Redwoods

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.

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.

This is a well-made and sincere film that avoids pat answers or schmaltzy sentiment in favor of asking interesting questions everyone faces in life - what makes happiness and what is its price - without relying on melodrama or exploitation. The story is very simple and the presentation very low-key with subtle, convincing performances and great chemistry between the leads.

One of the things I realized after seeing it is that the story could very easily be about heterosexuals. It in no way looks to the gay community to provide some unique positive or negative trait. Lots of films make the festival rounds relying on stereotypes to carry them along but this is simply about people and love and I think anyone can connect with the themes it presents. Highly recommended to anyone interested in a touching story regardless of orientation.

I am sorry, I was really thinking hard about an other summary for this article, however there is nothing else I can say but that this film is just one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Maybe it is just the sugar-sweetness of it. The looks the characters exchange, the way they are dressed, combed, the way the camera moves... it just gives me the creeps of surreality! The writing is mediocre and I wanted to stop watching it however kind of hoped it is going to get better during the movie... it did not. It just got more and more honey-romantic... without any substance. I cannot say that the characters were interesting or engaging. Brendan Bradley is just looking really weird with his puppy eyes and holding his elbow - which I suppose should be a character tick of some significance (maybe his insecurity and innocence) but it just makes me wanna shake that man to his senses! I kind of liked the way the writers put loopholes into the screenplay making it not all to laid out for us... oh, that was not intentional... ups... and there were like two or three moments of a light shining through the darkness of these dialogs but other than that - I had my vomit bucket prepared.

One amazing peace: the harmonica! OMG! If you please introduce an element within the writing, make sure there is a significance to it. Also, make your actors practice it, so at least the one character bringing it in, has an attachment to it!

Also, why the supporting cast was even there... no clue. This could have just been even cheaper movie without them. The mother and the B&B owner or even the brother (was he just signed up because he could get naked in front of the camera?). Oh, speaking of sex - I kind of surprisingly liked the undressing scene - it was kind of all what this movie was not - realistic.

I am not saying there only has to be realistic movies but this movie was so off the charts for me I could not give it more than 2 stars out of 10: one for the undressing and the other one for the nature.

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.