All the Rage

This movie IS poorly acted and put together, but it's unique in its subject matter, and I think that makes it worth seeing.

This is supposedly a satire of the shallowness of certain types of gays (they're called "twinks," "Gym Bunnies" and "Chelsea Boys" where I am) who are rich, overly groomed and superficial. It follows one guy, a shallow heartbreaker, as he falls in love with someone not of his "class."

A HUGE problem is the acting. I felt that a lot of the lines would have been funny if the actors could have sold them well. With a satire like this, the actors need to go at lines like "Are you telling me you dated someone who doesn't work out?" with absolutre sincerity, but what we get is a sort of "I'm just an actor, I'm not really like this, see" kind of irony. It kills the entire script. Lines that were funny when I read them in a review are absolutely flat on screen. One gets the impression the director asked his friends to be in the movie, and the result is the slightly embarrassed feeling of watching community theater.

Thematically, the movie is VERY tame. It doesn't really go far in satirizing its characters, and ends up in some ways reinforcing their viewpoints. A character who is not rich and doesn't work out is seen as SO DIFFERENT it's SHOCKING that our main character would even BE SEEN with him! So much for embracing diversity, huh? Near the end our protagonist is upbraided for not calling a guy when he said he would and basically being a playboy. Since when is this a crime in gay circles? Did he say he was a virgin and that they would be married? The effect one leaves the theater with is oe of those superficial types saying (and we've all heard it) "Oh I'm so superficial, it's awful" when you know they don't really mean it and won't change. I was curious to see WHO would go to see this movie, and was disappointed to see it's the very audience the movie pretends to criticize. They seemed absolutely unfazed.

But the fact that this movie DOES examine these attitudes at all I think makes it worth a viewing. It's one of those that's better to talk about than to sit through. And, if you're attracted to those kinds of hairless chiseled body types, there is ample chest on display... though if you're seeing the film for that reason, anything it has to say, I suspect, would be irrelevant to you.

--- Check out website devoted to bad, cheesy and gay movies: www.cinemademerde.com

Roland Tec's full length movie debut easily holds its own against other recent breaking-the-mold independent films like "In the Company of Men." This is one of the most thought- provoking, enjoyable films I've ever seen.

This film leaves you lost in thought and practically forces you to reexamine your life and your attitude toward others. All in all, "All the Rage" is a remarkable debut for Tec -- definitely worth seeing!

I was extremely bewildered by the purpose of this film, but even more bewildered by the positive reviews a few people have left for it. It truly holds almost no value as a movie or social commentary at all. The acting is static and makes you feel like you are watching the first performance of several understudys. The subplot involving Merle Perkins' character Susan is unrelated and incomplete. The random black and white vignettes featuring the main character "Christopher Bedford" are intrusive and uninformative and I didn't care for a single one of the shallow, archetypical characters we were supposed to relate to.

The fact that people found some scathing commentary on the emptiness of the pretty boy "gym-bunny" gay lifestyle within this contrived film astounds me. Did I miss something? I saw a story about one man who sleeps around, cheats, and ends up lonely...Was that not an obvious conclusion? The emotionally charged ending seems out of place and adds 5 minutes of drama to a film that was an hour and a half of blah blah blah....YAWN

This film is awful. The writing is tolerable but the acting is atrocious. The director was so in love with his own infantile pathos that he includes long long shots of guys looking tragic. If this film had a competent editor, it might have achieved mediocre status. As we saw with the Da Vinci Code, when the main actor is flat or bad, no matter what you do the rest of the movie will fail. And the main actor is not just bad, he is utterly inept. Think of the pathetic attempts at dialog in the 12 seconds of every porn film prior to getting down to business--our main actor is as bad if not worse than that.

The only reason I am even bothering to write this review is to talk about the love interest in the film, David Vincent. So far as I can tell, this is his only credit. That's a shame. His performance was subtle and nuanced. If this was his only acting credit, he could have quit his day job and made it as an actor. In the extras on the DVD you can see him reading for another part, the part of the hook up at the very end of the film. That scene in the film is particularly pathetic and tonally wrong; but from the screen test, you can see that if David Vincent had played that part, he could have carried it off with aplomb. Wherever you are, David Vincent, there is no doubt that you could have had a career in film.

As for the rest of the folks, including the director, don't quit your day jobs.

Just what I needed, a gay "Your Friends and Neighbors." Not. Add to the down, tired material dialogue that sounded as if it were being read off cue cards, boring camera work, dull locales, and endless conversations, often as people plodded along in some park. Ugh! What a disappointment! I kept waiting for it to get better. It didn't.