The DVD of this film compares it to John Waters, from a Los Angeles Times article that, after constant research, I could not locate: it certainly wasn't the review, since it got a ROTTEN rating from Kevin Thomas, the Times critic, during it's brief, theatrical run. It doesn't quite have the charm, nor the outrageousness, of a good (or bad) John Waters flick, certainly not the cleverness of say Serial Mom nor any truly great lines such as Who Wants To Die For Art. Rather, this movie is merely a collection of unconnected stereotypes, from a money- grubbing apparently sex-less dyke who smothers a priest with her huge breast (something we know every dyke just longs to do) to three potty mouthed old ladies perpetually sitting outside a public restroom in London.
The script and direction are by a first time man who clearly limited his research to anecdotal stories told him by a gay friend, some reading and few trips to a gay pub. It's obvious that the adage to write about what you know was never shared with him. In the director's commentary, he talks about one scene being based upon his visits to a real home of his gay friend's (and the director repeatedly takes pains to point out, verbally and otherwise, that he was not gay -- only his friend was) friend and how the flat was littered with phallic symbols, such as a phallic coat rack. To convey this in the film is what appears to be a large papier mache penis in the entry way and then a number of black dildos on a kitchen counter. Now, perhaps to an unsophisticated Chinese-Irish first time director on a very shoe string budget, most gay men would decorate their kitchens with black dildo's, but more apparently, this is just another example of poor execution of ill-defined, not particularly well-thought out gags in the script.
From items previously mentioned, such as the crashing of the taxi, to the shooting of the second dead gay guy's scene (being "shagged to death" when the actor actually convinced the other actor to strangle him instead), it's obvious the director either didn't have control over the scenes or his actors, who did what they wanted and not always necessarily to the advancement of the plot or betterment of the film. Nor did the director have the ability to visualize how to advance his script or plot with the limitations present. One need only see early John Waters to see how truly inventive and creative people could, at minimal expense, portray what was needed to truly move the plot or truly create genuine outrageous and humor.
The people who gave this high marks are obviously the kind of people who think cardboard cutouts ala South Park and fart and death jokes are the height of amusement. The only thing the movie has are good performances from the leads and some of the supporting characters, a few (very few seconds) of really mild humor. Otherwise, it reads like a ripoff of a lot of movies with no idea that none of them really mean anything or come across as anything worthwhile.
The script and direction are by a first time man who clearly limited his research to anecdotal stories told him by a gay friend, some reading and few trips to a gay pub. It's obvious that the adage to write about what you know was never shared with him. In the director's commentary, he talks about one scene being based upon his visits to a real home of his gay friend's (and the director repeatedly takes pains to point out, verbally and otherwise, that he was not gay -- only his friend was) friend and how the flat was littered with phallic symbols, such as a phallic coat rack. To convey this in the film is what appears to be a large papier mache penis in the entry way and then a number of black dildos on a kitchen counter. Now, perhaps to an unsophisticated Chinese-Irish first time director on a very shoe string budget, most gay men would decorate their kitchens with black dildo's, but more apparently, this is just another example of poor execution of ill-defined, not particularly well-thought out gags in the script.
From items previously mentioned, such as the crashing of the taxi, to the shooting of the second dead gay guy's scene (being "shagged to death" when the actor actually convinced the other actor to strangle him instead), it's obvious the director either didn't have control over the scenes or his actors, who did what they wanted and not always necessarily to the advancement of the plot or betterment of the film. Nor did the director have the ability to visualize how to advance his script or plot with the limitations present. One need only see early John Waters to see how truly inventive and creative people could, at minimal expense, portray what was needed to truly move the plot or truly create genuine outrageous and humor.
The people who gave this high marks are obviously the kind of people who think cardboard cutouts ala South Park and fart and death jokes are the height of amusement. The only thing the movie has are good performances from the leads and some of the supporting characters, a few (very few seconds) of really mild humor. Otherwise, it reads like a ripoff of a lot of movies with no idea that none of them really mean anything or come across as anything worthwhile.