larapha I came twice to watch this film in a lapse of more than ten years. What motivated to write a review was the recall I had from it, when the character David (Troy Huptash) the painter, curses his best friend Kryla (Lynda Boyd) Faghag. That shocked me, coming from a gay man. And that was one of the few memoirs I had from the film. Seeing it a second time just showed I was right: it has nothing remarkable. In particular, I still have the feeling that Huptash acting has nothing profound – he seemed to read his lines. I would say that Matt (Vincent Corazza) character is deeper. He really shows he's torn between this wife and his new found lover David. Besides, Corazza is a piece of a man, well build developed and a good actor. Overall, it's a film to be watched, perhaps even twice as I did. Another predicate is to say it aged well. The conflicts shown are undying and worth reflection from the viewer.

pogostiks Warning: Some Spoilers The strange thing about this film is that despite its weaknesses, it still works. It generally keeps your interest to the end, even though there were obviously scenes that didn't make the cut that probably should have, at least to make certain things a little clearer. The main character, the painter, wasn't really charismatic enough - you don't really see the relationship between him and his boss developing. The are both suddenly "in love" with almost no sense of tension, subtext or reason. All the other people in the film were quite adequate. The fag-hag best friend is one of the most realistic alcoholics I've seen in film. Without staggering or slurring her words, she gives you a definite sense that she is seeing everything through a glass darkly. The transsexual for once makes you really think of her as a woman, without exaggerating anything. The first time we see her without one of her wigs on is truly a shock. The wife-victim is perhaps the least finely drawn of the characters, and her initial reaction to the situation is not quite as believable as it should be... but somehow she still makes us care about her hurt.I think the best thing about this film is the cinematography. The interior shots were created with a colour-scheme which would have been worthy of an Almodovar film. I think that one of the things that really makes this film (sort of) work is that visually we are rarely asked to look at something unappealing. All of the naked bodies (male or female) are wonderful to look at, and they are shown often enough to basically seduce us into caring more than we probably should have. I get the feeling that the film could have worked better if they had added only two or three more scenes which would have allowed for some more character motivation and development. Some people may not like the fact that (one more time) there is a gay in the film that dies of AIDS... but that has been one of the realities of gay life for the last 20 years, and I see no reason to necessarily avoid it. All in all, not a great film, but an interesting one that at least makes us care about some if not all of the characters. An A for effort, a B for results.

M_INC_KW What a great line. I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.

RitchCS This comment contains a huge spoiler which actually is the reason I'm writing it. More times than most when a writer hands his book, screenplay, story, etc. over to a studio where a new screen adaptation is required, plus a new director, the film is usually unrecognizable from the author's original intent. This movie is one of those rare times when a new script and definitely a new director was needed. When a playwright/stage director/moviemaker goes to put his work on screen, he quite often cannot look at the finished product objectively.Listening to Brad Fraser's commentary on the DVD, he explains so many things that he thought the viewer should've known, but in his concept they were never made clear. For example, he tells us that when the husband enters the bus station, that folded piece of paper under his arm is his acceptance letter from a school for cartooning. That would be great if only the viewer had been told that or even a close up of the paper. But in Fraser's mind, we should have figured that out and where the husband was going. Duh... Fraser keeps telling us 'hidden' things to look for. In his mind he filmed it, so why were we so stupid NOT to notice? I realize that Brad Fraser was the god of this film. Everything in it is his own creation and he and only he should have the right to control each and every destiny. Whether Fraser would like to call this a gay movie or not is up to him.To me it's in the vein of a lot of gay movies which are oxymorons."GAY" movie without a happy ending. What's gay about it? Why do gay writers or producers of gay films insist on unhappy endings. Gays are either depicted as stereotype sissy faggots...or dying Camille's.Can't someone, some time, write a serious drama about gays with good acting and let the two heroes ride off into the sunset? The acting in "Leaving Metropolis" is some of the best I've ever seen, especially Vince Corazza and Cherilee Taylor. They play so well together it makes you wonder why a straight masculine husband would leave his wife for a guy who is so fey? Look at the way Troy smokes a cigarette...it's one step above Bette Davis. Brad keeps talking about his low budget of one and a quarter million dollars. Damn! I've seen better movies with half the budget. Sorry Brad, but the movie you THOUGHT you made and the movie that the viewer sees are worlds apart. After all that the husband and artist went through, not to mention us the audience, the least you could do would be to have the heroes wind up together. Great ideas but sloppy executions!