Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

SnoReptilePlenty Memorable, crazy movie

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Cheryl A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.

terryhall2 SPOILERS The best thing about this film is the eroticism of the love scenes, in particular the reality of them with the handsome Mr Corazza. The one with the two guys naked together before the artist's girlfriend walks in is nice to watch. The movie concerns a rather dislikeable artist who needs a job to stimulate his creativity and takes a position as a waiter in a small cafe/restaurant in Winnipeg. The husband and wife team welcome his ideas and treat him as a friend, but the artist, who seems constantly indifferent to the husband, has actually fallen in love with him and fantasises about him through his paintings. The husband likes the artist and is moved to see his portraits so beautifully executed. The two men start an affair which has sad repercussions, particularly for the husband, who is a good man brought down by an artist who seems intent on breaking up the guy's marriage (and then doesn't even want him afterwards) The wife is left running her cafe alone, the husband takes a trip somewhere we do not know and the artist is left alone with the ashes of his dear friend, trans-sexual Shannon. The two threads that run through the film are incongruous- the constant references to Superman (since I believe this came from the title of the stage-play) and the AIDS story. The actor who played Shannon played her well, but it did not fit the rest of the film which could have been a whole lot lighter and instructive had it not gone done the usual route of gay suffering and death - a fine start to a film leading to a depressing ending. Overall, Vince Corazzo stood out, I was irritated by Josh (the artist) but that's just a personal thing.

lyrischertenor I was just really able to appreciate this film. Sure there were some lines that I didn't like and and I was a little unclear about some plot aspects and I wished we could have seen what happens to the characters after the film ended. But overall, I really loved the message of the film and the originality of it. This is a film about love, sexuality, and relationships. It was really beautiful. Most of what I must praise highest is the acting. Every single person was casted perfectly for what their unique talents offered. Corazza's is a VERY believable and truthful actor. His acting lends himself to innocence and sympathy -- just what Matt needed. Taylor was brilliant. She exudes power and assurance. And she played every one of her very difficult lines absolutely perfectly. She was perfection. Allison was surprising convincing and excellent. I say surprising because for a man dressed in woman's clothing, this is the first movie where I actually LIKED the character and this character was believable and not a stupid stereotype. Shannon was real person for me. Boyd was absolutely excellent. She seems to be the most experienced and a clear veteran of the art. They were so lucky to get her for this. She's a world-class actress. This had excellent ensemble acting.This film was just really enjoyable. I really found the writer's (Fraser) commentary to be especially interesting. This film was daring, original, and well-directed. A little unbelievable at points, but enjoyable none the less.

poets-1 I would like to have seen Fraser's play, POOR SUPER MAN, largely because there are plaintive allusions to Superman in the film that make me know they were, in some context not necessarily evident, important. I think the film became confused: fading pre-op transsexual, nasty self-loathing, fag hag friend with a drinking problem, a closeted straight man too innocent for life-- with an accompanying jealous wife-- and a Virgil-like artist guide who seems compelled to lead them all through the Circles of Hell.I was not surprised that the artist and his straight man foil have sex; steamy and straightforward sex. I was shocked, however, that so much of the movie then seemed to pivot on the obvious. The only vital thing I saw were the paintings of straight man Matt which artist David had conjured out of desire and the experience of desire ( who said TS Eliot was a dessicated old bag? He knew this story backwards and forwards!). These were both titillating and of heroic dimension.Maybe we should have skipped the film and gone, instead, to the exhibition.I suggest one see LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS and LEAVING METROPOLIS together; LOVE AND HUMAN REMAINS is the better of the two, but, together, one gets a real glimpse of Fraser's enormous talent.

kaneastro This Canadian effort is accomplished playwright Brad Fraser's film adaptation of his stage play POOR SUPERMAN, in which a celebrated but frustrated artist rediscovers his muse, in the form of a supposedly straight man who's running a downtown diner with his wife. It takes no stretch of the imagination to guess what the basic plot is.From the beginning, lawyers for Warner Bros. and Marvel Comics had threatened suit if the Superman imagery from the play were used in the film. The play was written at the height of public awareness of the AIDS epidemic in North America (ca. 1993), and was replete with metaphor carried by the very imagery lacking in the film adaptation. Just as the protagonist is seemingly the last of his race (gay men not yet victimized by AIDS), Superman was the last survivor of his Kryptonian race. Gay people were in the closet as Superman was masquerading as Clark Kent. So, the film was bound to have major problems once it was cleansed of much of this context. Fraser seems to have compensated for his loss by increasing the gymbot quotient; indeed, the male flesh watchers in the audience were treated to a parade of pecs, abs, and asses. Fraser, who answered questions for the audience after the film, insisting he was working on the principle for "equal opportunity sex scenes," ended up showing much more explicit straight lovemaking scenes. Coming in at a short 89 minutes, this film had me walking away remembering most these scenes with the wife's extra perky breasts. LEAVING METROPOLIS's dialog started out very stilted and the characterizations seemed too heavy handed when translated to film, but as the plot wore on, the uneven acting brought occasional glimpses of brilliance. Troy Ruptash as David the gay artist (in the past, seen on TV in episodes of ER, JAG, THE WEST WING, and BOSTON PUBLIC) put on an occasionally emotionally believing performance. But it is Canadian actor Vince Corazza, a young but veteran TV movie actor, who shone with a great job as the tormented married guy, Matt. Newcomer Thom Allison as David's transgendered, AIDS-inflicted best friend Shannon only endeared with the queeny quips, and fell short trying to bring out the gravity of her situation. David's boozy mentor, Kryla (Lynda Boyd), and Matt's wife, Violet (Cherilee Taylor), weren't given much more than base characterizations to work with. In the end, we don't care much why David didn't seem to think too much about the implications of his helping to break up a marriage, because we don't see much of what Fraser is trying to say about David himself.