|
|
Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild goes wildly off-trackIn Another Gay Sequel: Gays Gone Wild, the boys are competing to see who can have the most number of sexual partners in one week. Since this is unlike any heterosexual teen sex comedy I’ve ever seen, the satirical possibilities are immediately limited. Then again, this is really more of a backdrop than a plot.
Brent Corrigan (left) & Jonah Blechman Nico can’t get laid until he discovers the beauty of watersports? Huh? A subplot that has committed boyfriends Griff and Jarod trying to deal first with monogamy, and then with a committed-by-play-together-type arrangement could have been interesting, but instead it goes the superglue-in-the-lube route. Less vomit and fecal matter and more heart, please. Truthfully, Another Gay Sequel depressed me a little. I’m all for a good, cheap romp now and then, but the sex in this movie — and there’s a lot of it — didn’t look fun. It looked either disgusting or pathetic. I appreciate that the filmmakers threw in a condom here and there, but in an age when HIV infection rates are spiking among young people, a contest to see who can have the most sexual partners in a week? Really? And everything ends it a total “corn-hole” orgy with people having forty or more partners in one night? There’s some talk about commitment tacked on the end, but this is contradicted by every other frame in the film, and by the resolution to Nico’s whole storyline.
The Lady Bunny At one point, there’s a dream sequence in a bathhouse where a character is stalked by the dead, decaying corpses of every person he’s ever had sex with. It’s not supposed to be a reference to AIDS, but I’m baffled how a gay man in 2008 could interpret it any other way. And for me, that’s really not funny. I know, I know, it’s a teen sex comedy, it’s supposed to be silly, and it’s supposed to be crude. I really wanted to laugh, and I did laugh some of the time. But now, thinking back on this movie just makes me feel sad--and I suspect that isn't quite the feeling the filmmakers were hoping for.
Submitted by on Wed, 2008-08-20 21:42.  Here's Where "The Jaspers" Comes From!Submitted by
David Ehrenstein (7805 points) (1725 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 08:00. I loved the first oneSubmitted by
Joseph (7150 points) (1457 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 09:04.But, then, I love shock comedy, so I suspect I might like this one, too. Check out my blog: http://radicalsexy.blogspot.com/  Respectfully DisagreeSubmitted by
MirrorMaster (5 points) (1 post) on Thu, 2008-08-21 10:48.Brent I have to respectfully disagree with you. You say: "the boys are competing to see who can have the most number of sexual partners in one week. Since this is unlike any heterosexual teen sex comedy I’ve ever seen, the satirical possibilities are immediately limited. " Maybe you grew up in Latvia - but in the US of A - EVERY teen comedy is about getting laid. Perhaps those small flicks like Porky's, 16 Candles, American Pie, and the always classic Losin It didn't play at the cineplex in your town. But trust this gay boy - they involved plenty of sex sex sex....Maybe AGS isn't up there with those classics - but we should certainly be honest in the fact that it doesn't really chart out new territory in the world of lewd of crude movie behavior. And...while some of the humor was not my cup of tea, I did find the movie to be sweet, cute, and a generally honest and affectionate tale about young gay love. I'm not so old that I remember being a college kid - and wanting to sit, suck, or slam every dink that got within 5 feet of me. Our gay culture has moved a long way since the dark days of The Boys In The Band - and I think movies like this (however crass0 celebrity our freedom and sexual identities. Plus the boys are cute too.
 I agree with you that everySubmitted by
 I agree with you that every teen sex comedy is about guys wanting to have sex--I thought I said that, that that's the plot since time immemorial? But usually its sex with one or two girls (there might be a sub-plot where one character is really slutty, but that's never the main character). But the whole point of this movie is that each character is trying to have sex with as many people as possible...in a week. The veers pretty widely from every teen sexy comedy I've seen, so it seemed to me like that fundamental plot choice immediately limited the satirical properties.
Interesting that you mention THE BOYS IN THE BAND, because that's kinda how this movie made me feel: depressed. But I'm glad you were able to find something you liked.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes All you needed to say wasSubmitted by
the herald (1075 points) (281 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 12:44."It’s not as good as the first one."
That bar was very, very low as it was. I'll catch the "highlights" on youtube. I wish I'd said that!Submitted by
This is TOTALLY a YouTube movie. All the funny stuff will be posted there.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes  Why is it automaticallySubmitted by
YankeeMate (75 points) (19 posts) on Thu, 2008-08-21 14:51.Why is it automatically assumed that the actors who didn't reprise their roles from the first film are 'taken to task for not playing gay two films in a role' rather than being commended for having the foresight to avoid a bad role in a poor film?
This is a good pointSubmitted by
Although the director did tell me they had signed for the movie, then pulled out right before filming after consultations with their managements. But yeah, maybe their managements said, "This is a lousy script--don't do it." Anyway that's based on what the director specifically told me--but it may not actually be true.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes  Seems to me if you had readSubmitted by
duckiestoy (1340 points) (296 posts) on Fri, 2008-08-22 03:38.Seems to me if you had read the script and managing any of those actors you would've told them to RUN.
Your review is offensive, uneducated and "wildly off track"Submitted by
gayfilmgoer (5 points) (1 post) on Tue, 2008-09-02 07:57.Offensive: Don't assume that just because someone looks like "dead, decaying corpses" that they have AIDS. That is sooo wrong and hurtful to people living with the disease. Further, to assume that there none of us could draw any different conclusion than you is to assume that no one is else is any better educated than you are. Uneducated: If ever you have been to a bathhouse you know that there are "zombies" there. People who practically live there, eat very little (if at all) and are tweaked out most of the time and do look like the "living dead" and yes they tend to be "stalkers". Wildly off track: To try and find heart to a movie that is a get-laid follow up to a get laid movie that involved fisting and "belgian chocolate" is wildly off track. I loved "Another Gay Sequel" so nice that the gay community can have movies that are just about fun and getting laid, just like straight people do. It's about time that we can embrace movies like this without having to prove a greater truth to ourselves or our community. I agree with you, to anSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-02 10:28.I agree with you, to an extent. It does seem that we are holding gay movies to different standards. For every gay stinker, there are 50 non-gay ones. And, I think that we are much less forgiving of bad, fluff gay films than we are of non-gay stinkers. Even so, I think that this discussion is sort of a catch-22. Yes, we are too hard on gay films at times, BUT what incentive does a bigger studio have to support gay filmmaking if we are producing empty, raunch like this? There are so few gay films made and produced that it's a bit disheartening that we can only come up with something like this. Evaluating this film for what it is, I agree with your final point. Looking at the bigger picture of gay cinema, I think that this film was a step back, not forward. In this current drought of quality gay offerings, we need to take a few more steps forward before we step back.
I don't mind "empty and raunchy"Submitted by
the herald (1075 points) (281 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-02 10:53.There's enough gay movies out there that we can now cover all genres. What I do mind is poorly wriiten and unfunny, which is what Another Gay Movie was, and I'm sure this one is too.
Huh?Submitted by
Um, yeah, it's really such a reach for me to see a scene set in a bathhouse where a guy is chased by the dead zombies of every man he's ever had sex with...and to see a connection to AIDS there. Hurtful to people with the disease? I honestly don't see how, unless we all pretend that the hundreds of thousands of people who died in the last twenty years (some of whom were my friends) didn't die. I didn't say that everyone with HIV dies--obviously they don't anymore. But I saw a depressing HIV/AIDS connection in that scene, which the filmmakers clearly didn't, and that left me totally baffled. But I guess it's nice that you agree with me that this movie has no heart.
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes  Another Gay Movie *DID* have heartSubmitted by
RJ (3032 points) (649 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-02 20:01.The scenes referencing fisting and Belgian chocolate were more funny than gross, imo. Plus, that was only a small part of the movie and really intended as a sight gag. Each of the 4 leads went on mini journeys of discovery. Griff and Jarod realizing they were meant for each other was the heart-warming moment of the film. "There's enough gay moviesSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-02 13:29."There's enough gay movies out there that we can now cover all genres." I don't know. My list of 10 best gay films includes only 1 American film. I don't think that we've produced a considerable amount of quality films or at least enough to say, hey if they can make "Disaster Movie", I can make "another gay sequel". Or, if you want to see a good gay film, rent a foreign one. We may have enough to "cover all genres" but I don't think that we have enough to cover them well. This film had no ambition and I find that to be the case in a lot of the more recent gay films that I've seen. Im not sure if your listSubmitted by
the herald (1075 points) (281 posts) on Tue, 2008-09-02 18:56.is some kind of accurate tool to be used as evidence of gay movie quality. I personally wouldn't mind better made movies period, both gay and straight, but I would never be so presumptuous to tell a filmmaker what genre to make his or her film in.
"You would never be soSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-02 20:37."You would never be so presumptuous"? That's funny, considering that you claimed that the writing in this film was poor without having seen the film. I didn't claim that my list is the end all be all of gay filming. Do you know how to have a civilized conversation? Or must you throw in your bitchy digs just for the sake of being bitchy. I didn't claim that my list is the end all be all of gay filming. From what I've read on these boards, many aren't happy with the current state of gay filmmaking and I was echoing their sentiments and mine. And, to keep in the spirit of bitchiness, raunch and empty aren't genres. You can respond away, but I'm done acknowledging you. If I thought you were trying to maintain a debate, I'd be happy to continue this discourse, but all of your responses to me have been nasty. I don't need that on these boards. Wow this all seems so serious....Submitted by
HalloweenKid (5 points) (1 post) on Tue, 2008-09-02 16:38.I saw Gays Gone Wild and I liked it! Has everything I like in a movie, but then I'm a big fan of all the slasher movies, Halloween, Friday the 13th, etc., all movies that have gratuitious sex and violence in them for entertainment value. I liked the zombies. Could it be that gayfilgoer and others are putting too much on the importance on this movie? It was entertaining, that's all. It is better than Another Gay Movie.
You know, my best friendSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-02 20:42.You know, my best friend usual claims, ad nauseum, "it is what it is." I don't heed that advice enough, I suppose. I just want more Brokebacks and less Gays Gone Wild. I'd probably enjoy myself a little more if I thought like my friend. I'm glad that you enjoyed the film.
Hey Brent, I'mSubmitted by
nordic balance (not verified) on Tue, 2008-09-02 20:59.Hey Brent, I'm impressed. You done wrote all those books and blogs widdout an edgumacation. :) It's a wonder, ain't it? ;-)Submitted by
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes |
|
Welcome to AfterElton.com!
- Login
- Join Now!
News, Reviews & Commentary on Gay and Bisexual Men in Entertainment and the Media
in agreement
Brent, I remember hearing that TLA Video's bestselling DVD was Another Gay Movie. When I finally watched that I had a few chuckles but the director went too often above and beyond the call of whimsy, comedy and good taste. I was shocked that it was made by the same screenwriter to Edge of Seventeen which I thought was a pretty decent film.
Now the sequel. It was the opening film at the Philadelphia Int'l G&L Film Festival. I had low expectations for the film, as did many filmgoers. It seems like the director, giddy on the sales from the prior film felt the need to abandon all sense of storytelling so he could push the envelope. Watersports? Let's have a musical number. Gay cameos? We need a notorious porn star (which, sadly, had the potential for much more - I liked what little they did and wish they had devoted Nico's entire arc to the merman romance). Perez Hilton chewed his scenery to bits. RuPaul evoked pity (compare this role to But I'm a Cheerleader).
Yes, the world needs gay comedy. But this film reaffirmed that gay men are all about the sex. While there was a message against the cult of youth and beauty at the end, it was utterly undermined by what came before, during and after.
www.steveberman.com
Hey Steve
Read my books! Explore "Brent's Brain" at http://www.brenthartinger.com no votes
Suggestions and thanks
You identified these as "the world's first gay teen sex comedies" in this post, and I'd agree, so I wonder how they "reclaim the ultimate heterosexual movie genre for us gay folks" if gays never had claim on it to begin with?
There had to be a less awkward way to put this: committed-by-play-together-type arrangement. I can't tell if that's meant to be more cosplay or Swingtown.
"Less vomit and fecal matter and more heart, please," is probably the most important line in your review after where the first film went with "Rodzilla" and Survivor's Richard Hatch. The sequel sounds atrocious. It's a real opportunity lost. Thanks for braving this bad bawdy cinema.