scotartsproduction

Thanks to Ozon for making something that leaves typical McHollywood LA tropes in the dirt. Most gay films pals in comparison. Why? A story, well written story, dedicate visionaries, and actors. This is what cereative cinema is all about. Sure, we've seen the summer romances, and this film certainly does not do anything new in that respect - however that is the point, The skill to present this as an acceptable love affair, with a good twist, is why it's stronger than most. Summer of 85 brings in everything but the kitchen sink from literate queerdom: young romance, Verlaine, Rimbaud, eager French-isms in tragedy, and steamy sensuality. But it's also what Ozon left out: tired politics, rah-rah Pink parade tropes, and endless rants on victimhood. These are boys, who fell in love, and there's a reasonably believable story about them - apparently rooted in a real life saga of a similar situation, found in British newspapers decades ago. My only criticism is, the film could have used a deeper delve into New Romanticism of the 80s - if you're going to do The Cure - go deeper. Rimbaud was a very bad boy, Alex is not 'bad' he's consumed with passion. Slightly more stylized and slightly less topical. That said, this movie is a great watch, I'll see it in cinema post-covid, and highly recommend. Thank God someone is making things like this! "Never run with the masses, there's danger in numbers" - Quentin Crisp

This movie accomplished a well-rounded, exciting, MUSIC-driven (as opposed to gossip-hype-BS) biography on film. I avoided it until just now because Queen and Freddie were defining characters in my youth. I didn't want to spoil the actual memories.

Rami Malek is so good, I literally lost all sense that I wasn't actually watching Freddie - except the teeth were overdone at the beginning, not accurate.

What they DIDN'T do: pander to gossips, PC agenda clones or History Revisionists. THANK YOU.

And to the critics saying they didn't present his gay side enough? Pull yourselves out of snowflake land, this is good filmmaking. It was handled with strength and dignity, and showed the true side of Freddie, who did not want to be defined by his sexuality or affliction. THAT, my dears, is an artist.

This film is a refreshing feat.

Great story, great execution - and the actors brought a lot to the plate. It was nuanced, quiet, reflective and invective.

The casting is spot-on, as the newness-immaturity of one or two really plays into the genuine credibility of the film.

I'd rate this above the forgettable Moonlight, because there's depth to the characters, and the inclusivity and diversity are delivered within the script - and story - which SERVES the film, instead of making it yet another grandstand for the PC crowd.

Excellent work.

The director did an uncannily respectable job amalgamating all the Nelson Sullivan footage and bringing together a survey of the vast history that is Wigstock and NYC.

Unfortunately, the pandering to the Brooklyn PC scene fell flat, and was a turn off. I don't know why stabbing yourself with a needle full of hormones on stage without medical help (as openly admitted) is "art". It's not.

Nor do I see why this one-trick person was given so much airtime, a boring Lena Dunham parody. Finally, I cannot fathom how, if you are transitioning M to F, why parading around naked with your bits hanging out, in front of children no less, is entertaining or anywhere near appropriate.

I, for one, would have liked to lose all the Brooklyn stuff (make your own movie) and lengthen the fantastic actual Wigstock performances that were too quick cut.

This film gets it right. Probably because it was made with integrity, and produced (not directed) by the actual subject person. Hollywood usually perverts stories to fit "now" - this elegant presentation is cinematic, theatrical and fantastic - befitting Elton John but also following along the footsteps, loosely, of ground broken by LA LA Land.

Thank GOD someone in McHollywood is starting to get it: stop pandering, selling out, and promoting insular, inane crap - and go back to telling great stories.

Of course this picture is helped by one of, if not the greatest soundtrack you could ever have to work with.

The actors are superb, believable and a joy to watch.

What a lovely concept & idea, and what fresh, committed actors. Some of the integral scenes where the actors flourished were really powerful. Another positive is that this is a good attempt for something new, outside the common McHollywood gay-gay-rah-rah tripe. Otherwise, it needs a lot of help.

This seems to be another victim of made-for-cinema TV melodrama is relied upon to carry the whole film. The main character is terminally ill.

Script: the dialogue is so illogical at times it completely throws any mood the actors worked to build. Basic time & place problems, chronology and believability. Young person arrives, is 21 years old, but somehow not old enough to stay on a coworkers couch? And then, the repetition - same sob story about the terminal illness and being abused by "dad", and "I'm not gay I'm straight" - it borders, I believe unintentionally, on misandry and internalised homophobia.

And how many times do you need a main character to fall on the floor, and how many fart, potty and pee lines do you really need in one film? It did not serve the film. Jackie's makeup told more of the life he/she lead that all the falling on the floor Reality TV nonsense.

And for all that's good and great in the world: PLEASE STOP WITH THE JERKY CAMERAS. No one is ever going to want to watch these films in 20 years - and what's with the manipulated screen proportions - aspect ratio? Dream sequences? Maybe. The entire film? no, please.

Second is the desperate attempt to pack the film full of every Pollyanna PC Pronoun cause you can find - we don't need the preachey lessons on gender and all that - we need to see these particular characters flourish in THEIR environment, as THEY are. Problem with this is - even the stereotypes are inconsistent and sometimes painfully misused.

And overall - there's just too much going on. A hot mess. The saving grace of the film were the incredible jokes and rough-trade delivery of them by the Jackie character. But once we get taken on the ride, the car runs out of gas.

It seems the filmmaker had a great concept, but needed a lot of help making it into a compelling script. And needed a director with a keen, scrutizing eye. And an editor to get rid of all the extraneous & unnecessary junk packed in there. Less is more. Let is happen. These actors were underserved.

I kept thinking all along that we had a young Jay Davidson emerging, and a fantastic, quirky new film to come out of indie land. Crying Game 2.0 - but this comes nowhere near. But it appears - for whatever reason - the decision makers strove to iron and choke every ounce of fresh air out of this film.

I'll be interested to see what comes next from this group. Drop the agenda, and just make the story. It's a good story.

Oh dear where to even begin. This should have been a short - the first half hour sort-of brings together some good elements with the parallel time approach. Then, it all falls apart:

First: why does the main character also need to go deaf? You seriously expect us to follow and believe that he gets Struck By Lightening, recovers in a day or two, is deaf, and then gallops down the yellow brick road to NYC??

Then, he meets a weirdo son of the museum director by chance, who just HAPPENS to be connected to his father. Via a book we keep seeing over & over, and some museum cabinet, that never gets explored or resolved? Then, you expect us to believe he LEARNS SIGN LANGUAGE IN A DAY?

Then, after about 30 minutes of dull repetitive shots where NOTHING HAPPENS, you finally get him to the bookshop and his grandmother, and then TORTURE us to sit and listen to him read some explanation she magically hand writes at a bus stop in 5 minutes???

Haynes saw 'Big FIsh' and 'Never Ending Story' and, like so many other derivative hipsters - said 'me too' and made a film. Disaster of epic proportions - and the fact that this insulting piece of tripe made it past serious executives and editors proves, once again, the McHollywood is drowning in it's own self-congratulating hype.

OK, it's better than the McQueer films that are underproduced, and over-sickeningly cliché, but that's all I can say for it. The cinematography is almost unwatchable - dull, boring closeups throughout - while the skin scene is nice, it gets repetitive and trite. I don;t need to be looking up some teenager's moody nostrils all the time to get the point.

The whole thing looks like a bad mashup of the dying father meets desperate kid. There is zero continuity throughout. The mother is portrayed as more of a shopkeeper than a mom, the fussy little sister - BO-ring. There is nothing new or remotely gifitng about this film. The director clearly was making a film about something thy know little about.

If there were any nuance, at all, about this wanna be, it would be in the leads physique - but I can get that for a lot cheaper and not have to sit through 2 hours of made-for-TV but made- it-to-film by mistake.

Skip it and see 'Call Me By Your Name' instead. It does all the jobs this thing sets out to do in the first 20 minutes, and then keeps going.

It is absolutely refreshing to see someone trying something NEW, INNOVATIVE, and BOLD in independent and homosexual-themed cinema. I'd argue this movie is not "gay" it is a love story. The nuance is layered, and articulate - and for the educated (or those seeking deeper understanding of classics). That said, it relates directly on a very human level.

It is the best character study of a teen-aged male I've seen to date.

This film pushes aside all the tired, cliché "McGay" films that have littered the landscape for far too long. It is also groundbreaking in finally pushing back against the current culture of leftist PC one-size-fits-all nonsense. The characters aren't role models, or carrying flags on their backs (Thankfully) they're human beings. What?? A film about people being people and not "saving the world" or "fighting" some ridiculous political battle?? Again, thank you.

(Spoiler - you've been warned). My only quibble structurally is the filmmaker needed another edit, and seemed at times to get in his own way. 10 minutes at least could have been spared.

We don't learn who Oliver 'is' enough. The story line that he was lying in wait for Elio to 'come around' doesn't necessarily add up in the narrative as presented. The stop-off for a glass of water - just to make the point that Right WIng fascism is alive ad well (image of Il Duce/Mussolini) doesn't really do anything - especially when they arrive 2 minutes later at a fresh Spring. I also found some of the repetitive biking scenes monotonous - we get it - you got a great location and you're serving us so much beauty - however too much sugar can make your stomach hurt.

The end scene with the father will play well with the common audience I believe, but it seems a bit long & forced. HOWEVER, none of this negates the 10-star brilliance of the film, and its definitive place in a new canon.

I just hope the PC keyboard warriors don't ruin it and make other innovators shy away. It's time to keep pushing that envelope.

Well done! (The understatement of the century).

HEavy handed name-branding doesn't make up for the shortcomings of this catastrophe. Overthought, overwritten, under-considered. Twilight Zone wannabee, and ain't-gonnabee.

First, it is s-l-o-w and unbelievable. Layers of closeups for no reason. How many parents leave their kid with a sitter without introducing them to the kid? None. He hides in the bathroom and refuses to come out after dad kicks off to a date?? Yeah, right. And then, the inanity of the script: paltry references to the worn-out fable of the 'deadbeat dad' -- then she's sitting 3 feet away and says, over & over 'go to bed'?? He's IN BED! And this tripe gets repeated several more times...ad nauseum. And then quelle surprise, he goads us into some dishwater story about how mom hung herself - before the ridiculous fight scene between a grown woman and a 30 kilo child, who she could break in half without even trying. And that's what's wrong with this and so much TV: all branding, all concept, no story, no legitimacy, no meat.

This is worse than a film school project. HBO is really panicking about Netflix and the others, but should instead stay the course and go back to making really good shows.

I tried to like this ... thing. But it is the most ill conceived mess of a "show". First you got some guy who lives in a million dollar home but doesn't do that much, except work out all the problems he didn't get to in high school. Then, he's got some supposed comic-relief friend that just pops in outta' nowhere like bozo the clown for, well, no reason.

Then, there's his sister, a psychotherapist, who is so close to being the biggest screw up narcissist neurotic on the West coast you can't believe she can lace her own shoes, much less treat people with mental illness.

ANd then, last but not least there's the little darling "16" year old daughter, who looks 25, and talks likes she's 40. Another narcissist portrayal of a teen who supposedly is allowed to lives as if she were beyond reproach of anyone - teachers, her "mother" and even the main dude her "uncle" treat her like a drinking buddy. It is the most insipid trying to be trendy characterization of a kid Hulu could possibly muster.

Tie it all together with a string of been-there seen-that stories that don't even care enough to ask that we empathize with the characters, and TA-DA! you got an hour a week of your life you'll never get back after watching this nonsense. You could have more fun organizing a sock drawer.