Endgame (2001)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Captivating movie !

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

I could say the movie could have been more, but the basic idea was so rancid that no amount of tinkering would have made any real difference. Tom (the pouty Daniel Newman) is a kept man (although they regularly emphasize to us that he is still too emotionally immature to be a man) who kills his gangster "daddy" to save himself from rape (the only time we see anything with two men in this film involves rape and violence). He then flees with a hapless American couple. He grows close to the American woman while corrupt cops and crooks are on his trail, complete with a grotesque scene at a gay bar where, if memory serves, they rape someone who works there. While the American man goes off about the car, Tom and the wife give into their attraction. This is juxtaposed with graphic torture and murder scenes involving the husband, a clumsy way to remind us of the horrors to come. And so they continue coming, finally leading up to another grisly, excessively violent set piece, with the conclusion being that Tom is back where he started, that without the love of a good woman, he has no hope. As the icing on the anti-gay cake, we also get a heavy implication of just what "caused" him to be gay. There's a difference between showing the reality of a life of a rent boy, or even telling a story about how abuse and homosexuality sometimes intersect, and idealizing heterosexuality to such a strong degree - to the point where the woman in question is not even a character, but rather a thinly sketched out martyr and sexual savior. Beyond the message itself, the mechanics of the film are crude and coarse. No amount of nice scenery or noir lighting are enough to compensate. The one scene in the film that has a poignancy to it is the scene that the whole movie is about - Tom, essentially, finding healing and peace through his first sexual encounter with a woman. The shy vulnerability that defines him as he slowly strips (hesitating before he removes his underwear, as he knows he can't go back after that last step) contrasting to his pure joy and release as he kisses and tastes the upper body of the woman who is there to show him what his life is supposed to be, as he makes love to her, in the missionary position, as she exists as a missionary to what the film wants him to be. They may have been better off just releasing this scene and ditching the rest.

The storyline and acting was considerably good for a gay movie, but most foreign (outside of the US) gay films have amazing plots. This was a thriller. Daniel Newman's character could have been played by a girl and it still would have had a similar emotional impact. I didn't feel that his homosexuality was the focus of the movie - the strong points are focused on the environment that he is trapped in and the bonds of friendship he makes with his neighbors who end up helping him out. ***Spoiler section*** Now, why this movie lost 3 points is due to the main character sleeping with the female neighbor at the cottage. This really threw my attention to the film. I understand that the hustler was experiencing sex with someone he loved for the first time, but it seemed to deter as a tangent on something that didn't necessarily need to be addressed in the film. The virtue of innocence for this character seems conflicted now, because he is sleeping with a woman whose heart belongs to another man, which in turn seems to substantiate the theory that all gay men are whores or sluts and have to sleep with something everyday. If I were a straight married man watching this film, my wife would now be off limits as to hanging out with her gay male friends. One of the joys of being a gay male is that you can hang out with gorgeous women (single or married) and have a good time and there is no sexual tension. So the loss of three points is due to this lapse of judgment on the character's part - I felt so much for the hustler until this point. Overall, this was a good flick. It wasn't a waste of time - and the solo shower scene was immaculately filmed. I didn't know a white boy could have a back end like that!!!

This one's relatively typical, albeit decidedly less flashy and without some of the pretentious editing, of most modern British gangster pictures (THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY, GANGSTER NO. 1, SEXY BEAST) in that it's overtly violent and foul-mouthed for those that like a dose of toughness now and then. This one's unique take is that it uses gangster shenanigans as the basis for a thriller revolving around homosexual, rough-trade sex and police corruption. The cast is first-rate; and in spite of a story that's relatively contrived and silly, it still entertains like an old Fritz Lang thriller, which is saying a lot for it and it's creator, Gary Wicks. Fairly smashing!

This moody British film, not to be confused with Samuel Becket's work of the same name, was chosen to "disturb" the festival audience, or so said the talking heads of the programming panel. Rent boy Tom (Daniel Newman) gets caught in the evil machinations of his pimp, gangster George Norris (Mark McGann) and a crooked cop Dunston (John Benfield), who enjoys using Tom from time to time, himself. A fateful twist causes Norris's accidental death during his attempted rape of Tom. Desperate to escape Norris's body and Dunston's pursuit, Tom seeks the solace and protection of a very unlikely pair, his downstairs American neighbors Max and Nicki. Max is a hothead consumed with a passion for money, while Nicki is more down to earth, but a bit unfocused and uncommitted herself. Why in the world would Tom come to them? Desperation, indeed. Walking totally of their initial characters (or perhaps showing us how complex they are?), Max and Nicki, after little hesitation, agree to hide Tom out at their rustic cottage in Wales. A very confused Tom is attracted to Nicki's warmth, and they eventually "seduce" each other. We can understand Nicki's dissatisfaction with Max's self-absorbed hard shell of a personality, and her momentary attraction to Tom's complete vulnerability. And despite how implausible it may seem at first, their sex scene makes sense once we realize that Tom is seeking tenderness, not hot sex per se. All in all, this film hits home with its theme of sex as a tool of power which even the power-obsessed themselves can't control. But it falls short trying to wrap things up with a fast and violent ending which leads Tom to a happy future, and leads Nicki to sacrifice much more than her husband, Max, does.