Customer Reviews

All the Rage

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(5)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

All the Rage" focuses on the behavior of a successful gay Boston lawyer, while displaying a range of hook-ups, dates, and relationships, primarily in the gay community. Christopher Bedford, a trust and estate expert (played by John-Michael Lander), is a cute, buff Don Juan with a box of phone numbers from all the tricks who get no second opportunity. Christopher has a number of confidantes, including co-worker Larry (played by Jay Corcoran), real estate agent Dave (played by Paul Outlaw), Dave's wealthy lover, Tom (played by Peter Bubriski), and straight real estate agent Susan (played by Merle Perkins). The movie's action is triggered by matchmaking Tom arranging for Christopher to meet unbuff, rebounding book editor Stewart (played by David Vincent) at a dinner party.

The group has a certain wonderment when Christopher and Stewart hit it off for a few months. Still Stewart keeps living with a handsome gym bunny quite attractive to Christopher. Eventually this leads to trouble. Almost immediately, Christopher takes home a back-room trick, John (played by Jeff Miller), and gets a surprise when the trick has an additional agenda, forcing Christopher to face his past behavior. After the climax, both Christopher and John are shaken.

Playing this (as a tape) has been a guilty pleasure. The dialogue gathers together most of the nasty, insensitive things ones hears (and maybe says) in the course of cruising and tricking. The main character is in the center of this, but the other characters know the story too and play along with each other's illusions. There is no easy way out. The gay couple has communications problems and uses a wacko therapist. The straight woman gets a series of hopeless dates (and also uses the therapist). Christopher gets to absorb the audience's frustrations with unproductive tricking with hunks. There are many skin scenes with many attractive characters. There are several beautiful outdoor scenes in Boston, a favorite city of mine.

The movie intercuts several short scenes showing a shirtless Christopher curled up in a chair, speaking his real thoughts. The scenes are shot in black & white as a contrast to the rest of the movie. This technique works well, although his chatter on the ideal body grows tiresome.

In general the acting is average, though several supporting characters and cameos were more impressive. I especially liked Jeff Miller's and Paul Outlaw's performances. For me the biggest dissonance was the performance of the lead. Christopher's lines and monologues suggest a vesting in his transaction-driven character. The actor usually delivered the lines in an ironic manner, with a laugh hidden behind the smile, suggesting the character's non-existent inner awareness of the difference between his behavior and his real self. At the end there was room to wonder if he had a revelation or was annoyed at the ripping off of his mask.

The DVD version is all right with acceptable extras. There is a commentary by director Roland Tec and actor Paul Outlaw. There is a twenty-minute group discussion on "Men, Dating, and Sex".

This is a useful movie. The gay community does not look often at the ethics and manners one member should offer another. This movie asks a lot of the questions, although it doesn't really deliver the answers.

I wanted to like this movie. I ordered the DVD hoping it was a controversial satire on the superficiality of the gay ghetto, as promised. What I got was a mildly amusing comedy, with nowhere near as much punch as I expected from the premise.

There were problems immediately. Although he has a perfect body, John-Michael Lander as Christopher portrays a character so unlikable, it's not possible to warm to him at all, let alone develop an interest in what happens to him as the plot progresses. Some may find him irresistibly attractive, but frankly I wouldn't have given him a second glance no matter how much he masked what a creep he is - perfect abs and all. A bigger problem to me was the character played by David Vincent. The film's premise - the brunt of the "hard-hitting satire" - is the fact that Christopher's boyfriend is supposed to be the opposite of what we've been "conditioned" to find attractive because (gasp!) he doesn't work out in a gym and actually has love handles (horrors!). He also doesn't have a glamorous job (I mean, really, who knows any gay men like that?) and - now here's the most shocking thing I could imagine in a satire on gay values - he sleeps in PAJAMAS! Now I know a few guys in Chelsea who might find this impossible to believe, but despite the love handles and the pajamas, the "out-of-shape, chunky, under-employed geek" turns out to be the most attractive man in the whole film. Somehow I think that some of the people this film was intended for won't quite get that.

I liked what this picture was trying to say - Christopher is shallow, superficial, vain and annoying, and more or less gets what he deserves in the end. It's not his promiscuity that bothers us, but the way he treats his conquests, refusing to ever have a second date, and finding the most ridiculous faults imaginable in each potential suitor. But the telling of the tale just isn't very interesting, or very funny, and if they really wanted to make it a satire, it should have been far more merciless to maintain my interest.

Maybe I'm just old enough to remember when gay men didn't spend all their time in a gym, staring at the mirror to confirm their own beauty. I seem to recall that when I first came out in the early 70's, gym bunnies were few and far between in the gay male community. In those days, you were either skinny, fat or average, and if people judged you by your looks, it was solely on the basis of whether or not you had a pretty face. The main things we used back then to attract people were wit, charm, personality and intelligence, along with keeping ourselves reasonably well groomed. Now all I hear and see everywhere is stats, stats and more stats - numbers for waists, chests, arms, and thighs, together with demands that everyone have a perfect body, perfect clothes and a perfect career, or forget it. I was hoping that this film might raise some serious objections to such values, but when the final credits were rolling I felt I hadn't really seen or heard very much to either provoke meaningful discussion or challenge these attitudes, which is what I expect a good satire to do. Some may find it quite enjoyable, and feel it delivers on its promises, but I was less than satisfied when it was over.

I bought this DVD on the advice of friends, and it was incredible. Very funny and a very accurate look at gay life in the big city, from the gyms and bars to the dinner parties and first dates. I could recognize so many of my friends in the characters of this film, and I really got caught up in seeing how their lives would turn out. Plus, there are some gorgeous guys in the film, and there are a lot of freeze-worthy shots of them.

Think of this movie as a "Boys in the Band" for the early 21st Century. But I don't mean that in a good way. This movie is ridden with gay cliche characters. Everyone in the movie seems to be an eight searching for a ten and no one seems to have any depth or even likeability. Although a couple characters are pleasant to look at, do yourself a favor and buy a porn movie. You'll see better looking guys and you can turn the volume down.

This film looks like a high-budget film-not low-budget independent film. The characters are very believable and the story strikes a nerve with me and many of my gay male friends. I think we have all met people like the folks in this film. We often ARE the people in this film, although we may not want to admit it. I guess the most important thing to consider when buying a film is whether or not it is entertaining enough to keep on the shelf. "All The Rage" is definitely a good time and will also stimulate some great conversation. I'm glad I own it. It's a keeper.

The worst thing about buying an unseen DVD is that you usually get what you paid for. With this film I was truly disspointed. The charaters were wooden just as was the dialog. I was hoping for a movie that was not one of those that left me feeling like what the heck did I just watch. The ending was truly laughable. Before wasting your money I suggest that anyone wanting to purchase this movie view a free copy first

Here's a film that holds a mirror up to the sometimes shallow, narcissistic, gay male urban world. But why did it take so long for a movie like this to be made? Instead, the films with gay themes that do receive distribution tend to be either light comedies about queens or depressing dramas about AIDS. So along comes "All The Rage" like a breath of fresh air--multi-dimensional characters, gay and straight people as friends, and, yes, a fair amount of humor, both light and dark. For a low-budget movie that was adapted from a stage play, the film is very cinematic, with beautiful colors and fluid camerawork. The acting is uniformly strong, with Jeff Miller's quick appearance at the end an especially powerful performance. The film was a hit at festivals around the world, but it's no surprise that it didn't receive wide release from a major distributor. It takes a hard look at a certain subculture and resists stereotypes. And everyone knows Hollywood operates out of fear and rehashing what worked before (sequels). Since "All the Rage" breaks new ground, maybe it was deemed too "difficult" for mainstream audiences. What a shame. Writer/director/composer Roland Tec should be applauded not only for having the guts to take on this subject matter, but for pulling it off with such finesse. This first-time feature director is already head and shoulders above many veteran directors who keep churning out trite, recycled, safe "entertainment". Bravo! PS--the DVD has some great extra features.

I'm surprised by all the poor reviews. I saw this film when it was first released in Boston, and it still resonates for me, especially in the "remember me" final sequence. Why are reviewers complaining about this scene and wanting the 2 leads to get back together and have a happy ending? The whole point of the film is that the body fascism in the community has a sadistic rage burning beneath it that is beautifully self-destructive. In the final sequence, when Christopher turns the tables on his trick and reminds him that "I (expletive deleted) you" the viewer gets to see that what really matters to these characters is who is on top - who is the most buff, the most beautiful, the most wealthy, the most well hung.
The title is pure genius because it reminds us that while it is "all the rage" in the idiomatic sense to be an adonis, the obsession with beauty is often masking all the rage that boils beneath this beautiful skin, and everybody is ugly on the inside.
The acting is amateur, especially the female friend who was obviously cast as a favor or something. Everytime she spoke, the audience cracked up for all the wrong reasons, so wooden that I remember her almost a decade later. The script is so clever though. It doesn't really read as a parody so much as an exploratory expose, because although the film purports to critigue Christopher, the viewer still envies him and in the end, falls into the very trap that the film ostensibly wants us to question.
If the film asks us whether it is more important to be happy, well-adjusted and in love or to be beautiful, desired and envied, I would say it leans towards the latter. Men who look like Christopher will always be on top, and as much as we can pretend to find their behavior abhorrent, physical beauty always trumps personal uglyness in cinema and in life.

If there is a nicer, friendlier word to use other than LAME, then I'd like to try for that.

But since I can't think of one at the present, lets just say this is one of the most lame movies I've seen in some time. My god...these nice looking but empty creatures in this production could not make it in the world of commercials from what they've shown in this film. Save your time and pass on this one, and certainly do not BUY this piece of junk for you'll hate yourself for years to come if you do.

I'm just saying...

There could have been more about each character, and then they meet, but the characters surrounding the main character were not given a chance to develop or be supporting actors. It was a movie that really didn't know what it wanted to be. It was about so many things that did not tie into the title or a common theme.