Customer Reviews

Leaving Metropolis

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(8)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The best thing about Leaving Metropolis is the arresting visual sense of director Brad Fraser, adapting his own stage play Poor Super Man. Almost every scene and set is filled with vivid colors and striking compositions, making the film a delight for the viewer's eye. The presence of a trio of physically attractive principals who are frequently seen in various stages of undress does not hurt either.

It probably marks a certain coming of age in gay/lesbian cinema that lots of nudity and hot (albeit soft-core) sex, both gay and straight, doesn't guarantee a good film these days. All the eye candy in Leaving Metropolis cannot disguise major problems in this story of a troubled painter (Troy Ruptash) who, for rather contrived reasons, moonlights as a waiter in a diner owned by a married couple (Vincent Corazza and Cherilee Taylor) and becomes enamored of the husband, with disastrous emotional consequences for all. This by now familiar love triangle still has possibilities; that they are not realized here is due not only to a script that, though occasionally witty, is more often trite and overblown, but above all to the stiff and stagy Ruptash, who is unable to rise above the level of cold reading in his performance. Corazza and Taylor are better, the former in particular managing to suggest the anguish of a man caught in the grasp of whirlwind emotions beyond his control. As in many flawed films of this sort, however, a subsidiary character steals the show: Thom Allison's turn as Ruptash's doomed, transgendered best friend projects genuine emotion largely missing from the rest of the proceedings.

Brad Fraser is an excellent writer and has elected to move his successful play "Poor Super Man" (1994) onto the screen with great success. Fraser is also a writer and co-producer for the enormously popular "Queer as Folk" television series and he knows his subjects well. He has the ability to write about the gay world without making a 'gay movie' primarily because he shows such comfort with the variations in gender identities that he can explore all facets. The result is a film that is more about people than about stereotypes, and a fine job he does in writing scenes for characters who, in other director's hands, might seem contrived at best and silly at worst.

The story revolves around a gifted young painter David (Troy Ruptash) who lives with a transsexual friend who is awaiting gender-altering surgery while coping with the cold fact of being HIV positive (Shannon - played by a very fine actor whose name passed by too fast on the screen to acknowledge). David also has an alcoholic over-the-hill blonde reporter Kryka (again, played to perfection by an actress whose name flew by in the credits). David has painter's block and to escape that state he seeks anonymous employment as a waiter to observe life, seeking visual input for his canvases. The Main Street Diner is run by a newly married couple - Matt (Vincent Corazza) and Violet (Cherilee Taylor). David eyes the apparent 'straight guy' Matt and is surprised to find his gaze returned. The closeted Matt has a fling with David which produces a successful break for David's painter's block (he paints beautiful nude images of Matt without Matt's knowing it) and an unsuccessful dissolution of Matt's marriage. The active foil in all of this is Kryka and she is the undoing of the affairs. Meanwhile Shannon faces her imminent demise from AIDS and it is this peak of verismo that shakes all the superficiality down and results in some important changes in the characters.

On the surface the story may sound a bit on the soap opera side, but in Fraser's hands and with the accomplished acting of this physically beautiful cast, it all works. The cinematography is beautiful, the art designing is excellent (the paintings David paints are the creations of a fine artist), and the musical score is sensitive, witty, and well edited. Brad Fraser is a force to contend with and if there is anyone able to incorporate the 'gay world' into mainstream moviemaking, he surely is on top of the list. Despite some fine steamy scenes (Matt in bed with both Violet and then with David), this film is for general audiences who are open to understanding the meaning of extended family. A first-class film.

This film tells its story reasonably well; the acting is pretty good; production is good, etc.; however, somehow I never found myself fully engaged. The premise seems reasonable enough: David, the Successful Gay Artist-working-as-a-waiter to put him in touch with regular people again and so recharge his creativity as an artist. Also an infatuation between a gay man and a straight man, whether reciprocated or not, is also believable. But somehow, with this cast or with this script, the film doesn't resonate. Granted, it *could* happen, but David seems far too together to fall for Matt.

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 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.

This is a lovely film with a complex plot and interesting finely drawn characters,believable dialogue and some sex scenes with beautiful bodies far more erotic than any hard core gay film. It is similar to another excellent gay themed film "Bedrooms and Hallways" Also well worth seeing.
Read the review in this section by reviewer, Grady Harp, who has witten an excellent analysis of this film. The best line...." How could I have drowned in anyone as shallow as you"

Perhaps it is heart. The story isn't bad, the acting isn't bad, and the production values were impressive. Everyone in the movie, though, seems bent on self-destruction, from the gay guy who knows he can't have the "straight" guy, the "straight" guy's wife (who sends her husband happily into the gay guy's arms,) and the "straight guy," who is hard to sympathize with because he just seems eager to please himself without regard to anyone else. I didn't love the supporting cast, and the end left me unsatisfied. A bit too much straight sex and far less gay sex didn't encourage me.

Tone down the sex (it wasn't interesting) and give the characters some redeemability, and this piece would earn at least one more star.

Worth seeing in a pinch, but not the best. (...)

The best thing about this movie was Vincent Corazza. Working with crappy dialog and a plot that tackled too many issues, he did a fantastic job expressing his character's confusing emotions without the need for words. This movie would have been really great had it stuck to the primary plot of a relationship between a married heterosexual man and a gay man. The main plot should have dealt soley with the bisexual issue and concepts of love, rather than bring in HIV, transgendered issues, fatal illnesses, dealing with the death of friends, euthanasia, etc.

Like so many 'gay' themed movies out there, it is morbid, sad, and filled with pain and suffering. Plus it deals with so many psychological issues that viewers tend to get lost and can't connect with any of the characters. Could have been much better. It's worth a look though, for Vince Corazza.

Fraser's film is truly a winner in production quality. His attention to detail by bringing in his theatrical savvy is a nonpareil. Despite all the cliches that can be stated about this film; eye-candy performers, lighting, fantastic musical score, and riske scenes, this film has visually appealing sequences. If anyone is interested in film and theatrical production, I would highly recommend the director's commentary-you really get an insight to an artist in process. From the commentary, it seems that Fraser will never be finished with this film: a mentale that I admire in an artist. Art is a process and is never perfect.

This is another one of those great modern plays that works very well for the film. Getting to the roots of the human psyche is something films should continue into the future. This film does explore the 3 dimensionality of people.

I did have a problem with the didacticism of the script however. Though most writers try to leave it up to the audience to decide, I feel that the script gave little regard for wives who are victims of their husbands having gay affairs. I had to agree with another reviewer who titled his review as "Selfish gay guy ruins a marriage". (On the other hand, Cherilee Taylor did a great job in combating this fault with the script; she wasn't quite the victim her character ultimately could have become.) By the end of the film, I was wondering how Violet was making it as a once again as single woman. From an audience's standpoint, we didn't really see that. David and Kryla make up, Matt goes to illustration school, but what happens to Violet?

Overall, I would highly recommend this film. With such a great interpretation on the screen, it would be nice to see this staged once again in the lort theatres.

I enjoyed the film " Leaving Metropolis" for many reasons. The acting was good and it had a good script. It was a bit raw and had an edge however it was believable and struck me as situations that some of my friends from the past would get themselves into. The production quality was good and so was the audio quality. The Artist "David" has painters block and takes a job as a waiter to try to get unblocked. He gets a romantic notion towards his married employer "Matt", Who appears to like the idea of getting together with David. David is unethical in his behavior, but that makes the story facinating to watch. The film is funny at times and also has it's fair share of drama. It had some very suggestive scenes however they fit the situation. It was a good addition to my collection and a good investment. The situations shown in the film are good for heated debate if you like that sort of thing.

because I found this to be a film with a great narrative. There is a flow from beginning to end, a view of relationships of different kinds. Some folks may be responding to the fact that there is no happy ending in this film, but there is no tragedy either. Instead the viewer is given hints about life moving forward, thus an ability to project out over time. The relationships are true to life, and the way that HIV is treated is the most realistic I have seen on film (it is just there, integrated, not a theme). Personally, I was fine with the technical aspects of the film, feeling like the filming and light reflected the northwestern canadian setting.

I have suggested this film to several friends - just expect a film that is more like a short-story than a romantic comedy.