Inclubabu Plot so thin, it passes unnoticed.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

mjholt Silly and fun, yet a good way to spend an hour. I don't see why it got so many bad votes. I enjoyed it. This is a TV pilot, and as an indie production, it would be great. The lack of prime time crime story conventions makes it more compelling. Some of the scene cuts are rough, but that adds to the experience. The story line holds together, and the reason for the murder is revealed in a believable way that adds to the enjoyment. The private detective is great. She gets distracted by sex and finds more action by saying "I don't date." Our hero, looking for his brother does better than he should since he maintains that he is not in the life. This is so not slick and that makes it better.

maewestlover I really enjoyed this movie--it has a clever premise, lots of humor, good photography--I would--and have--recommend it for others to see--and I'm straight. This film works regardless of sexual orientation.The twist on having a hard boiled, tough, love 'em and leave 'em female detective was great. And I especially liked Monique, the would be rock sensation, played by Jennifer Layne Park. I hope we see more of her and her character in future films. And I certainly hope we see more of this detective pairing along with Monique in future films. This film suggests future projects for these three characters. Bravo, Gaston, for a film well done. Now please work quickly on the sequel (maybe involving Monique?)--we want more of this comedy trio.

Franco-LA This was an improvement over the director's first feature (Open Cam), but not by much. The acting was generally better, although still consistent with a very low budget, genuinely independent film. The main problem with this movie is, once again, a director with limited experience directing from his own script. The director is quoted in an interview as stating he wanted to make the film after taking Open Cam to festivals and watching lesbians going into one theater to see 'their' film and men going into separate theaters for the male films. However, simply writing a movie about a gay twin investigating his own brother's (a photographer) disappearance and adding a female detective who just happens to be lesbian and who just happens to be hired by the missing brother's agent to find him, isn't even a fortuitous coincidence, but merely the bald use of a bad and tired plot device. The movie feels like a made for (cable) television movie/pilot, down to the question mark with the title card for "the end." It probably is a concept that the director would have had better luck selling to someplace like Logo or Here!, but they would have been far better served to pick up any decent gay mystery novels, in particular Nathan Aldyne's Daniel Valentine mystery (Canary, Cobalt, Slate, or Vermilion) and adapting them.The nudity, of the models of the photographer, was wholly gratuitous and seemingly designed to cater to an audience that isn't aware that internet porn is just a click and credit card away -- or that hundreds of blog feature far more erotic or nude photography (with generally far more attractive models) with just a simple mouse click.The humor was of the very forced, "I learned everything I know from I Love Lucy episodes" down to having the dyke pull her pistol (with the limitless supply of bullets) out of her clutch while running in high heels after the murderer, who apparently has nothing better to do after committing several crimes than to simply wait and skulk around, hanging around for a chance to get at evidence that is never fully explained how the missing twin discovered he had taken in the first place. There are also just way to many loopholes in the story, like why the photographer didn't just get in his car instead of escaping on foot, why no one had recovered his body after that length of time, much less inquired about the car abandoned at the gas station, how the murderer was able to readily find him and shoot him the dark, without the advantage of a head start and on a moonless night no less! - and these are just some of the contradictions in the opening minutes!

cinema_universe I saw this film last week, on a trip to Florida to attend the 18th annual Tampa Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, which I must admit, has grown into a fairly large stop on the gay festival circuit.The more mundane shows (IMHO) anywhere on the circuit are those films which merely try to be gay versions of straight stories. Why such a large number of gay filmmakers still try to be 'mainstream' is beyond me. "2 Minutes Later" is a crime-fighting/comedy film with some flesh and sex (not excessive, but certainly more than necessary). It tried to equal the sex & violence quotient seen in similar straight films. This film's director, who was present the night I attended, got on stage before the film screened, and said that his film was meant just as fun entertainment; nothing more, nothing less. -- and to the person who accompanied me to this screening, that's what it was. To me it was just a gay reworking of many straight suspense films, with a major plot element (spoiler) borrowed from "Blow-Up." It had a fair amount of tepid comedy added into the mix, justifying the director's statement that it could be called 'light entertainment.' Much to my dismay, --and very likely to the chagrin of the filmmaker present (and to the management of the fabulous Tampa Theatre, a splendidly renovated 'atmostpheric,' built in 1926) the film was shown through the wrong lens! What I mean is, it appears to have been a film that may have been produced with an aspect ratio of 1:1.85, but it was shown through a 1:1.33 lens. Everyone was just a bit too thin, too tall, --and all the cars were a foot, or so, more compact. I tried to ignore this technical problem (which wasn't easy) and see the film the way it's producer intended me to. It had it's fun moments, but I was glad when it ended. Almost glad, that is, because "The End" credit, itself, brought it's own "oh, no" moment. It came on-screen with a question mark (?) added after a few seconds, a la "The Blob."The leading lady, who was also present in the theater that night -and who accompanied the filmmaker on stage before the curtain went up, was the best actor in this film. As improbable as her character was, her lines were better than those of the leading man, --who was likely chosen for his shy boy-next-door 'look' rather than for any acting ability. I'm not knocking him, nor the filmmaker, nor anyone else associated with this production. It was obvious that the budget wasn't big, but neither was the thought put into this. Better films have been made on smaller budgets.It seemed to me that it borrowed an awful lot of bits and pieces from many other films, --besides the obvious big 'bit' borrowed from "Blow-Up." Overall, a mediocre effort. I rated it 5. --D.--