Solidrariol Am I Missing Something?

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

Skyler Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

nullity-39212 Why oh why was Rebel Without a Cause not included?? Sal Mineo was the epitome of subtle homosexual characters.This doc is far from comprehensive.Finished it but just barely.Oh and broke back mt but that hadn't been released yet.

irishm I really like Dan Butler and he's the reason I decided to give this so-called "documentary" a try, but I gave up after about 30 minutes. I simply can't agree with the conclusion that this program seemed to be trying so hard to reach: it seems to honestly believe, and be trying to get viewers to believe, that almost everything including the old Bob Hope/Bing Crosby comedies had blatant gay undertones, and that simply isn't the case. They can repeat it as often as they like, but that doesn't make it true. Under the same principle, would that mean that every time Daffy Duck kicked Porky Pig in the backside, it was an allegory? There's a quote often attributed to Sigmund Freud: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar". I think that should be given some serious thought here.

MartinHafer I can't imagine this film satisfying most people who watch it--whether gay or straight. While you'd think it would be a study of the history of gay actors in film OR gay characterizations, it really isn't very often--and it certainly is NOT very exhaustive. It's a shame, as I was fascinated to see how, for example, the Production Code changed how gayness was or wasn't shown or discussed in movies. Or, how difficult it was for gay actors over the decades--how they had to deeply closet themselves in order to make it in the overtly macho Hollywood environment. Or, how Hollywood mistreated or condoned homosexuals (both cases are true--and there are many examples of both extremes).The film clearly is rarely about human rights but about voyeurism. Instead of being educational, most of the film is spend showing various clips of effeminate or less than macho characters. In fact, the viewer is inundated with TONS of clips--many of which seem irrelevant and many of which don't even imply homosexuality. All too often, they are trying to imply something that may not have been intended at all. It felt less educational or objective and more like a film for gay people might want to watch and laugh at as the actors behave or deliver lines that are not all that juicy--certainly NOT intended as any sort of social statement.I'd say skip it--there MUST be something better out there on the subject.

rbrtptrck This delightful prank merely examines and speculatively questions and VERY tentatively explains certain relationships and gags which it CLEARLY demonstrates occur in movie after movie from the Golden Age of Film. Unlike "The Celluloid Closet," which was an historical piece showing depictions of gays in movies, this one explores more the hinty, suggestive patterns which any gay kid noticed for himself - the half-admitted shrieking gayness of certain comedians, the sly (and frequent) "you'd almost think we were gay" humor of certain comic male duos, and the seething repressed homoeroticism of the classic westerns. It's something to relax and enjoy and maybe ponder. I, for instance, have always wondered why, in the most inappropriate situations, our action-stars strip down (isn't Rambo afraid of bugs and thorns going bareshirted in a jungle?). Gratuitous male nudity in movies intended primarily for male audiences does provoke thought - among other things.