the history therein. This filmed turned attention once again to a wonderful magical place, the South.

I liked this movie...
...back when it was called "The Great Gatsby!" This movie (and book) is a thinly-veiled rip-off of The Great Gatsby.

One of Eastwood's best and funniest movies
For years I put off watching this movie because of lukewarm reviews, but when I finally rented it I was delighted by its surrealistic regional irony. In fact, I was laughing out loud through much of the movie. Granted, social satire tends to rely on exaggeration and stereotype for effect, but its humor succeeds most when it portrays characters in a sympathetic rather than derisive light. This movie succeeds admirably in that regard.

One complaint is that, as with many Ron Howard or Steven Spielberg movies, a bit of sentimental shmaltz creeps in at times, for example with the voodoo priestess character. Thank heaven at least they didn't cast Whoopi Goldberg in the role.

If movies such as "Fargo", "Best in Show", and "Eyes Wide Shut" left you more puzzled than tickled, then this movie may seem as slow and inactive as some critics accuse. Other critics bemoan that it doesn't do the book justice: I have not read the book, but I do feel that the movie stands well on its own. So much so, in fact, that I immediately went to Amazon afterwards and purchased it. For me, anyway, this movie is a keeper.

Not what I expected
I read the book when it first appeared on the bestseller list, and waited for the movie, holding my breath. The book was simply wonderful and deserved it's place as number one, but sadly, the movie was lacking. But there were some good points. Part of the fun of watching this movie is sorting out the real characters from the actors. John Cusack's role as a writer for an upscale magazine was an understandable, even essential fabrication to tie the events together with some dramatic continuity. How many people noticed Cusack's sister Ann in a brief walk-on appearance? One character that stands out, and I mean really stands out is Lady Chablis. If you watch this movie for no other reason, watch it to witness this highly unusual and sometimes hilarious real life personality who as a local entertainer still resided in the Savannah, Georgia area at the time of the DVD release. Again, for such a wonderul book, the movie didn't do it justice. One can only hope that McCrae's book, "Bark of the Dogwood--A Tour of Southern Homes and Gardens" does not suffer the same fate. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

A movie that's--sadly!--still one-of-a-kind
When it was released in 1982, MAKING LOVE was publicized as the first film from a major Hollywood studio to take an honest look at homosexuality. Today, even in our more tolerant social climate, the movie remains just about the only film from a major Hollywood studio to take an honest look at homosexuality. MAKING LOVE is a compassionate, sensitive examination of one man coming to discover, and accept, that he is gay.

Zack (Michael Ontkean) and Claire (Kate Jackson) are a young, attractive and successful married couple; he is a physician and she is a television producer. They have just bought a new home and talk about having a child. But Zack begins to question his sexual identity and to close himself off from his wife. Then he meets Bart (Harry Hamlin), a sexually adventurous gay man who forces Zack to come to terms with his sexual feelings.

Although MAKING LOVE is nearly twenty years old, the only things dated about the movie are the clothing and hairstyles. There have certainly been other Hollywood movies that deal with homosexuality (PHILADELPHIA, IN AND OUT, etc.). But most of these movies seem oddly hesitant to address difficult issues or deflect them by using humor. By contrast, MAKING LOVE presents with complete honesty a man learning to accept that he is gay, along with all of the conflicted feelings and painful choices this involves.

Barry Sandler's script is outstanding. It employs a device that today has become an annoying cliche: characters sharing their inner feelings by directly addressing the camera. But in this film, the device really works, thanks to honest writing and performances.

All three lead actors are excellent, giving us portraits of believable, imperfect human beings who nonetheless try to do their best with the situation that confronts them. A special word of praise must go to Kate Jackson. Certainly Jackson's TV work (CHARLIE'S ANGELS, SCARECROW AND MRS. KING) never gave her the chance to play such an intelligent, fully-rounded character. Jackson is excellent and in a few scenes is so thoroughly convincing that she breaks your heart.

Arthur Hiller's direction is understated and eloquent. And Leonard Rosenman's musical score is superb. His score helps us to recognize the movie for what it is: a tender and bittersweet love story. For example, early on there is a scene in which Zack has a painful meeting with a cancer patient and, distraught over his inability to help her, goes cruising for a sexual partner. Rosenman's musical score helps us to see that Zack's act is not cheap or sensational but instead is an attempt by a lonely, confused man to find emotional connection.

A movie of exceptional quality, MAKING LOVE should be much better known. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for an intellegent, compassionate presentation of the many emotional issues surrounding coming to acceptance of homosexuality.

Getting to the HEART of the matter!
To say this film is still groundbreaking would be a stretch, but it still hits home. In 1982, theater goers were either exiting quickly or more wisely, staying to marvel at this film's honesty and heart and its winning performances.

Kate Jackson, Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin turn in a powerhouse effort in this Authur Hiller film about a career successful married couple, Claire and Zack Elliot (Jackson and Ontkean) who must face the reality that their union is not all it seems. After eight years of marriage, Zack's repressed homosexuality begins to surface. Enter handsome writer Bart Mcguire (Hamlin), who innocently meets Zack in the ordinary circumstance of a doctor's visit. Bart has been around the gay scene for some time, and is quite happy in his world of one night stands and conquests....or is he?

How all this unfolds is great viewing. "Making Love" has it's soap opera moments and is somewhat dated, but the performances and overall writing and direction overcome these slight flaws. Handsome Ontkean is dead on as the confused yet well intentioned Zack. Whatever spoken or written about this film hurting Ontkean's career is trivial, this remains his best work to date. Hamlin is almost distracting in a role that was obviously well researched complete with subtle mannerisms. Kate Jackson turns in one of her best yet tender performances in a film that remains a cornerstone in gay cinema.

WHERE'S THE DVD???
This movie has always held a special place in my collection. It reminds me of growing up and coming to terms with life. The performances of Kate Jackson, Michael Ontkean, Harry Hamlin and Wendy Hiller are emotionally charged. Some may say it's an outdated film, but it never fails to bring a tear to my eye when the main characters come to accept their past and how their lives have evolved. I'll never forget seeing it at the theater.
I remember when Zack and Bart kissed, some girl in the audience
laughed out loud. For me, it was a very touching moment and that laughter really bothered me at the time. Thankfully, people are more accepting of gay relationships now.
I am hoping that the studios will provide this gem on DVD soon.

Honey, I'm Gay
A silly soap opera about a young doctor, happily married to a beautiful woman who discovers that he's gay. The homosexual theme is handled gingerly and with sympathy, but the story is overly sentimental and comes off as trite and naive. The happy ending fails to touch the heart.

A worthy early effort
When released in 1982, director Arthur Hiller's "Making Love" was a bold venture for its time and critcally panned, probably more for its risky content than its acting. Between her TV gigs as one of Charlie's angels and Mrs. King to a Scarecrow, veteran actress Kate Jackson said she would have offered to pay for the role of a TV executive married to a doctor, played by former "Rookies" co-star Michael Ontkean. But with his wife so tied up with her work, husband Zak begins to explore a long-buried curiosity about a same-sex encounter. He finds it in studly writer Harry Hamlin, then a new face on the acting horizon. With his same-sex desires and preference unleashed, Zak has to come clean with wife Kate, and the climactic scene in which Zak confesses his homosexuality is carried with appropriate emotional shock by both Jackson and Ontkean. By today's standards, the film may seem dated and irrelevant, but it was hardly so at the time. A good script is bolstered by good acting and singer Roberta Flack's haunting theme song that was a chart-buster in '82. Beyond the film's obvious topic, it also renders a subtle lesson in the need for honesty. ... Read more

Amazon.com

There's a reason why Cindy Crawford was dubbed "Baby Gia" when she first hit the modeling scene. Indeed, Crawford, now the world's best-known supermodel, greatly resembled model Gia Carangi, who went from high school to the cover of British Vogue in less than two years. Carangi appeared on many more covers of Vogue (French, British, Italian, and American) and Cosmopolitan before dying of complications from AIDS (she was an IV heroin user) in 1986. Now most people recognize Carangi's name from this powerful HBO film that stars Golden Globe-winner Angelina Jolie, who comes by her talent honestly. Jolie is the daughter of veteran actor Jon Voight, and her own training as a model serves her well--she has the moves. Throughout, she's heartbreaking--as no doubt the real Carangi was--effective, and stunning.

With good source material (Stephen Fried's A Thing of Beauty: The Tragedy of Supermodel Gia), Jolie's stunning performance, and strong directing by Michael Cristofer, the movie goes beyond the merely sensational. The script was cowritten by Cristofer and novelist Jay McInerney, whose Bright Lights, Big City covers similar territory. As a cautionary tale, Gia works. But to watch Jolie in her character's tragic self-destruction is utterly compelling. --N.F. Mendoza ... Read more

Reviews (197)

Powerful film based on a powerful personality!
I have to imagine that the toughest films to pull off are the ones on the verge of cliche-dom; a familiar premise that still manages to flawlessly hook you. 'Gia' covers much trodden ground. By now, it's a natural stereotype- the model who blows her looks, her career and her youthful optimism on drugs.

If the premise is so well known, how did 'Gia' avoid the E True Hollywood Movie trap? Angelina Jolie was simply too convincing, the directing was simply too unique and the script was too crafty. This film avoided the averageness of countless other 'drug films' simply by painting a mosaic so raw, that you couldn't help but love, hate, cringe at and root for Gia at the same time. The film, while letting you glimpse into the insecurities and motivations of our tragic hero, consistently pushed her just out of reach so as to keep us puzzled and curious. All said and done, though, Jolie and the gang have created a flawless work of tragic art.

The only reason not to give it 5 stars is that as most movies based on life stories, it is a bit anti-climactic and unbalanced. With most plots, the writers are at liberty to create an upward story with a clear climax and this film simply didn't have it. It slid up and down, high and low, mirroring Gia's confusion. Although it didn't detract from the film's emotion- believe me, it still comes through- it just left the film feeling a bit muddled.

two terrific performances
I am also a big fan of Angelina Jolie and try to see every film she is in. I am so glad that her career is really going like gangbusters. But I like Gia primarily because it introduced me to the incredible Elizabeth Mitchell. I agree with the other reviewers that Elizabeth was overlooked for her touching performance as Linda. I bought the unrated version in the hopes that more scenes featuring Elizabeth would be included. The interaction between Angelina and Elizabeth is what makes the movie interesting for me and is the reason I still watch the film. I do wish that the film had dealt more with their relationship, how they interacted on a daily basis, but I understand that the filmmakers had a lot of territory to cover. I would recommend the film for both these talented actresses performances. And for those of you interested in other projects that Elizabeth is featured in, check out the films Frequency, Molly and Nurse Betty.

Hello, Baby
Gia is a knockout, daring film. It tells the true story of the rise and fall of 80's supermodel Gia Carrangi. Many reviewers have said they never heard of Gia until the movie. In the cruel fashion world, Gia was forgotten as fast as she became famous. Not one person from the fashion industry attended her funeral. The man who wrote the book on which this film was based also coined the term 'fashionista' for his book. The word has since become a staple in the English language.

Angelina Jolie was made for this role; she deserved the awards and recognition she received for it. If this film had been made for theaters rather than HBO, she should have won an Oscar.

In Gia, Gia/Jolie is the sun, and all the other characters revolve around her. From her inauspicious beginnings in New York City to her photo shoots all over the world, Gia desperately seeks that which she was denied as a child - love. The tragedy is that once she finally finds love, Gia is so scarred emotionally and from drugs, that she is unable to accept it. Mercedes Ruel gives a masterful, subtle performance as Gia's self-centered mother who abandoned her daughter when she was 11.

The drugs, glamor, and glitz of the 80's fashion world are portrayed in both gritty and glamorous fashion. One of the most striking scenes is when Gia is dressed for a photo shoot as a geisha in a red dress. This scene is so riveting and well done I watched it a dozen times. She is standing in a gritty alley with red paper lanterns hanging over the concrete. The whole scene is surreal, and is a great portrayal of Gia's life and of the 80's.

Jolie keeps nothing inside for this performance. She is naked, both physically and emotionally. And the jazz soundtrack is captivating and mesmerizing. In fact, I am seeking to purchase just the soundtrack.

Here's what you probably want to know...
1. You want to buy it, so get the unrated version, rather
than the 'R' rated one, cos it has more nudity.
2. Angelina Jolie is a total knock-out in this film.
3. Yes, she does get naked - quite a bit in fact.
4. Yes, there's a 'scene' with another girl.
5. There's one stand out line in this film from Angelina: "'I gotta go', 'I gotta go'. Where the #### does everyone go when they've gotta go?"
6. Great movie, you will definitely want this if you're a fan.

The best movie I ever seen...
This movie is so strong,and as i watched i felt like I was there,like I knew the characters,and it will make you cry,such a sad story.I have seen the movie a few times and each time it breaks my heart.Angelina Jolie is an amazing actress. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jeremy Irons gives another superb and underrated performance in M Butterfly, an elegant adaptation of the Broadway hit by playwrightDavid Henry Hwang. Irons plays a French diplomat in China in 1964 whofalls in love with a star of the Beijing Opera, not realizing that theentrancing performer holds secrets that will ruin his life--that thesinger is a spy for the Communist government is only the beginning of thediplomat's troubles. Though M Butterfly may seem like a departurefor director David Cronenberg (best known for horror and science fictionflicks like The Fly and Scanners), the themes of desireand self-deception fit comfortably into his oeuvre, alongside hisadaptations of difficult novels like Naked Lunch and Crash.M Butterfly, like the more popular movie The Crying Game, isa cunning examination of love and denial. Also featuring John Lone (TheLast Emperor). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more

Description

Set in L.A. over the course of one crazy day,this film surveys the emotional and sexual turmoil experienced by a multiracial, pan-sexual group of adolescents. ... Read more

Reviews (71)

Beverly Hills 90210 on acid? Sounds about right.
I bought this movie from a clearence sale at this video store. I had never seen it before, but I thought I'd really like it because there are a million people in the movie that I love. Plus, I thought, if I really hated it I could return it.
So, I watch it. And I end up loving it. I gave it four stars because all of the [...] scenes between Heather Graham and Ryan Phillippe got on my nerves. Other than that, it had a great script, great acting, great characters, it was just full of perfection.

The thing I loved about it the most: It's not an average movie. It's dark, and extremely unusual. Gregg Araki is now one of my favorite writers and directors (along with Tim Burton and Darren Stein).
Another thing that was great: You can understand where the characters are coming from, and they cover practically every teenager type from the late 90's. Valley girls, goths, geeks, everyone! It's realisitc in some sense (You know, besides the aliens).
Seriously, I have a lot more appreciation to most of the cast members: Kathleen Robertson, Jordan Ladd, Christina Applegate, Rachel True (Even though I liked all of them before) and this movie introduced me to James Duval, who is a very good actor, and had a great character who I could really relate to.
Oh! Another thing about this movie: The bright colors. I was really distracted by them. From the color of the val chicks dresses, to Lucifer's hair.
The val chick scene was probably one of the most exagerrated scenes in movie history, which made it classic.
See it! I don't recommend it to everyone, but I do recommend it to people who have ever felt confused ,or misunderstood about life, love, and more than anything: death.

Creative...interesting...whatev...
When I first saw "Trainspotting," I thought THAT was a messed up movie that was good because of its accurate portrayal of heroin addicts and the fact that it do so was a gutsy move...which was another reason it was good. I personally feel that movies should take chances and challenge the viewers' mettle for watching, no matter how blatant or unnecessary it may seem. There is something to be said for a subtle message portrayed through the worst possible plot, script, acting, etc...it shows a willingness to accept the ridiculousness of the world in which we live. Gregg Araki has never failed to push the envelope to an extreme that sickens most people, sometimes especially the people who like his films. And I have to say...I LIKE this film. "Nowhere," for all of its colorful characters, and its unique penchant for not showing real life, but showing life through the eyes and perceptions of some really screwed up teenagers is a courageous endeavor for any writer/director, particularly one who hasn't been a teenager for two decades. I mean, Araki is in his '40's (I think), and somehow he has done what practically every other adult in the world hasn't...he hasn't forgotten what it's like to be a disgruntled, confused, self-destructive teenager on a drug trip. It shows in his writing. The plot follows the events of a day in the life of these L.A. teenagers, which ranges from typical relationship issues (interesting to note is that almost every character in this movie is bi- or homo-sexual, an issue that pops up in almost every Araki film), drug addictions, suicides, car-jacking from local skinhead gangbangers, muscle-bound drag queens, and even a few alien abductions. Sounds like a regular day to me. The script is so campy that it's actually unnoticeable that these people are using words like "gnarly" and "radical," (among other colorful composite words and metaphors) years after that language went out of style...or maybe it hasn't...it is L.A. and I've only been there once. Some philosophies thrown in either from the main character, or from the Teen Idol, or from the televangelist also add to the pathetic existentialist message this film sarcastically conveys, yet it also makes fun of those messages, just out of the film's sheer anarchic idiocy. It's actually humorous that the film can mock these messages and still get them across. Even the characters' names are pretty silly. Dark, Moses Helper, Cowboy, Lucifer, Egg, Ducky, Ski, Zero, Handjob, Jujyfruit, etc...but like the language, the names go unnoticed. Araki's direction and his script somehow derive a great deal of strength from its weaknesses. It's a film that's so bad that it actually becomes good because of it. However, this film is not for everybody. The eroticism of the film is bound to offend and annoy, ranging from interracial, bi- and homo-sexual, masturbation, piercings, bondage, and rape. While some of it is shown in a somewhat "normal" fashion, there is a splendid level of depravity surrounding these situations, and yet it is also important to note the level of nudity is kept very minimal. "Whatev..." I think this movie is innovative and has a level of genius behind it. Not for everyone, but certainly for people who need a kickstart in the chokehold that is life. I also recommend the two previous films "All F**ked Up," and "The Doom Generation," both of which are even harder to watch than this one (hey, both had to have material cut to achieve an "R" rating...that says it all).

Best movie ever ever ever ever
ok first of all the people that rated this movie low are probly hicks for south werever or nerds that never get out. This movie hits right at home here in cailiforia. this movie is so great on so many levels. with lots of hidden meanings. even the alien him self is a hidden meaning. i think over all i still dont get this movie . even I have seen about 6 times. this movie deals with struggling teens dark or(james duval)just wants to be loved. people have to rember when this movie was made and how many rules it acutaly broke. it took alot of guts for gregg araki to do what he did in this movie...people !don't take this movie so seriously... after all it is a inde film. it does have messages. I see were gregg was coming from. with all these issues that he put in this movie he desided to do what he Did
just watch this movie more then once!!! best ending ever !

pondering
I don't even know why I saw this movie. The Doom Generation is, in my opinion, the worst movie ever made (and I'm not the only one who believes this I can assure you). so why did I see Nowhere? Well I figuired that a director couldn't get it so completely wrong more than once. I was wrong. I'm trying hard to figuire out why so many people like this movie, it has so many scenes that are put in for shock factor that are just stupid. I really don't want to see a guys nipples ripped off. Oh, by the way this movie doesn't say anything about teenagers, I should know, I STILL AM ONE!. Yes I am 17 and I have never felt or experienced half of the things seen in this movie. So many adults want to make their teen years seem so dramatic that I think that some of them acctually believe that they really were like that. If you really want to see a good movie about growing up and the hell that it can be go check out KIDS. now that is a wake up call of a movie.

resist at all cause
thought this was gonna be a good movie..by the way it looked...though you dont always get what you want...this is truly...junk...nothing good is in this movie. the big watsed cast include... Greg Araki's Doom Generation and Totally F**ked Up pal James DuVal(The Doom Generation) who bares his ass then anyone in this movie..we got Rachel True(the Craft), Nathan Bexton(Psycho Beach Party), Chiara Mastrioanni, Debi Mazar(Shes So Loevly), Kathleen Robertson(Psycho Beach Party), Joshua Gibran Mayweather, Jordan Ladd, Christina Applegate(Tv's Jesse), John Ritter(Bad Santa), Traci Lords(Blade), Shannen Doherty(Heathers), Rose McGowan(Scream), Sarah Lassez, Guillermo Diaz(Half-Baked), Jeremy Jordan, Alan Boyce, Jaason Simmons, Ryan Phillippe(Little Boy Blue), Heather Graham(From Hell), Scott Caan(Black and White), Thyme Lewis, Mean Suvari(Spun), Beverly, D'Angelo(Summer Catch), David Leisure(tv's Empty Nest), Eve Plumb, Denise Richards(Valentine), Teresa Hill, Kevin Light, Christopher Knight, Gibby Haynes, Devon Odessa and Stacy Keanan(tvs Step By Step)....they are all wasted in this movie..big dissapointment...Araki's worst movie ever..this is doomed and totally **cked up...literally..though seeing Rose McGowan as a valley girl in hot braces is nice..this movie is stupid ... Read more

Reviews (60)

Oscars for Wilde
There can only be one explanation for why this movie wasn't revered and esteemed world over. Society really hasn't changed that much since the times portrayed in 'Wilde.' But this isn't supposed to be a social commentary, but a grand ovation for what is, in my opinion, one of the best movies ever. To begin with, the performances of Stephen Fry and Jude Law are really quite extrordinary. Stephen Fry, in particular, manages not only to look unnervingly like Oscar Wilde, but to embody the wonderful (and complicated) character to an uncanny extent. I applaud Jude Law as well for choosing movies like this instead of (or perhaps as well as ^_^) the normal Hollywood teen fare. He really does give a frighteningly good performance, manic depressive to the core. Jennifer Ehle is also very good in the understated but understanding role of Wilde's wife. All in all, I was really blown away by this movie. Not only is it an incredible tribute to Wilde's wit, but also to his life, to the "love that dare not speak its name" and how it is as true and wonderful a love as any other. Sometimes painful, always powerful, Wilde is a rare gem.

Beautiful, you will want to visit Paris...
In WILDE, Stephen Fry (Jeeves in "Jeeves and Wooster") is the consummate Wilde. Jude Law plays his lover Bosie Douglas. Jennifer Ehle (Elizabeth Bennett in "Pride and Predjudice") plays Wilde's long suffering wife. Vanessa Redgrave and Tom Wilkinson also have important roles. What a cast.

The Belle Epoch is beautifully recreated as Wilde travels between England and France--clothes, interiors, architecture, grounds. You don't even have to understand the story to enjoy "being there" in the parks, homes, carrriages.

Oscar Wilde was a writer, best remembered perhaps for "The Portrait of Dorian Grey" although modern audiences may be more familiar with his stage play "The Ideal Husband" (recently made into a film with Jeremy Northern and Cate Blanchett) or "The Importance of Being Earnest."

Wilde was a homosexual in England in an age when one could and did go to prison for acting on instinct. (Nowadays in Saudia Arabia they take off your head.) Although the public became aware of his proclivities, Wilde remained one of Europe's most admired writers. Unfortunately, his term in prison for his sexual preferences may be remembered longer than his works which contain a wonderful drawing room humor many folks fail to grasp. This is a great film, and if you're an Anglophile you must add it to your collection. -- And Paris?? That's where Oscar is buried.

A well-made depiction of Wilde's life
Wilde is a beautifully made film, and I agree with the other customer reviews that found it an impressive portrait of the writer's life. As an expert on Wilde myself (I am writing my master's thesis on him) I would like to comment on some of the objections raised to its handling of his life by scholars and critics. Several scholars whose comments on the film I have read (they know who they are) have pointed out its factual inaccuracies, and have complained about its emphasis on Wilde's love life rather than his literary career. Admittedly, if the viewer wants a more scrupulous account of Wilde's life than is given by this film, she/he would be better off reading Ellmann's biography, on which the film is rather loosely based. Artistic liberties aside, I think we would all agree that the sight of a man making love is more dramatically interesting than the sight of him writing; the film's depiction of Wilde's intimate experiences, speculative as they are, serve to give us additional insight into who he was and the emotions that drove him. The film's greatest strength is its depiction of the neurotic relationship between Wilde and Douglas, which helps the viewer to understand how Wilde got into the jam he did.
I'm sure nobody can complain about the performances in the film, which are dead on, especially that of Stephen Fry in the title role; unlike many actors portraying famous people he not only acts as Wilde must have acted but looks quite like him, which adds to the film's feeling of verisimilitude. Unfortunately, since we don't have a DVD player yet, this review is based on my copy of the video. Hopefully, I'll be able to get the DVD later to examine the extras.

Stephen Fry's memorable performance as the tragic Oscar
My introduction to Oscar Wilde consisted of three disparate sources. First, I read "The Importance of Being Earnest," the wittiest play ever written in the English language. Second, there was Monty Python's Oscar Wilde sketch, where Wilde, James McNeil Whistler and George Bernard Shaw force each other to turn insults into compliments for the Prince of Wales. Third, there was the "Masterpiece Theater" mini-series "Lillie," in which Peter Egan played Wilde and where for the first time I heard the speech from Wilde's court case where he explains "the love that dare not speak its name." It is one of the most unforgettable declarations from the docket in human history and I think I just about have it memorized because it was really burned into my mind the first time I heard it.

When I watched "Wilde," my knowledge and understanding of Oscar Wilde was extended in several key ways. In playing the title role actor Stephen Fry makes Wilde seem less the dandy and more the kindly man he must have been to be put in the situation that caused his down fall. In contrast, Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law), known as "Bosie," might be beautiful of face but it is most decidedly skin deep. He is an ugly human being and when Wilde does what he does out of the goodness of his heart, the tragedy that it is for somebody who does not deserve it. I had not really thought much of Bosie before, but after watching "Wilde" I consider him a most despicable figure. Wilde was in prison within three months after the opening of "The Importance of Being Earnest," and the thought of what has been lost to literature and drama is rather sickening. It is only in the film's final scene that for the first time I found myself thinking of Oscar Wilde as a pathetic figure, and again it was because of Bosie.

I had long appreciated the irony that despite his homosexuality Wilde truly loved his wife Constance (Jennifer Ehle), but in Julian Mitchell's screenplay, based on Richard Ellmann's noted biography, I learn an even greater irony with regards to Wilde's downfall, namely that his physical relationship with Bosie had been of short duration and that they were not lovers at the time of the libel suit involving the Marquess of Queensberry (Tom Wilkinson). In that regard this 1997 film enhances the tragic aspects of the story. Of course, the essence of the tragedy is articulated by Wilde himself, who declares: "In this life there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants. The other is getting it."

Beautiful looking and sounding, and heartbreaking as well
This movie is everything about why I love the courageous, crisp, brainy and brilliant British media. Stephen Fry is a gem who could recite the phone book and turn it into a soliloquy on the cruelty of human history. His voice is marvelous, and he rolls his consonants around in his mouth like Jordan almonds -- all without affectation, somehow. Wilde's many quips and epigrams drop out of his mouth without the slightest artificiality, natural and thoughtless as dew rolling off a leaf. Jude Law's Bosie is terrifyingly unstable, and his beauty serves only to throw his instability into high relief. You can't take your eyes off of him while he's on screen at the same time you want to turn away and skitter under the cabinets to stop watching.

The rest of the supporting cast is magnificent (if only the American film industry permitted its great actresses to work past the age of 40, we might boast such luminaries as Vanessa Redgrave and Zoe Wanamaker someday as well as Helen Mirren and Judi Dench!), the directing is flawless, the costumes and set design stunning but never overstated. All of it is used only to support the story, and as beautiful as it all is, it never pulls you out of the story or distracts you, only providing a seamless and textured foundation for the action.

I admit, I'm somewhat amused at the reviewers who imagine that this film shouldn't have concentrated so much on Wilde's sexuality. This is the story of him as much his work -- and his work at any rate was quite informed by his sexuality, nebulous at best during a time when anything but rigid adherence to a particularly joyless version of heterosexuality was a sin and a crime. Beautiful as this film is (and delicious as it is to see so many gorgeous young British men running around au naturel), it breaks your heart with the realization that happiness and fulfillment in life, as well as success and self-respect, can be so profoundly influenced by nothing more significant than the year in which one was born. In a hundred years, what will people be saying about the great women, gays and lesbians, and other minorities who lived in our time? ... Read more

Reviews (14)

COVERING NEW TERRITORY
'Female Perversions' is a difficult film to enjoy. It's confronting, cold, claustrophobic and on the whole disconcerting. But if you're the kind of viewer who enjoys being challenged, and appreciates films that don't pander to the lowest common denominator, then you'll love this. At last a film that reveals how patriarchy operates! Not simply by pitting women against men, but by pitting women against each other. Tough questions of intimacy between women are raised and explored in all sorts of ways: between sisters, between lovers, between a mother and a daughter.

The presence of Tilda Swinton in any film is enough of a recommendation for me - if you're not already a fan, then this could be the film to convert you. She manages to guide the viewer into some pretty dark territory - oftentimes very surreal - but it's a compassionate and uncompromising performance.

I wouldn't say this film is for everyone, nor does it qualify as 'light entertainment'. But I do think this is an important film that both men and women will appreciate. But be warned, if ever a film had a adult themes, it's this one: the adult world is revealed in all its ambivalent glory here, so keep this vid for after the kids have gone to bed.