2022 Entry #001 01-01-22 “Caught Looking” is a 1992 35 minute short which was written by Paul Hallam and directed by Constantine Giannaris. The story is somewhat confusing but features a man sitting at a computer and he logs into what seems to be an interactive sexual game called “Caught Looking” and then guides his virtual self through various scenarios. At least, I think that’s what was happening. It’s a bit of early 90s queer cyberpunk.
I watched this short over a 24hour period in which I was struggling with a horrible migraine. I’d been unable to receive my medication which had curtailed most of my migraine symptoms for several years and they all came rushing back at once, including scary visual manifestations. In addition to the migraine struggles, the audio for the film was split; the dialogue and music were in one ear while just the music was in the other, making it difficult to understand the dialogue so I ended up listening with just one headphone…so it was a bit awkward. When I later resumed the title I used a mono speaker system which helped.
At varying times I found this piece to be hypnotic, impenetrable, impressive, disappointing, inspired, sexy, dull and a whole host of other contradictory things. YMMV.
2021 Entry #050 (02-06-21) “Children of God” is a 2010 Bahamian romantic drama film by director and screenwriter Kareem Mortimer, based on his 2007 short film “Float”. The film was produced by Richard LeMay (director of “200 American“, “Naked as We Came” & “Whirlwind”).
The film tells the story of two young Bahamian men who fall in love with each other, portraying homosexuality / bisexuality along with homophobia and its various consequences in Bahamian society. It was one of the first feature narratives from the Caribbean to address homosexuality; the Bahamas had banned the film “Brokeback Mountain” in 2006, yet “Children of God” was the opening night film of the Bahamas International Film Festival.
While Mortimer, a gay Bahamian himself, initially conceived his movie in purely romantic terms, it took a darker turn following the murders of five gay men over a few months in 2007 and 2008. He has said:
“Two of them I knew personally. One was the subject of a documentary I produced — he had AIDS and was killed very violently near where I live. He was almost decapitated. Another guy, a fashion designer, was stabbed multiple times in his house. I felt really afraid. I can’t even express how I felt, and one politician said things like ‘the only good homosexual is a dead homosexual’ that went unchallenged in the country. Bahamians are very generous, loving people, but it was an act of great shame.”
I loved almost everything about this film. I’ve wanted to see it ever since I learned it existed and I finally broke down and rented it on Amazon Prime. Part of me wishes I’d done so sooner, but really I’m just glad I saw it and it was a great movie to watch during Black History Month. I loved the characters in this movie; even the ones I didn’t agree with. These are complicated depictions and though I was sad to see the bleaker elements of the film, the movie does find a way to find some semblance of a happy ending, without diminishing the sense of tragedy.
The film made its International Premiere at the Miami International Film Festival and has premiered at over 100 film festivals around the world, winning at least 17 awards. “Children of God” was named one of the top ten films of 2010 on BET.com.
“Shortbus” is a 2006 American erotic comedy-drama film written and directed by John Cameron Mitchell (“Hedwig and the Angry Inch”). The plot revolves around a sexually diverse ensemble of colorful characters trying desperately to connect in New York City. The characters converge in a weekly Brooklyn artistic/sexual salon loosely inspired by various underground NYC gatherings that took place in the early 2000s. According to Mitchell, the film attempts to “employ sex in new cinematic ways because it’s too interesting to leave to porn.” Shortbus includes a variety of explicit scenes containing non-simulated sexual intercourse with visible penetration and male ejaculation.
“In the old days, when you couldn’t show sex on film, directors like Hitchcock had metaphors for sex (trains going into tunnels, etc). When you can show more realistic sex, the sex itself can be a metaphor for other parts of the character’s lives. The way people express themselves sexually can tell you a lot about who they are. Some people ask me, ‘Couldn’t you have told the same story without the explicitness?’. They don’t ask whether I could’ve done Hedwig without the songs. Why not be allowed to use every paint in the paintbox?” – John Cameron Mitchell
I bought this movie when it was a new release on DVD. I was familiar with Mitchell’s previous work and I’d read about the unique process by which this film was created, all of which interested me. But what I didn’t expect was how much I’d enjoy it beyond all of the hype. People have been putting graphic sex on film for a long time, but such stories aren’t necessarily about anything that interests me; while there were a few moments in the film that I felt were a bit off or too over-the-top, most of it really connected with me and those other elements have grown on me over time. I love the soundtrack and all the fun visuals; the imagery of NYC as some kind of wonderland. It’s endearing, funny, sexy and approaches revelation. What’s not to love about that?
Some have branded the film “pornographic”. In response, Mitchell says that the dictionary defines porn as “material created and viewed for the primary purpose of sexual arousal,” and argues that the sex in the film is often purposefully “de-eroticized” to “remove the cloud of arousal to reveal emotions and ideas that might have been obscured by it”: “Sex, like music, is a universal language. We want to use it to introduce character, evoke emotion, propel the plot.”
Lou Lumenick from the New York Post wrote “Mitchell’s adventurous, big-hearted, pansexual mosaic of New Yorkers looking for love and orgasms (not necessarily in that order), is a rare example of a nonporn film that doesn’t exploit graphic sex as a gimmick.” Peter Travers from Rolling Stone commented “If there is such a thing as hard-core with a soft heart, this is it.”
“Cruising” is a 1980 American crime thriller film written and directed by William Friedkin and starring Al Pacino, Paul Sorvino, and Karen Allen. It is loosely based on the novel of the same name by New York Times reporter Gerald Walker about a serial killer targeting gay men, particularly those men associated with the leather scene in the late 1970s. The title is a play on words with a dual meaning because “cruising” can describe police officers on patrol and gay men who are cruising for sex.
Poorly received by critics upon release, “Cruising” performed moderately at the box office. The shooting and promotion were dogged by gay rights protesters, who believed that the film stigmatized them. The film is also notable for its open-ended finale, which was criticized by Robin Wood and Bill Krohn as further complicating what they felt were the director’s incoherent changes to the rough cut and synopsis, as well as other production issues.
I have friends that enjoy this film and others who despise it. Some of the friends that enjoy it claim that the film shares an honest look at the leather community and seeing police officers both abuse and fight to protect the gay community was ahead of its time. Some of the friends that despise it feel that the film suggests that both homosexuality and murder are a contagion; that being gay and being a killer are linked within the film and that such behaviors can be passed on to others. I fall somewhere in the middle. I think it has positive aspects and that some of the film is very forward thinking…but I think most of that is undone by bizarre story choices by director William Friedkin…which some fans of the film either don’t pick up on at all or if they do, view as a successful twist of some kind. I disagree with the latter and view these choices as a failing of the film, which in the end is just a muddled heap of red herrings which needlessly complicate the plot and undermine what the rest of the movie mostly succeeds at.
To describe the strange choices I’m speaking of, which IMO ruin the movie, I’ll need to get into SPOILERS so if you don’t want to know just skip this bit…
However, for those of you who are interested, let me see if I can unravel this mess…
Steve Inwood’s character, Martino, is murdered in a peepshow with a clue left behind which links the crime to Richard Cox’s character, Stuart Richards, the father-hating homophobe whom Al Pacino’s character nails for all of the murders near the end of the film. However, the killer in this scene is NOT played by Richard Cox, but by Arnaldo Santana.
Arnaldo Santana plays a character named Lukas who is murdered by the killer in the St. James Hotel at the beginning of the film, but in this scene the killer is played by Larry Atlas.
Larry Atlas plays Eric, who is murdered in Central Park and in this instance we never see the killer’s face but it’s been stated by various sources that this is actor Richard Cox, the supposed serial killer revealed near the end of the film.
Seriously. The film suggests that all of the victims could be killers. There’s also a scene with another man approaching a gay bar that seems to be suggesting that another killer is on the prowl. It’s been said that this is what Friedkin intended, as he believed that there was more than one killer.
Surely that’s the end of this, right? Nope.
With the post-climax, off-camera murder of Ted (Don Scardino), the gay next-door neighbor who befriends Steve (Al Pacino) when he goes undercover to catch a serial killer preying on New York’s gay community, it is at least suggested that Ted has become a victim of Steve’s, who has been repressing desires he has discovered in himself, and has taken the place of the murderer, who also killed gays because he couldn’t face the truth of his desires. If that seems like too much of a stretch, this is what actually, conclusively happens in Gerald Walker’s 1970 novel on which the film is based, and Friedkin leaves us wondering if it has happened in the film, although he gives us a possible alternative: Ted may have been killed by Gregory (James Remar), his jealous roommate / lover / boyfriend.
Oh. And I didn’t even mention the police interrogation scene in which a big man in a jock strap saunters in and slaps people around. I’m not making this up.
That was a lot to unpack. And I’m tired. But suffice it to say that without the wacky twists of stunt castings and suggested multiple murderers (and a big man in a jock)…the film could have been very good and it still has its moments, but they get lost in all the “art”.
Your mileage may vary. 🏳️🌈
Much of this film’s plot and imagery, along with it’s odd choices (like said jock strap wearing police station moment) are recreated in the 11th Season of Ryan Murphy’s “American Horror Story”, which is titled “NYC”. So if you like this, then I’d recommend checking that out. One of the more interesting interpretations of the film “Cruising” is that the killers are not men at all but the then unknown AIDS epidemic, which would have been really clever, but very unlikely given when the film was made and released, so while the interpretation solves a lot of the issues with the movie, it feels like like a rationalization to “save” the film, rather than anything that the film intended to achieve. Having said that, “American Horror Story: NYC” makes the link that the film could not, which is maybe why that season of television far more than the film / novel it was so clearly based on.
Entry 17 on my LGBTQ pandemic marathon. Today I needed comfort food…and I also realized I’d not been watching any lesbian movies so I went for this borderline awful guilty pleasure which I love with almost every fiber of my being. ❤ 🏳️🌈 It’s one of those queer movies where it’s almost great, isn’t quite up to snuff but has it’s heart in the right place. I re-watched it last year or the year before for the first time in at least a decade so I hesitated to make it part of this new viewing party thing but I’ve decided I’m just starting from scratch and can watch anything I want. lol And I really needed this today.
For those wondering, the movie was released in 1992, when such films were far more rare and it was a passion project, which I can respect. The film score (which is available to stream on Amazon Music) is beautiful. And I have happy memories of seeing this with a dear friend on video in 1994. I’m glad it’s part of my collection.
Edit: I have a more indepth review of this from my 2026 re-watch.
I just finished rewatching one of my all-time-favorite LGBTQ films: 1998’s “Edge of Seventeen”, directed by David Moreton, written by Moreton and Todd Stephens, starring Chris Stafford, and co-starring Tina Holmes and Andersen Gabrych. I hesitated on watching this one as I felt I maybe knew this one too well and I’ve been mostly viewing movies in my inclusive collection which I’ve either never seen or I’ve only seen once or twice…but I’d actually forgotten a lot of it, which just means I’m getting old.
The movie is set in 1984 / 1985 and is partially set at Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio (though the name of the park is changed for legal reasons and long shots of the park are clearly from the 90’s as the Raptor can be seen). My family spent a lot of time at that park and the first time I went was 1984 / 1985. The soundtrack is a love letter to the 1980’s and the movie manages to capture that era in a way that many others fail to do.
For example, I watched another movie from the collection on Friday which I’d never seen before called “The Curiosity of Chance”, which came out in 2006, is set in the 1980’s in Europe and features some of the same songs…but it just feels unreal; and it’s not helped by some less successful acting choices and a muddled script. I didn’t hate watching it though I’d never put it on a top 10 list. “Edge of Seventeen” though is TOPS for sure. Take it from a bottom who knows! ❤ 🏳️🌈 🏳️⚧
The LGBTQ movie pandemic lock down marathon continues…with Gus Van Sant’s 1991 masterpiece, “My Own Private Idaho”, which I’d seen many times before, but again, not in several years. And just like today’s other entry (“Edge of Seventeen”), I was surprised how much I’d forgotten of this film and I feel I noticed things that I never had before…perhaps because I’m seeing it so far removed from previous viewings? It probably doesn’t hurt that I watched it on a huge TV.
“My Own Private Idaho” was the first gay themed movie that I actively sought out. It was the first movie that I rented once I had a drivers licence and could get an account at a video store (Blockbuster). At the time I was incensed that any movie with LGBTQ material was flagged by Blockbuster as something that could only be rented by people 17 and older regardless of content…and yet I was also grateful as it made such properties easier for me to find, and I rented many other such films which had a lasting impression, even if they didn’t join the collection I’m enjoying now. Years later, I was hired at Hollywood Video and during my interview I mentioned my disdain for Blockbuster for this very reason, which impressed my new manager (DJ).
As for the film itself it was (and remains) for me a haunting, eccentric collage of tones and quirks which exhilarated me as a film fan, even as it sometimes frustrated me as someone yearning to see representations of my own experiences; something that’s faded with time and more satisfying portrayals. Having said that, the campfire scene in which River Phoenix’s sympathetic, narcoleptic street hustler Mike Waters confesses that he loves Keanu Reeves’ gay for pay Scott Favor – and that he wants to kiss him, was a breakthrough moment for me as a gay film fan, and for the actors as well – it’s cited in nearly every review I’ve read of the film…and I watched that part repeatedly.
I hadn’t seen this one before, and sadly I was bit disappointed. I’ll talk about this a little more after I watch the next movie, which it reminded me of, but if I remember correctly, I liked the other film, “Edge of Seventeen” far more.
I should write a real review of this. Maybe I’ll revisit it someday and do that. But see the next entry and I’ll talk about it more.
“I watched this movie yesterday, which I’d owned for about 16 years and had never seen. It was great! I loved it. My only minor quibble with it was that they sometimes spoke very quickly so the subtitles were flashing so quickly across the screen that I could barely look at what was happening…but I suppose that’s my own fault for not knowing Spanish! I’m happy that I’m finally seeing these movies from my collection as I revisit others I’ve mostly not seen in years. ❤ 🏳️🌈 🏳️⚧”
Lookin gback now, in April of 2026, I remember loving this movie but at the time I wasn’t writing in depth reviews. This is one that plan to revisit at some point and give it a proper review.
During the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown in New York, I started diving into my LGBTQ+ inclusive movie collection and was obsessed for a time, watching movies all day, sleeping and starting again. It helped me cope with what was happening, but led to some problematic behavior that I’m only just getting over. But on the bright side, I watched over 800 titles, the majority of which I’d never seen before. At first I just noted that I was watching them but eventually I started posting my thoughts on each entry, some of which were brief and others that were longer. This was all on Facebook and utterly random with no plan. I’m slowly transferring all of that here. I watched in 2020, 2021 & 2022. I took 2023 off then watched more in 2024. I’ve not kept up with the project in 2025 or 2026, but that’s because I needed to get outside more, which I have. lol Anyways…the reviews will be here someday.
Films and Series reviews are listed under the years in which the projects were released, with the titles followed by the date I watched them for the purpose of the review.
