starri1 I was surprised by film. Generally, I only see gay low-budget indie film as show of solidarity for the rest of the community. Often, I'll have to turn it off after ten or fifteen minutes. This was clearly not "Citizen Kane," but it wasn't half-bad either.The performances were kind of a mixed bag. There were a few that I felt were pretty strong, and a few that were weak. At least two of the actors started in one category and ended in the other. Some of the scenes with the actors paired off worked really well, and were probably the main reason the film works.The technical detail of the film are generally great. Even though clearly shot on DV, it avoids looking washed-out at all times. The camera is fairly locked down, but that's appropriate, given the material.The biggest flaw, as has been mentioned, is the script. There are far too many instances where a line or exchange just lands with a THUD, and the scenes that work are despite the material, not because of it.Still, it's better than a lot of low-budget gay cinema.

thesar-2 '3-Day Weekend' seemed like it was dreamt up in a dark gay bar one night by best buds who had a bit too much and Donna Summer's 'Last Dance' was playing signifying it was closing time. The nicest thing I could say about this movie was that, though they attempted to pick some good looking guys and only three actually were (Carlisle, Jones and Harrison,) they did actually pick all-around guys: bears, queens, someone for everyone. That is, if you only like Caucasians. Unfortunately, everything else either tried too hard, such as the clichéd and predictable dialogue, mostly amateur acting or the tired old drama, almost making this a gay-themed Tyler Perry film. Two couples bring four strangers to a beautiful cabin in the desert. Well, they called it the desert – I live in the desert – Phoenix, AZ, and this is not a desert. Prescott or Flagstaff, AZ, perhaps, but not the real desert. Anyways, they invited these four gay guys with four unique personalities "just for fun." Again, drama ensues and couples fight to end or start to build their relationships while having sex or orgies. Yeah, there's a lot of nudity, mostly butts, to look at. But for the most part, it's just blah, blah, blah. I will say this, the best scene of the movie, didn't even make it in the film – and I'm almost 100% sure it wasn't meant to be. Watch the alternative ending. It had me rolling. Typically, I won't judge a film on DVD extras, or things it is not, but this made up for a lot of the bad in the film. (Ironically, if it had made it in the film, it would certainly be a WTF ending and wouldn't have been as funny.)

SunRock17 Was there ever even a screenplay? Much less a credible screenwriter?What a waste of some reasonably decent acting talent to put them in front of a camera and give them absolutely nothing to do. Irrespective of how many "meaningful" and heart-warming tunes you embed beneath your "dialogue," you need a foundation of a story that at least has a modicum of substance . Or at the least, hints at it. Other than male nudity that is as "coy" as is the presumed "plot." A shame, indeed. This director (/screenwriter) actually produced a far better product with his "Long Term Relationship." It's hard to believe that this vacuum of a film came from the same man.Possible spoiler: The only reason I gave it a two is because of the somewhat cute turn when the hustler arrives and was recognized by many others. That was the only element that caught my attention and gave me a moment (albeit fleeting) of hope that this flick might develop into something worth the time. Not.

em89072002 The wino who wrote the one other review of this movie is right; this movie is no 'Citizen Kane.' The association of rosebud with this cast would turn even a vegetarian off tossed salad.And, the other reviewer is also right in stating that the acting is not good. It's like watching the understudies in community theater perform; it's a fair job, but not good.The production is competent; yet, with a tighter story and better acting this movie could have been better. But, even so, the movie would only achieve mediocrity because it's not a very interesting story: a bunch of gay white guys lounge around a comfortable country retreat and intermittently bemoan their relationships and nail one another. The theme of getting older and ending-up alone recurs but it doesn't receive much depth of exploration and consequently doesn't have much of an impact. Some of the characters mention AIDS a couple of times in a passing way but never really explore it as an issue either. Moreover, the issue of prostitution is treated as lite-fare, which might work for a comedy but not a drama. These themes are presented so much better in other low-budget movies with little known, but quite competent actors.Mitchell's "Shortbus" has a decent scene that shows the aging and isolation theme in a brief but immensely better manner. It's the sequence where the twinkie is talking to the old mayor in the salon.Araki's 'The Living End' provides a trenchant perspective of the AIDS issue in a compelling and reactionary story of lost youth.Morrissey's trilogy of 'Flesh', 'Trash' and 'Heat' are shoddy productions but fascinating to watch because the characters are captivating. Those actors, like Dallesandro, were unknown and untrained but imbued a sense of realism that the actors in this flick can't seem to achieve. Also, Morrissey presents male prostitution in a matter-of-fact manner; it isn't glamorized, vilified or trivialized. So, there are interesting gay-themed movies, but 3-day weekend isn't one of them.