Love Is Strange (2014)

Such a frustrating disappointment

Absolutely brilliant

A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Writer-Director Ira Sachs' romantic comedy indie flick "Love is Strange" has strange highs and strange lows; StrangeLove that is how this movie goes, will you see it for me; will you take the puns I will give to you, again and again, and will you pun return it. Sorry, got a bit in a Depeched mode with that intro of "Love is Strange". OK, now I am seriously getting behind the wheel in writing my review of the film. It stars John Lithgow as Ben Hull, and Alfred Molina as George Garea; they are a longtime New York gay couple who recently married. However, turbulent times arrive when George is dismissed in his position as a Music Teacher in a Catholic School when the archdiocese finds out of his sexuality & marital status. Ben and George are forced to live apart. Ben with his nephew Elliot and his family, wife Kate and son Joey. George with his gay cop friend Roberto and Roberto's partner Ted. They both discover that living with others is strangely disconcerting and of course miss each other's constant time together. Sachs' shot most of the film in Sachs' 5th Avenue in New York; OK, maybe not but he did not exactly pace the film with an authentic continuity and pacing in his semi-mundane directorial street of "Love is Strange". However, his screenplay, co-scribed with Mauricio Zacharias had its clever verbal moments. Seasoned thespian pros Lithgow and Molina effectively delivered their performances, and there was also a fine performance from another seasoned female thespian named Marisa Tomei as Kate. "Love is Strange" is actually not too strange, but not too great, but then again no reason to hate. *** Average

I liked this movie for about thirty minutes after I viewed it. The performances are stunning, particularly Molina and Lithgow. But as I thought it over, the story as a whole was contrived and very thin. It is a very superficial movie which appears to be deeper because of the excellent if badly presented performances. I blame the writer/director. I won't say what, but the most important part of the story of Lithgow's and Molina's characters is simply missing - what was left out, only to be referred to in a wrenching transition, was the meat of the story and should and could have been the movie. Watch the movie for the performances, but don't bother with the story, it is a poor one - so much so that in the end, for me, dissatisfaction with the writing and directing ruined even the performances.

OK. We have Ben & George, two gay men in their late 60s/early 70s,who have been together for almost 40 years. So far, so good. Finally they get married and as a result, George is fired and they find themselves having financial trouble, which forces them to sell their apartment and to move in with some friends (George) and some relatives (Ben).The acting was OK, Ben and George really came across as a devoted couple, genuinely loving each other, and devoted to each other.The rest was a bunch of nonsense.Ben and George have been living together for almost 40 years. They do not seem to live the high life, or to be extremely extravagant. They have a nice apartment, comfortable, but not overly luxurious. Even their own wedding party is fairly simple: they did not even order a cab to the ceremony, but tried to find one on the streets. They did not throw a big party, or even have dinner with their friend and family in a restaurant, they just had some drinks at their own home. OK, they went on an expensive honeymoon, but if that is the only extravaganza they allowed themselves over all the years they were together, it is not over the top.So all in all, they come across like people who have a simple lifestyle, do not overspend and are content with simple things.Yet, when George is fired, they do not have a penny in the bank. Really? No savings, no insurances, nothing? That seems totally out of character.But pennyless, they have to resort to moving in with friends/relatives. They do not seem to do any effort to stay together, if even in a single room. Just like that, after 40 years together, they decide to separate. George moves in with some neighbors (young gays), Ben goes to live with relatives (a young couple with a teenage son), where he has to share the room with this boy. Really?Where did they leave all their stuff, their furniture, the paintings, the books? Did they just sell it all, or what?Ben lives with those relatives, who seem wealthy enough (he is a businessman, she is a novelist), they have a maid, but they are still living in an apartment the size of a shoebox. Somehow, the only son has bunk beds in his room (why?), where Ben has to sleep. This son also has a friend, Vlad, with whom he spends hours and hours in his room. Why? Nobody knows.Somehow, Ben, who is a painter, decides to make a picture of this Vlad on the roof top of the building. Why? He does not know this boy, he hardly has spoken to this boy, but somehow this boy Vlad agrees to pose for him. Does this make sense? No. Wouldn't it have made more sense for Ben to paint a picture of his nephew Joey on that roof top, which he than could have presented to the parents as a small "thank you" for taking him in?In the mean time, George is living with this young gay couple, who are partying all the time, and meets a young guy. They get along very well, and somehow they end up having dinner together and looking at his apartment, which is for rent, as he is leaving for Mexico. Although they seem to have some sort of connection, no sexual attempts are made (really?) while they are alone in that apartment. It is mentioned that the rent is 1400 dollars a month, and somehow George suddenly has the means to pay that amount of money (earlier in the movie, George and Ben where house hunting and could not even afford 600 dollars...).Than there is that whole issue about Joey and Vlad having stolen French literature books from the library. Really? Teen boys stealing Cyrano de Bergerac and other books like that? It is never explained why or how that ends, so what is the meaning of that?And there are more issues that made this movie in itself a strange thing, the love between the two main characters was the most logic thing in the whole movie... SO no "Love is strange" here. But the rest was strange as hell.

Kevin's review of Love is Strange is overly critical and I wonder why it drips with anger about a movie, which while flawed in some parts, is overall a considered, well-acted and beautifully photographed piece of cinema. For once not only is it a delight to see positive representations of older people on the screen but it's refreshing to see the depiction of 2 older gay men in a celebrated way. Often older gay men and lesbians are absent not only in cinema but also in their respective communities, which seem obsessed with youthfulness. And if you don't understand why Uncle Ben's grand nephew, Joey, is crying towards the end then you've missed a key part of the movie, which in a mainstream Hollywood movie would be milked for every emotion from the audience. Here it is marked with subtlety. Rather than continue responding to Kevin's misrepresentation of the movie and lack of insight, let me express my own thoughts. Ben and George are older gay men who have been married for 39 years. They live comfortably in a New York apartment; Ben drawing a pension and painting and George teaching music at a local Catholic school. There trusting intimacy with each other comes from a long-term relationship which has weathered storms but remained honest. This is borne out several times during the movie and notably in a bar when they're having drinks together. In the opening moments of the movie they marry and celebrate with family and close friends. When George returns to school after the term break the headmaster, Father Raymond, dismisses George for his public declaration of his sexuality, even though the school community has been aware of George's relationship for the entirety of his employment (13 years). As a result, Ben and George can no longer afford to continue buying the apartment they're living in. They move out while they look for alternative accommodation thinking that it will be only a short time before they find somewhere. Consequently, they ask friends and family to accommodate them in the short-term; they agree and are more than willing to help out. Ben's niece, who lives upstate, assumes that it's her place to accommodate them because she has the room. However, the other friends and family, knowing George and Ben are urban Manhattanites and would hate a rural lifestyle, insist they should remain in the city, which they love and know. Consequently George is accommodated by the 2 gay cops in the downstairs apartment and Ben stays with his nephew and his partner and their son and bunks in with the son in his bedroom. The accommodation is hardly satisfactory for these 2 seniors; George sleeps on a couch but only when the 2 gay cops finish there entertaining after their shifts. The movie focuses on the relationships in the home of Ben's nephew and the difficulties experienced by Ben and George living apart in residences with vastly different house rules. Ben and George find it difficult to find accommodation and George discovers for various reasons that after they move from their apartment, the amount of money left over is miniscule because of taxes … etc. Eventually, at a party, George bumps into Ian, an Englishman, who is about to move out of his apartment and this is where the breakthrough occurs in resolving Ben and Georges accommodation problems. But is it too late? This movie is well crafted and beautifully acted not only by the 2 main characters Alfred Molina and John Lithgow but most of the supporting cast. It's a movie that suggests that the rights of gay men and lesbians haven't necessarily been addressed by the right for them to legally marry. In fact, it is clear that gay men and lesbians still have a long way to go to attain equal rights in some sections of society. It is a considered story that is lightly accessorised with moving music throughout and nothing more. The camera work captures New York City in the most amazing light at times and clearly demonstrates the reasons why Ben and George are at home here and love it so much. I was moved by this movie in a number of ways and most of the audience in the cinema seemed to be affected the same way. Hardly any left until the last credits had rolled, a rarity in most cinemas these days. I highly recommend this movie; go and see it and be pleasantly surprised!