Redwoods

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 watched this movie on my Android phone while waiting on a plane. So, I'll give you it was likely not the most flattering environment. That being said, I have always enjoyed TLA movies and have come to expect a high quality product from them. Redwoods started out looking to be consistent with that expectation. However, not too far into the movie, I realized that this was going to be an exception as this was a gay setting of "The Horse Whisperer" Evidently, TLA has a requirement that includes showing some frontal male nudity (I don't mind), but in this flick, it seemed to be so show "D-word" for the sake of "D-word". Neither of the actors who showed all were that inspiring naked. The love scene between the two main characters was built up nicely and some gratuitous frontal nudity would have been perfect, but alas we weren't so treated.

There were a few scenes that left one wondering "WTF". An example was the father/son moment in the antique store. I can only assume that the scene's cliché dialogue was inspired by the antique store itself. Mercifully, however, the editors did spare us the moments of possible redundancy by cutting into scenes where other characters are being let in on the story. Through most of the movie, we were led to believe that Evrett was caught up in a bad relationship where he and his partner stayed together "for the children". By the end of the movie an amazing and unbelievable transformation seemed to occur.

I realize that these movies are low budget and in this case, the score (which was nice) featured solo piano and synthesized instrumental tracks that sounded like they were taped on a 1980's K-mart Casio keyboard. I think they could have put out money for a bit better quality of instrument, if not a real orchestra.

Lastly, the story (a gay version of "Horse Whisperer") was a nice love story. It was a bit slow, but held my attention and I honestly was interested to see how it all ended up. The ending was sweet and pleasantly unexpected. The only thing I would changed would be to invest in some footage showing the changing of seasons to help the audience understand that years were passing.

All in all, this was a nice movie and worth a watch.

Tony Carson

The problem with most gay indie films is that they tend to be low-budget amateur productions. Amateur writing, amateur directing, amateur actors....they often come across as extended student films, but it is sadly the only way that most of these films would ever get made because the big Hollywood studios are still hesitant about "doing gay". Once in a blue moon we'll get a big studio release like Brokeback Mountain, but such films are few and far between.

Redwoods is very much a typical gay indie film in that it comes across as an amateur production made for a margin audience that still doesn't have much product in their niche marketplace to choose from. Perhaps "semi-professional" is a more polite term than "amateur", and given its obvious limitations it is by no means a terrible film, but it isn't a good film either. The script could have stood another rewrite or three (particularly to cut down on the number of times where the characters say each others names in their conversations, which sounds painfully false). The director could have rehearsed his actors more thoroughly (though better casting would have been preferable), and also gotten a bit more coverage from his cinematographer for a wider variety of shots to cut to, not to mention looking over his editor's shoulder and insisting on a few more cuts here and there to avoid the often dreary static effect that ruins many scenes. And I am certainly not a prude, but the full frontal nudity in the film was both out of place and completely unnecessary. Whether this was an attempt to titillate or to try to make the film more of an "arthouse" piece remains a mystery, but it was a desperate move regardless - and it shows. Of course, the writer and the director of this production are one and the same person, and so he must take the biggest share of the blame for the film's failings. As all artists should, hopefully he will learn from his mistakes and go on to make something better.

However, the biggest problem with the film is that, from beginning to end, it is a shameless rip-off of The Bridges of Madison County. Unfortunately, Brendan Bradley is no Meryl Streep, and making the story between two men rather than a man and a woman does not give this film enough of a distinction by itself. Had the film just loosely borrowed from "Bridges" rather than directly copying it, I might have been more forgiving, but a rip-off is a rip-off. In the film's favour, it at least gave the audience some decent photography of the redwood forests of northern California, though sadly this doesn't save the film from mediocrity. Perhaps it is unfair to be so critical of small independent films such as these due to their low budgets and often inexperienced personnel, although 2007's Shelter managed to rise above its humble indie beginnings and became a minor classic due to the sheer talent of its cast and crew. With better care, forethought and finesse from all involved, Redwoods could well have reached similar heights, but unfortunately it just doesn't make the grade.

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.

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.