g s there's no plot or integration of themes or anything, it's just nothing. not even "about" nothing - rather, it is just nothing. perhaps the producers and all knew that so they decided to call a character gay and have him watch a very explicit clip from a Japanese video on the internet depicting what is known as bukake, essentially guys ejaculating on someone's face. but sexuality has nothing to do with this film - penises and semen, though often very nice, do not a movie make. without penises and semen no one would have mentioned this movie but because of them perhaps the film benefits by supposed "gay interest" appeal. however, regardless, this movie sucked. if you want to see the sex scenes do what the protagonist did, find them on-line.

Siel_O the movie is fun, fresh and sweet. the main character is absolutely adorable (i think i'm in love, gotta learn more about him), the photography and editing is great, the story is interesting (and convinces that a movie does not have to be in a dramatic structure). i loved the visual freedom the creators allowed themselves, i don't think it had any of a shock value, but only to portray the main character's world. i'd love to see the movie again, i'd be very pleased had it been longer (there were moments where we're lead to believe the film is over and i was always glad it didn't). i'd also love had they shown more porn, anime and yaoi. the movie inspired me, usually i escape from anything titled "documentary", i might just be a little more open minded next time after a film like that. :)

rasecz I can't think of anything positive to say about this bomb. Well, maybe the camera work is not too bad. This incompetent mishmash of styles -- occasional split screens, some MTV-like segments, cheesy travelogue, graphic XXX porno flick, gratuitous breaking of conventions (e.g., film credits spread out through the film), introduction of irrelevant scenes for the sake of in-your-face product placement (hum, the whole film is irrelevant) -- coupled with uninteresting characters spewing out unsubstantial dialogues make this a film to avoid at all cost.I recently read a saying attributed to Italians that I now adapt and paraphrase: where there no bad films, we would not appreciate the good ones. Case in point.

jv_rules_1 OK. first of all. i ask people to ignore the other comment since the person who wrote it said that he knew nothing about the movie before going to see it. beware. the film is very "unique". it is not for everyone. im not really surprised that people can really REALLY hate this movie. i saw it at a film festival in montréal and i felt kinda bad for the old couple sitting right next to me. it's very upfront (i.e. you can see excerpts of gay porn). anyways, i don't wanna say much about it but i really liked how the film was made. its like a mash-up of all sorts of different styles. (i.e. at one point, you only see quoted white text on a black background.)(another part of the movie feels like a music video)(another part uses Google Earth and synchronizes the zoom-ins and zoom-outs to a song playing in the background).it doesn't really respect any "structure". it goes from one medium to another. it's kinda amateur. it kinda looks like something you can do with iMovie. (it sometimes looks and feels like the movie Tarnation...minus the "real" drama). all of these factors usually end up making a kinda hard-to-follow and "unfluid" movie. but in this case, it doesn't. all of the little effects the director uses in the movie aren't useless. instead of making it look like some sort of student-exercise, the effects end up helping the movie by making it better, fresher and funnier. the aesthetics and the ambiance of the movie also reminds me of the music and the artwork of the sri-lankan singer/artist, M.I.A. (especially her Kala album): a mix of different styles and recycled bits that kinda look like it was made from scrap but ends up sounding/looking so refreshing/original/contemporary.