The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Am I the only one who didn't like Latter Days?

doctorsun

doctorsun

I'm not really a doctor.
Joined
Feb 26, 2004
Posts
3,757
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
Akron, Ohio
I've read a lot of praise for it, including here, and after seeing it for the first time tonight, I have to say that it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, it's all feel-good and whatnot, but that's no where near enough to carry a whole movie.

First of all, it was filmed like an episode of All My Children and had about the same production value. Granted, it was a low-budget independent movie, but that's not really an excuse for poor use of that low budget. The writing was ridiculous and the storyline more than predictable. Not one character had any depth or complexity and seemed like they were ordered out of a catalog of token movie characters. Subplots were random and completely pointless since they were completely unexplored. Needless to say, I didn't think very highly of the acting, either. The movie was just bad and that's saying a lot coming from me because I'm VERY forgiving when it comes to movies.

On top of everything else, I couldn't even buy those two as a couple and their entire relationship was ridiculously laughable.

Anyone agree with me?
 
Dear God I agree with you and so did the critics. That is one of THE worst, most cliched, horridly written, terribly acted movies I've ever seen in my entire life.

Embarassing really.

These two quotes describe it best:

Everyone in this movie has been ordered off the shelf from the Stock Characters Store, and none of them wandered in from real life.

-Roger Ebert
Click to expand...

The curse of gay cinema is its belief that worn-out movie plots will become interesting if you put gay characters in them. This film takes the curse several steps further.

Erik D. Snider
Click to expand...
 
LatterDays13 said:
I thought it was a good movie. Was it award winning? No. I agree on some points but I thought Steve Sandvoss had a lot of depth to his character. The other guy not so much.
Click to expand...

Steve Sandvoss is not a great actor, but he was the best one in the movie. And yes, out of all of the characters, he was the most developed. However, his story was so crammed into the mix with all of these other mindless stories that it lost all meaning.

As suneoftheskye quoted, the movie was nothing but tired cliches with gay characters photshopped into them over the straight people from hundreds of other movies. There WAS a good movie in there in the form of Steve Sandvoss' character and drama and it could have been a very good film on its own, but like I said, it was buried beneath piles of crap.
 
For all its faults, It was still better than Brokeback. lol.
 
It's not the greatest movie ever made, no. It had a cliche'd script and some very wooden acting, especially from Wes Ramsey in the first half of the film.

But I don't think there was anything cringe-makingly bad about it. Unlike, for instance, Eating Out (which I thought was just one long cringe-fest from beginning to end).

And it was worth it for the ending.
 
It has the same problems as Eating Out.

Trying to cover for 1D characters, shit dialogue and bad acting with some sex and nudity.
 
I agree that it is way better than brokeback.

I was disappointed with the ending but I really liked the film.
 
inlovewithanton said:
For all its faults, It was still better than Brokeback. lol.
Click to expand...

..........Never in my LIFE have I ever heard a more ludicrous statement.

The filmmaking, script, and acting that went into Brokeback is superior to this cheap melodramatic flick in every possible way. I could see if you didn't like the story to Brokeback for whatever reason, but if you thought Latter Days was truly better than BBM, I'm sorry--you had to have been watching two different movies than I saw or have been heavily medicated.
 
inlovewithanton said:
For all its faults, [Latter Days] was still better than Brokeback. lol.
Click to expand...

As ludricrous as the statement may be to some, I also agree with it. The Brokeback story line was very good, but I personally believe I would have been more enthralled by it had it not been set with a Western theme (since I have this strange aversion to Westerns and cowboy movies to begin with - I cannot even sit through the opening credits of a John Wayne movie!). However, do I think Brokeback Mountain should have won the Best Picture Oscar over Crash - I certainly do. Latter Days was clearly low budget but I certainly did not find it boring. If I had to choose, I would watch Latter Days again. Not everyone will agree with me and that is fine - and you are no better or worse of a person in my book.

We are all entitled to difference of opinion and tastes in motion pictures. Not everyone is going to like the same movie and I respect difference of opinions - but in my book no one should be put down or thought lesser of because their opinion is not in agreement with popular sentiment. That is what makes us as humans diverse and interesting.

Adding fuel to an apparent fire, I also seem to be in the minority of people who found The Usual Suspects a total bore of a movie. But that does not make me any less of a person nor do I put down anyone that did enjoy it.
 
Brokeback Mountain is an important movie. It's the first time a gay-themed movie has made it into the mainstream and been successful. That said, I agree that it is rather boring and long-winded without enough action to carry it through to the end. Not enough things happen. Is it bad? Not at all. In every technical sense, it's a fabulous movie. It's just not all that entertaining.

And to say that Latter Days is better, that's just insulting. It's like comparing apples and crap.
 
I could see if you LIKED Latter Days better, everyone has their own personal taste. I like the Spice Girls better than Bob Dylan. But I would never say they are BETTER than Bob Dylan...that just doesn't make any sense. To say it's a better movie than Brokeback...I really don't understand in what way.
 
doctorsun said:
I've read a lot of praise for it, including here, and after seeing it for the first time tonight, I have to say that it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, it's all feel-good and whatnot, but that's no where near enough to carry a whole movie.

First of all, it was filmed like an episode of All My Children and had about the same production value. Granted, it was a low-budget independent movie, but that's not really an excuse for poor use of that low budget. The writing was ridiculous and the storyline more than predictable. Not one character had any depth or complexity and seemed like they were ordered out of a catalog of token movie characters. Subplots were random and completely pointless since they were completely unexplored. Needless to say, I didn't think very highly of the acting, either. The movie was just bad and that's saying a lot coming from me because I'm VERY forgiving when it comes to movies.

On top of everything else, I couldn't even buy those two as a couple and their entire relationship was ridiculously laughable.

Anyone agree with me?
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you said. I thought I was gonna like it since when Brokeback came out, everyone was saying how this movie's better. :confused: The only good thing about this movie was Joseph Gordon Levitt. And I can't believe people actually think this movie's better than Brokeback.
 
I agree with most of you, the film was terrible. The acting was bad, writing was worse. I was tempted to turn it off several times.
 
It's actually decent as far as gay themed movies go. And Steve is pretty. It's not classic cinema or anything.
 
You Guys, the point of this movie to watch Steve Sandvoss and Wes Ramsey get it on.
 
I think this needs to be looked at and reviewed in the context that it is in. Yes you are right that it probably didnt have the best script or acting, and in the grand scheme of film classics, it does not compare. However, having watched enough unbelievely bad, boring, bland, lifeless, ham acted gay themed films, this one sits easily in the top half of gay themed films that i have seen.

And besides the lead characters were easy on the eye.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top