Redwoods

This is a brilliant film for its budget limitations. It shows the growing up of this genre of film which focuses on same sex male relationships. But it is just a film, not a "gay film" because it is just about people dealing with life and possibilities and the unexpected. This could be a film with women or man and woman. It is not about coming out or the struggles to come to terms with sexuality and trying to find acceptance. It is just a good story.

I am sorry about one element of the end. Would have preferred if they had found a more constructive and intelligent way to deal with the conflicts of a relationship in trouble and a powerful new love plus the autistic child. Maybe too much in one story but then again it is life. Many things went unexplained and unexplored which would have needed a longer film. But as stated it needed a bigger budget.

However, I hail this film as a big step up. There are none of the usual clichés related to gay life. Bars, booze, drugs, smoking, hysteria, neuroses, prejudice, rejection, hatred, bigotry, drama queens. There is never the question or feeling that these people are anything but "normal" and accepted and supported by everyone. Possibly unrealistic for the present times but a better message.

It gives me hope for the future. I spent my life watching films about men and women, good films, some brilliant films but always a struggle and conflict because of identification models. In this type of film I feel in a world I fully know and am comfortable in. All the characters are kind, supportive and reasonable. Would have loved to have a brother like Shane.

I gave it a 9, maybe high but I think such a film needs support. Not a 10 due to its limitations. It could have been a 10 with a bigger budget and more complete and detailed script. The acting was competent and the emotions believable.

I wish I could go to Redwoods and engrave on the trees Oscar Wilde's aphorism so that everybody could marvel on the splendor of the insight.

For at least one more thousand years, oh Oscar, stay with us, for I go Wilde with this, this thing, for this is a symptom of our current predicament, not a film:

Suffocating cheap chords of piano and wind mark our downfall to letting cheap soundtracks describe our intimacy; no I do not want any more bad music describe my, or anybody's intimate moments. They make their own f***ing music.

Mediocre writers-cum-directors feeding primly on previous films, not as films, but as hits, and they miserably miss, dragging us with them.

(The actors in their two bed scenes were somehow let to be, and these are the only almost redeeming moments in the film - along with Brendan Bradley's bland expression playing the harmonica towards the close, that achieves something of pathos - , but, oh, so bereft when then one remembers the pap surrounding them.)

No I do not want any badly informed directors turning the unlived life into one more self-indulgence!

(And why is it that Matthew Montgomery is involved with creepily mediocre gay films ("Socket", "Gone but not forgotten")?)

But let's start at the beginning: Dear trees, fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in - did you get the headache spin;

No, cut it to the middle: slow mo so oh slow mo cut with mom and dad pensive so; slow mo and tears aboard this is really worstward ho; scenes with me and my lover so, wait, no, this is mom and dad again, this editing is so -

FIVE YEARS LATER

Now this what can it mean?...Are we to marvel that the protagonist has not aged a day, that the film comes five years after "Brokeback", or that five years from now that we are going to have more of this kind of film?

One starts to get the feeling we need more of the punk sensibility that informed Derek Jarman's films; one yearns for films with spunk.

Once again I feel somewhat cheated by a story with so much potential - like a baby in saddling clothes this team of actors with the complicity of the director slowly drowned whatever genuine motivation and progression in the story on a number of fronts: dialogue, camera shots, pregnant moments of stillness turned in to thundering lead weights that smothered. There was a belief stated by Montgomery that his partner in the story had immediate chemistry - I would suggest that this was perhaps misplaced - and in fact there was a little but they were such good actors they managed to act it out of every scene. Everyone in the film seemed to be 'straight acting'- even the father and brother...they all seemed to be closeted in their roles - I would suggest that the two brothers had the best chemistry and one of them was miscast - they both would have done a better job as the two lovers. Montgomery is an appalling shallow actor of limited ability - unable to display emotion or sensuality - and when he does it has a sleazy whiff about it. Brendan Bradley has a great camera presence and if given stronger direction would produce great work - sadly the potential he shows is patchy and uneven - further thrown into horrible relief by the other supporting 'actors' - the most notable of all was the son - who I thought might be the best of a bad bunch. All in all I am sad to see the American Gay Film tradition is being flooded by this type of low level production, poor scripting and equally incompetent directing - it denigrates our stories and apes historical cinema graphic archetypes too Closely - whilst our stories have common threads and motivations of 'The others' there is a dire need to ensure that they are performed and directed by skilled technicians who know when they are not up to par and all the main actors making a real effort to fill in the space with real depth of charaterisation that sits around and beyond the words on the paper rather than just 'acting'and sleep walking through their parts. There was a real story here - when did they make the decision not to give it a real voice? It all seemed rather rushed, unrehearsed and worst: cheap - do better next time. When I see another effort by this director I hope I can be bothered to watch.

I've seen all four of the movies that this writer/director has written and they are all strangely compelling. So much so that I'll continue to follow his work and hope that he continues to improve.

When I was much younger I would cross a set of taconite dotted railroad tracks on the way to school. Taconite is a rough form of iron ore that contains valuable iron ore but in quantities so small that it was once deemed uneconomical to mine.

Thinking of this writer/director's work reminded me of that ore. There is good stuff here but with the abundance of other, more readily appreciated, options available today, most will fail to see the value in this.

This time around there were a number of adorable characters that had really sweet moments and some wonderful plot points surfaced that had great potential. But there were also a number of flaws that might have been fixed if the writer and director had been two separate people with individual perspectives.

It might be stretching things to call this a "diamond in the rough" but there were definitely brilliant, touching moments in this film. Enough so that I enjoyed it when I wasn't considering the "might have beens."

Personally, I've always been a bit fascinated by the taconite and I'll continue to follow this guy's work. Hopefully as his work becomes more refined, I'll find it even more compelling.

I'm not Jewish, but I'll use a Yiddish term here. Does anyone know the meaning of "schmaltz"? The definition is "excessive sentimentality, esp. in music or movies", and there was plenty of excessive sentimentality going around in Redwoods.

The story revolves around two gay characters, one being a stuck-in-a-rut type guy (Bradley) whose relationship is going nowhere, and the other being a "lost soul" (Montgomery) trying to find himself. Montgomery's character Chase tries to find the nearest B&B to finish his book and gets lost on the wrong street. He asks for directions from Everett and while giving directions, there is a spark and the two eventually fall in love. This is so wrong, because a) it happens too quickly, and b) Everett is already in a relationship.

While Everett's partner and son are away, Chase and Everett spend a lot of time together and then Everett's partner calls and says he's coming back early. The relationship between Chase and Everett has to end abruptly but they make a point to meet at the same place at the same time, 5 years from now. Unfortnately Chase doesn't make it back (he has a good reason) and then we get the schmaltzy ending.

Redwoods is nice, scenery wise, but is full of cheesy acting and moments where there is too much silence or not enough movement to keep the viewer interested. Parts of it are slow and poorly acted. With a better cast and supporting characters, this could have been a really good gay tear-jerker but it falls short of that due to characters who don't put their heart and soul into their roles.

I've seen lots of gay-themed movies, and this one falls way down the list near the bottom, right above "And Then Came Summer". If you want to get all verklempt, skip this one and watch "Prayers for Bobby", then you'll know what good acting is.