Bros (2022)

[Bruinsfan]

https://fb.watch/dH7FD6fMTo/

[Harvey]

Interesting interview with the show creator: calls it an educational experience for straight people about gay culture, showing a lot of things that are unknown to the people who don't live that way.

In this one they say that the movie was specifically made with the idea in mind that it should include scenes that straight people, specifically straight men can relate to & laugh at. I'm curious what that will look like, and will it succeed?

Trailer:

Edited August 27, 2022 by Harvey

[Harvey]

Looks acclaimed:

85% on RottenTomatoes

75 on MetaCritic

Review bombed on IMDb but 93% on the Popularity scale

[scarynikki12]

I hope other people saw this. I really liked it. Bobby and Aaron had great chemistry and it was a nice mix of traditional rom-com beats and elements specific to gay culture. 

I was a bit distracted by how deep Luke MacFarlane's voice was. That may be his normal speaking voice, or he may have intentionally deepened it as part of Aaron's CrossFit persona, but it was different from how he sounded on Brothers & Sisters which threw me. 

The ride at the museum cracked me up and I would love to go on it.

I hope this is successful and we get to see more like it.

[Bruinsfan]

I'm pretty sure that was a character choice; I don't recall Luke's voice being that deep on Killjoys, which aired after he buffed up.

I enjoyed it overall. As you said, the leads had pretty good chemistry and it was an interesting twist on the genre. It did seem to forget it was a rom-com for much of the second half though, a problem that its closest indie predecessor All Over the Guy also suffered from. It may be endemic to scripts by a writer/lead actor—the writer's character always seems to be in the right about the requisite falling out, and it's on the other lead character to realize the error of his ways and apologize. The final bit with Debra Messing, and then Monica Raymond's character (did we ever learn her name?) telling her kid they were witnessing a miracle were much-needed jokes to inject some more humor into the ending.

[Spartan Girl]

I hate how people on Twitter are celebrating the film’s lack of box office success just because they don’t like Billy Eichner, and dragging him just for saying that homophobia played a part in it. People are terrible.

[Bruinsfan]

Homophobia probably kept some people away, but it was always going to. I think the bigger problem was the trailers and Billy's many talk show appearances hammering home that this was a movie by LGBTQIA+ people for LGBTQIA+ people making it seem like it wasn't meant for straight audiences to enjoy as well (and that they might as well stay home). When you're trying to drum up enthusiasm for a comedy you want to show and tell people how funny it is, not what a momentous benchmark for inclusion and minority culture it is.

[Spartan Girl]

9 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

Homophobia probably kept some people away, but it was always going to. I think the bigger problem was the trailers and Billy's many talk show appearances hammering home that this was a movie by LGBTQIA+ people for LGBTQIA+ people making it seem like it wasn't meant for straight audiences to enjoy as well (and that they might as well stay home). When you're trying to drum up enthusiasm for a comedy you want to show and tell people how funny it is, not what a momentous benchmark for inclusion and minority culture it is.

Also some of the POC/BIPOC LGBTQ community weren’t interested in seeing another movie about two white cisgender gay men, which I totally understand. I just to automatically get annoyed whenever people shitpost about someone on Twitter, hence my knee jerk reaction.

[shrewd.buddha]

Saw it - at an actual theater(!)  And enjoyed it, for the most part.

It seemed as if they were going for a parody of Hallmark movies.  The movie worked well when it stuck to being a skewed rom-com.
For me, one of the funniest scenes was when Luke MacFarlane's lawyer character was quitting his job (to make tiny chocolates) and met a co-worker who was also quitting that same day -- because she had done an imitation of Kamala Harris online that some people had liked. 
The 'Hallmark' notion of people following their dreams with no thought of financial consequences was spot-on. 

But Billy's character came off as pretty horrible when meeting Aaron's parents for the first time.  If "being yourself" means having no awareness of other people's comfort level and never letting others talk, then I would also be okay with asking him to take it down a notch. For a professional organizer and fundraiser, he seemed clueless as to how to make a good first impression.
Billy's character seemed to working through issues and trying to make points that didn't seem to fit with the rom-com theme.

At the beginning, Billy's character even explains why he refused to write a typically happy gay romantic movie. But there were so many mixed messages, I couldn't tell if he had proven himself wrong at the end, or something else entirely.  The movie seemed caught between defending the anything-goes sexual lifestyle while also showing Billy's character being unhappy having to constantly compromise his romantic expectations in order to accommodate Aaron's sexual interests. 

I'm not entirely sure I fully understand 'cis' , but the repeated 'apology' for merely being a "cis white gay man" felt like pandering and was tiresome.
For decades people were told they shouldn't apologize for being what they are ... but now they should feel some guilt if they happen to be in a  group that has some marginal mainstream acceptance? 

I like Billy Eichner, but it felt as is he was trying to please too many groups of people and ending up not satisfying enough of any of them.

Edited October 4, 2022 by shrewd.buddha
grammar

[StatisticalOutlier]

1 hour ago, Bruinsfan said:

When you're trying to drum up enthusiasm for a comedy you want to show and tell people how funny it is, not what a momentous benchmark for inclusion and minority culture it is.

I started seeing previews for it a couple of months ago and always laughed, so I planned to see it.  I'm familiar with Billy Eichner only from his Billy on the Street show, and like him. 

Then the publicity started, with all the benchmark stuff you mentioned, and it's off-putting.  I just wanted to see a funny movie, not have a role in history.

[twoods]

I wonder if people (like me) felt that it was a movie that can be streamed and didn’t need to be seen at the movie theater to enjoy it, hence why it didn’t make a lot of money. Romcoms don’t tend to do well like the action movies at the box office. 

[Hiyo]

Quote

I just wanted to see a funny movie, not have a role in history.

A person can do both...if the movie looks good, who cares what the publicity machine is saying.

Quote

some of the POC/BIPOC LGBTQ community weren’t interested in seeing another movie about two white cisgender gay men

Because there have so many movies like that, I guess.

[StatisticalOutlier]

8 hours ago, Hiyo said:

if the movie looks good, who cares what the publicity machine is saying.

Obviously I do.

[Hiyo]

Well, to each their own then.

[Lethallyfab]

I saw it.  It was fine.  I like Billy Eichner.  Or, at least, I did, before this press tour.  

It is *extremely disingenuous* for the cast and crew to make a film *extremely tailored* to gay people (poppers! grindr! Throuples!  Testosterone injections!) and to tout its gay bona fides — it’s the first gay-rom com made by a major studio!  It’s the first rom-com with an all LGBTQ cast! —  and then to cry homophobia by straight people when it didn’t have the crossover box office success that they wanted.  

Universal spent 40 MILLION DOLLARS marketing this movie.  That is an *obscene* amount of money to spend on a film containing zero actual stars.

 ‘Marry Me’ went day and date on Peacock and that starred Jennifer Freaking Lopez, who is actually a rom-com draw.

I hesitate to name a single straight rom-com whose sales pitch was “sure, we’re funny but look at us CHANGING THE WORLD.”  And that’s because that’s a dumb sales pitch.  Despite what Eichner and company want us to believe, this film did not invent gay rom-coms, not by a long-shot.

This film’s marketing machine made going to see this seem like a gay chore to be diligently crossed off my gay to-do list rather than something actually fun.

There’s also a certain amount of irony by casting a Hallmark rom-com hunk as the love interest, spending a good 20 minutes of its runtime mocking Hallmark movies and yet Luke Macfarlane gives the best, most nuanced performance in the entire film.

[millennium]

On 10/3/2022 at 6:09 AM, Spartan Girl said:

I hate how people on Twitter are celebrating the film’s lack of box office success just because they don’t like Billy Eichner, and dragging him just for saying that homophobia played a part in it. People are terrible.

What's wrong with disliking Billy Eichner and enjoying a little schadenfreude at his expense?   I don't like him at all.   IMO he should be dragged, at the very least for tweeting:

Quote

Everyone who ISN'T a homophobic weirdo should go see BROS tonight!

It's grossly inappropriate for Eichner to imply that people who have no interest in his movie are "homophobic weirdos."   I'm LGBT but I would never spend fifteen dollars on a movie ticket to BROS.  I wouldn't spend even one dollar.   Nor will I ever give it a moment's attention when it is streaming.   IMO, the title alone is a huge turnoff.   The movie poster is cringe.  The fact that Eichner's in it is reason enough for me to avoid it.   But ultimately, I don't find gay male romance, lifestyle, etc. very interesting.    It doesn't mean I'm homophobic.  I'm not protesting Eichner's right to make the movie or anyone's right to live and love as they see fit.  I'm not protesting in front of theaters trying to prevent BROS from being shown, nor am I condemning anyone who chooses to see it or questioning their enjoyment of it. 

It's just not for me.   There are many types of movies I don't go to.   Movies with subtitles (it felt edgy in college, now not so much), comedies about weddings, drunken weekends, spring break, etc., slasher movies, teen "coming of age" flicks, animated films with celebrity voiceovers, anything starring Will Ferrell or Seth Rogen ...  I don't relate to them, thus I have no inclination to see them. 

But Eichner makes it sound like his work is so ground-breaking, so historic and monumental that the people of the world have a moral imperative to march en masse to the cinema, hand over a portion of their ever-dwindling disposable income, and then emerge ninety minutes later gushing about how witty and clever he is.    

IMO it's patently absurd to expect that a niche movie like BROS will appeal to every audience.   NO movie does that.  Every year, more movies bomb than succeed, especially movies without big name stars (or superheroes, for that matter), let alone comedies promoted on the basis of virtue signaling and social justice rather than entertainment. 

DEADLINE reports that Eichner said:

Quote

Last night I snuck in and sat in the back of a sold-out theatre playing Bros in LA,” he tweeted. “The audience howled with laughter start to finish, burst into applause at the end, and some were wiping away tears as they walked out. Really. I am VERY proud of this movie.”

Crowing to the public about how stupendous your movie is, then yelling at those who refuse to witness your genius and labeling them "homophobic weirdos" is no way to pack a theater.   But it's a pretty effective way to make them laugh at you when it flops.

[Hiyo]

Quote

I don't find gay male romance, lifestyle, etc. very interesting.   

Imagine if people said that about movies starring Black people, or Asian people, or transgender people...

[millennium]

1 hour ago, Hiyo said:

Imagine if people said that about movies starring Black people, or Asian people, or transgender people...

They do.  And IMO that's okay.   There's no law saying we have to be interested in everybody's culture/lifestyle.  I'm transgender.   I wouldn't begrudge Billy Eichner or anyone else who didn't want to see a movie about my lifestyle and issues.   I wouldn't call them "transphobes."   In America, everybody is entitled to their own preferences and opinions.   It only becomes problematic when folks overstep and come to believe that their opinions/preferences supersede somebody else's rights as Americans and human beings. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by millennium

[Hiyo]

Quote

They do.  And IMO that's okay. 

To each their own then.

[DearEvette]

On 10/3/2022 at 9:47 PM, twoods said:

I wonder if people (like me) felt that it was a movie that can be streamed and didn’t need to be seen at the movie theater to enjoy it, hence why it didn’t make a lot of money. Romcoms don’t tend to do well like the action movies at the box office. 

This was me.  I had seen A trailer and assumed it was on Netflix.  I was very surprised it was theatre released.  I'd catch it on Netflix. 

i do plan to see it if/when it comes to a streaming platform I have because I generally prefer funny, light rom-coms generally.   The trailer was interesting, because there were parts that felt like parts felt done and done again.  Lots of Luke McFarlane with no shirt and them at a loud obnoxious nightclubs complete with lasers and electronica music.  Those parts felt like something right out of 90s gay life cliche.  But the work place stuff and the smaller moments looked cute and funny. 

6 hours ago, Lethallyfab said:

It is *extremely disingenuous* for the cast and crew to make a film *extremely tailored* to gay people (poppers! grindr! Throuples!  Testosterone injections!) and to tout its gay bona fides — it’s the first gay-rom com made by a major studio!  It’s the first rom-com with an all LGBTQ cast! —  and then to cry homophobia by straight people when it didn’t have the crossover box office success that they wanted.  

Universal spent 40 MILLION DOLLARS marketing this movie.  That is an *obscene* amount of money to spend on a film containing zero actual stars.

I find it insane they spent that much on marketing and I never really saw anything except from some retweeted by LBGTQ folks I follow on twitter.  Meanwhile I am being deluged with ads for Amsterdam which I have NO desire to see.

What I was hearing from those LGBTQ folks is that yeah Billy's own word-of-mouth marketing and publicity was a little off putting.  I was confused because I thought he was giving mixed messages.  I think he was touting the by-and-for LGBTQ a lot,  but he was really trying to make that a selling point not for LGBTQ  folks but for straight people.  It was almost like he was challenging allyship.  At least that was my take-away.

6 hours ago, Lethallyfab said:

‘Marry Me’ went day and date on Peacock and that starred Jennifer Freaking Lopez, who is actually a rom-com draw.

And while I do think it is too bad the movie isn;t doing well commercially and all that bodes, I also think this is a salient point.  In the current movie going culture, rom-coms aren't the huge money makers like they were in the heyday of Julia Roberts and Meg Ryan.  Sandra Bullock and Channing Tatum's Lost City actually over performed projections.  And even though Paramount had done a sole theatrical release they hadn't given it huge projections.  And it went to streaming only about six weeks later.  But it did great across all demographics.  Of course that is largely because of Bullock and Tatum's star power which the same can't be said of Eichner.

And to the point re: J.Lo, she has a new rom-com coming out that is streaming on Prime. 

[StatisticalOutlier]

1 hour ago, DearEvette said:

I find it insane they spent that much on marketing and I never really saw anything except from some retweeted by LBGTQ folks I follow on twitter.  Meanwhile I am being deluged with ads for Amsterdam which I have NO desire to see.

I watch TV on an actual TV, and saw ads for Bros there.  So maybe that's where they were spending their money, which seems kind of odd for a movie that probably wouldn't appeal to old people who watch TV on an actual TV. 

I haven't seen a single ad on TV for Amsterdam.

7 hours ago, millennium said:

There are many types of movies I don't go to.   Movies with subtitles (it felt edgy in college, now not so much),

I'm the opposite--I love going to movies from other countries, so if I see that a movie has subtitles, I have to talk myself out of going; it's a rebuttable presumption I'll see it.  On the other hand, it's a rebuttable presumption that I won't go to an American romantic comedy.  Not a chance in hell I was going to see Marry Me, based only on the previews I saw.

When I saw the preview for Bros, especially the scene of the meeting and lesbian week or whatever that made me laugh,  I decided I'd see it.  And when I'd see the ads on TV, it would reinforce that I was going to go.  Actually, that's the progression of Lost City for me--saw the previews and laughed, saw some TV ads and laughed, rebutted the presumption that I wouldn't go to a rom-com, and went to see it and laughed.

That's what I expected from Bros, but because of the rebuttable presumption, I was susceptible to the extraneous matters.  I'm not on social media and I don't watch shit like Entertainment Tonight so I'm sure I missed the bulk of it, but on The Bachelorette they stuck in an interview with Eichner and some other guy.  Oh, it's that movie I'm wanting to see!  But it was all about the makeup of the cast and not the movie.  

So I was already outside my lane by planning to go to Bros at all, and it wasn't hard to get pushed back in.

[Irlandesa]

I too have seen a lot of ads for Bros on TV and am just starting to see promos for Amsterdam.

I don't know what to make of Bros.  Is there a marketing campaign that could have made it a moderate hit?  Maybe.  I actually thought they were off to a good start.  I thought the first trailers contained some moments that made me laugh out loud. Then it started to get amazing reviews and word of mouth was strong.

But then I felt like things started to stumble when they leaned heavily into the importance of Bros.  I get that it's a major step but most people don't want "it's historic" to be the driving marketing message of the comedy they're going to see.  It's not that it can't be talked about, especially in the aftermath, but that's not going to get people to go see it.  Indies and dramas are where importance might attract people.

Then the promos started ending with "straights? They've had a good run" which I just felt was tone deaf for a movie that was always going to be hard to launch even if things went perfectly.  There was always going to be a group who'd never see the movie because of homophobia. But there were probably viewers out there who might have gone if the later marketing didn't make it seem like they were only targeting a niche audience. 

I also saw a theory that they never marketed it about anything.  Sleepless in Seattle is about a journalist who becomes enamored with a widower who she heard on late night radio.  You've Got Mail is about enemies in real life but who fall in love through their anonymous correspondence.  I don't know that I could really give you the logline to this movie.

But given all of that, I still don't know if people would have seen it.  I still look forward to seeing it but I don't do theaters because of COVID.  And I also heard this compared to Bridesmaids (a movie I hate) and I want to be able to fast forward through any gross out humor.

[Bill1978]

46 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

But then I felt like things started to stumble when they leaned heavily into the importance of Bros.  I get that it's a major step but most people don't want "it's historic" to be the driving marketing message of the comedy they're going to see.  It's not that it can't be talked about, especially in the aftermath, but that's not going to get people to go see it.  Indies and dramas are where importance might attract people.

The movie hasn't opened here in Australia yet so I can't really comment on the actual movie, but from a promotion point of view I do think they went the wrong path is promoting the historical importance in its advertising campaign. I guess you could say as a cis white gay male I'm the key demographic for the film, but the initial trailers had me wondering what the actual plot was and was this only made for the purpose of being the first of its kind. It seemed to be congratulating itself and telling me I better see it cause of its importance, which was a turn off. When the later trailers started to focus on the potential story, I decided maybe it is worth a trip to the cinema, and I'm still deciding if it's worth a trip.

I think from a marketing point of view they should have gone the path of Love, Simon. The trailers promoted the movie like every other teen coming of age film, while using the gay protagonist as the hook into why this movie is different to all the other ones you've seen so it's worth checking out as it isn't same old same old. The studio let the critics/reviewers promote the fact it was the first gay teen movie from a major Hollywood studio and the importance of that fact, so if you were just watching trailers/ads you weren't being told why it was so important to see the movie. If that makes sense. At no point did I feel like the movie or studio was patting itself on the back when I saw advertisements for Love, Simon whereas Bros' advertising was very self-congratulating and off putting.

It is a pity it has flopped because even though Love, Simon eventually made $41 million in the US (the 15th highest-grossing teen romance film since 1980, and the third-highest by 20th Century Fox after The Fault in Our Stars and Romeo + Juliet - from Wikipedia), the studios will look at Bros' box office and most likely assign LGBT+ themed movies back into the independent basket which would be a shame. Especially since based on reviews, it is the marketing of the film that let down the box office and not the actual film itself.

[methodwriter85]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:59 PM, Bill1978 said:

At no point did I feel like the movie or studio was patting itself on the back when I saw advertisements for Love, Simon whereas Bros' advertising was very self-congratulating and off putting.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm at.

I've been consuming gay media since the late 1990's when Trick and Get Real came out when I was about 12. I felt no obligation to see this movie in theaters or feel like it was revolutionary. I probably will see it, but again, I'm not thrilled with how this was marketed.

On 10/5/2022 at 9:59 PM, Bill1978 said:

I think from a marketing point of view they should have gone the path of Love, Simon. The trailers promoted the movie like every other teen coming of age film, while using the gay protagonist as the hook into why this movie is different to all the other ones you've seen so it's worth checking out as it isn't same old same old.

They're doing a smart job with advertising  the upcoming Red, White, and Royal Blue on Amazon mostly through Instagram stories that are probably a fraction of the cost of a trailer using Queen and George Michael:

In that case they're selling me on how fucking adorable Nicholas Gallitzine and Taylor Zakhar Perez will be in their roles and damn it, it's drawing me in even though I've never read the book.

[Snow Apple]

On 10/7/2022 at 1:56 PM, methodwriter85 said:

They're doing a smart job with advertising  the upcoming Red, White, and Royal Blue on Amazon mostly through Instagram stories that are probably a fraction of the cost of a trailer using Queen and George Michael:

In that case they're selling me on how fucking adorable Nicholas Gallitzine and Taylor Zakhar Perez will be in their roles and damn it, it's drawing me in even though I've never read the book.

Ohh, I didn't know they're making a movie of RW&RB. I'm there. Really liked the book even though many details are wrong (I don't think the 2nd son can have the title of Prince of Wales). But it's a cute fairytale and that's the draw.

I don't watch movies in theaters anymore and I was going to see Bros when it starts streaming somewhere or even watch on DVD if possible, but Billy's rants blaming homophobes as the reason it bombed turned me off. Lots of movies flop, even good movies. I haven't decided if I'll watch Bros now but who knows?

[Lethallyfab]

I am once again *begging* every one involved to stop with this nonsense.  A perfectly serviceable romantic-comedy is THE GREATEST MOVIE a hysterically sobbing 84-year old has ever seen?  Has he seen approximately *one* movie?   Also, the movie itself is ALL about the importance of gay history and yet I haven’t seen a single instance of the press tour naming a prior gay rom-com that it was influenced by or wanted to pay tribute to.  It’s easy to portray yourself as the MOST IMPORTANT gay romantic comedy to ever exist by acting as if you are the ONLY gay comedy to ever exist. 

[shrewd.buddha]

13 hours ago, Lethallyfab said:

A perfectly serviceable romantic-comedy is THE GREATEST MOVIE a hysterically sobbing 84-year old has ever seen?

Speaking as someone who did see the movie, I can say that it seemed pretty much like a comedy product from Judd Apatow.  The lead character has likeability issues but eventually finds love anyway.

As a gay romantic comedy, there are issues.  The two men do not have a "meet cute" moment.  Billy's character talks a lot about queer people being great and important -- but he appears to be (comedically) miserable in his gay life.  Luke's character tells him he always looks angry -- but he really always looks unhappy or dissatisfied.
His awkward/unsexy Grindr hookups are played for laughs (?) and he's not at all excited about group sex -- it's something he participates in to be with Luke's character.  Apparently one-on-one casual sex can trigger commitment issues..  (Who are these people?)
He seems to spend a lot of time curled up on his couch watching (and resenting) straight romantic movies. 

Most of the 'comedy' comes from sort of mocking the 'crazy' aspects of the LGBTQ lifestyle. 
The only people who seem to be living their best, sex-filled, gay lives are the 30- and 40-something himbos who spend their nights semi-dancing shirtless to the same thumpa-thumpa club music.  And despite his protests, they appear to be what Billy's character wants .. and maybe wants to be. 

As far as being explicit or edgy, it's not, really..  Queer As Folk had more nudity and broke more ground over ten years ago.  The 'R' rating must be for language and 'situations', because there is no full fontal nudity, penis shots, etc.  Just men kissing men while mostly wearing underwear or shot from the waist up. 

As I said previously -  it had some fun, cute moments but there were a lot of mixed messages. It seems as if it would mostly be relatable to gay men in high density urban areas.  

Edited October 11, 2022 by shrewd.buddha
grammar

[Lethallyfab]

Even ‘Forgetting Sarah Marshall’ had multiple penis shots.

[Bruinsfan]

Yeah, but they were straight penises, so not a hazard to the public.

[millennium]

[Cress]

I saw this movie and did find it funny and romantic. The museum story had several hilarious bits, with the ride and the lesbians reacting to Bobby's steroid rage. The Hallmark movie parodies were fun too.

On 10/3/2022 at 5:03 PM, shrewd.buddha said:

But Billy's character came off as pretty horrible when meeting Aaron's parents for the first time.  If "being yourself" means having no awareness of other people's comfort level and never letting others talk, then I would also be okay with asking him to take it down a notch.

Yeah, that was very annoying. There were several mixed messages in the movie.

I wasn't put off by the marketing but apparently some people were. I'm sad it didn't do good box office, but I did see trailers for another gay romance movie called Spoiler Alert. I believe it's based off of the TVline guy's book. Maybe if that movie is more successful, it might be clearer that LGBTQ movies can do good business with straight audiences. I'm straight myself but have seen LGBTQ movies for many years.

On the other hand, when Crazy Rich Asians came out, all the promotion and marketing mentioned how it was the first major studio picture since Joy Luck Club with a majority Asian cast. That put a lot of pressure on the movie to do well, and for audiences to turn out so that Hollywood would keep making movies like it in the future. I think that's a legitimate thing to do, talking about diversity milestones, to get you excited about a movie. I wouldn't necessarily think that a person is racist for not seeing it, if they just don't like rom-coms, or they disagreed with the excessive focus on super-rich people, but I don't think it's wrong to say, "support this film for cultural inclusiveness reasons."

Edited October 15, 2022 by Cress

[Harvey]

On 10/11/2022 at 6:20 AM, Lethallyfab said:

I am once again *begging* every one involved to stop with this nonsense.  A perfectly serviceable romantic-comedy is THE GREATEST MOVIE a hysterically sobbing 84-year old has ever seen?  Has he seen approximately *one* movie? 

Well why wouldn't it be? I finally had the chance to watch this today. It's easily the best movie to come out in 2022. I can't think of anything else that even comes close. It's perfect.

[PurpleTentacle]

I really liked this movie. It wasn't great all the way through. I didn't love the part where it just straight up forgot that it was supposed to be a romcom. But all the other parts were just really fun and funny and brought a smile to my face.

It's sad that Hollywood execs will inevitably take the wrong lessons from its failure, like they always do.

I did not know that Harvey Fierstein is still alive. Good for him. Why don't I see him in more stuff though? I always loved him.

On 10/3/2022 at 10:56 PM, Spartan Girl said:

Also some of the POC/BIPOC LGBTQ community weren’t interested in seeing another movie about two white cisgender gay men, which I totally understand. I just to automatically get annoyed whenever people shitpost about someone on Twitter, hence my knee jerk reaction.

If they had replaced Billy Eichner with a black man this might have been better.

Though we already had an amazing interracial gay couple in a comedy show. *shouts* Nine-Nine!

On 10/4/2022 at 3:47 AM, twoods said:

I wonder if people (like me) felt that it was a movie that can be streamed and didn’t need to be seen at the movie theater to enjoy it, hence why it didn’t make a lot of money. Romcoms don’t tend to do well like the action movies at the box office. 

Yeah that is the main thing here. Nobody watches romcoms in the theater anymore. The genre was basically dead before the pandemic and that gave it the rest. Why would you go to an expensive theater where you can catch a potentially deadly virus, if you can snuggle with your SO on your own couch and watch the quadrillion romcoms on Netflix and Hallmark instead. There are even a few gay ones in there, as this film even pointed out.

This film was not even consistent about it's critique of the Hallmark movies. It was all "way to cis, white, monagomous, heteronormative this and that" and then suddenly we saw a Hallmark Christmas movie that had a poly realtionship with 7 people.

On 10/5/2022 at 7:19 AM, Lethallyfab said:

 ‘Marry Me’ went day and date on Peacock and that starred Jennifer Freaking Lopez, who is actually a rom-com draw.

There is no romcom draw for the cinema anymore and J.Lo is way past her prime.

On 10/5/2022 at 7:19 AM, Lethallyfab said:

There’s also a certain amount of irony by casting a Hallmark rom-com hunk as the love interest, spending a good 20 minutes of its runtime mocking Hallmark movies and yet Luke Macfarlane gives the best, most nuanced performance in the entire film.

Luke Macfarlane was amazing. That is why I'm saying if anybody should have been replaced, it should have been Eichner.

On 10/11/2022 at 6:20 AM, Lethallyfab said:

I am once again *begging* every one involved to stop with this nonsense.  A perfectly serviceable romantic-comedy is THE GREATEST MOVIE a hysterically sobbing 84-year old has ever seen?  Has he seen approximately *one* movie?   Also, the movie itself is ALL about the importance of gay history and yet I haven’t seen a single instance of the press tour naming a prior gay rom-com that it was influenced by or wanted to pay tribute to.  It’s easy to portray yourself as the MOST IMPORTANT gay romantic comedy to ever exist by acting as if you are the ONLY gay comedy to ever exist. 

Of course it's objectively far from the best movie ever made, it's even far from the best romantic comedy ever made (that is clearly Kimi no Na wa [Your Name]), but that doesn't mean that the story isn't true. Old gay men have lived through very opressive times and a gay movie by a mainstream studio in a big cinema might illicit such a respone.

I'm reminded of the protagonist of S-Town (a podcast made by the Serial team), who watched Brokeback Mountain all the time, because it meant so much to him. When I heard that, I thought "He is a stronger man than me, because the two times I watched that movie I felt like somebody had stomped on my soul for a week.". At least Bros left me happy. That might have been a new experience for that guy. A gay movie in a cinema that leaves you happy.

On 10/11/2022 at 3:41 PM, shrewd.buddha said:

As far as being explicit or edgy, it's not, really..  Queer As Folk had more nudity and broke more ground over ten years ago.  The 'R' rating must be for language and 'situations', because there is no full fontal nudity, penis shots, etc.  Just men kissing men while mostly wearing underwear or shot from the waist up. 

Also now that you mention it: The first sex scene between our protagonists was just ridiculous.  Macfarlane was on top of Eichner who lay flat on his back and I don't think they were supposed to be frotting, but having anal sex. How in the hell is that supposed to work?! That's not where the anus is. Gay people should know that.

That is where I respect Bryan Fuller so much. When the second unit brought him something similar for the sex scene with the Djin, in american gods season one, he told them "Is he fucking his belly button?! Go back and shoot it again!" and the sex scene we got in the end was hot.

[Camera One]

I thought the movie was watchable and mildly entertaining.  The main character was a bit much at times, but was still somewhat likeable.  I didn't find the script that funny (no real laugh-out-loud moments for me), but it was nice to follow these characters for a bit.  The character journeys were alright but not too well developed.  There were a lot of stereotypes.  Overall, not a bad movie, but also didn't stand above.  I hope lots of people watch it on demand and streaming, though, since it would be great if there were more same-sex romantic comedies in the future.

[cpcathy]

I had wanted to support the movie by going to the theater but couldn’t find anyone to go with me, so I watched it on demand. I really enjoyed it, it ended up being a feel good movie for me, loved the museum opening party at the end. The cameos surprised me, I laughed out loud. Billy is a lot for a whole movie but I appreciate this being made, and the large LGBTQ cast. Hope we get more in the future.

[Browncoat]

I saw this last night, and I'm still laughing about "Holly Poly Christmas".  And the ride in the museum.  That was hilarious!  I did tear up a little when they panned by a picture of Leslie Jordan.

Overall, I enjoyed it -- it really is a standard rom-com.  Two people meet, fall for each other, have a conflict, then get back together at the end.  I disagree that they didn't have a meet cute.  Very classic seeing a stranger across a crowded room and feeling an instant connection.

Aaron was wrong for telling Bobby not to be himself, and Bobby was wrong to dial it up to 11 in retaliation, but the insecurities each of them had was a great source for the conflict.  

The clinker for me was the presence of Debra Messing.  I'm not a fan, although she was nominally tolerable here.  She didn't seem quite as sanctimonious as she usually does.

[Bruinsfan]

I think they missed a chance at a good joke by not having Bobby exclaim "Who is this guy? Batman?" after Aaron kept disappearing every time he looked away during their initial meeting at the club.

[heatherchandler]

On 10/20/2022 at 6:17 PM, PurpleTentacle said:

There is no romcom draw for the cinema anymore and J.Lo is way past her prime.

I know people who actively avoid any movie with her in it.  I do too.

[Irlandesa]

This is streaming on Peacock starting today.  I really enjoyed it.  Many of my fears based on some of the promos (like comparing this to Bridesmaids) didn't pan out.  There was no gross out humor. 

I loved all the Hallheart titles but I didn't think this was a movie parody of Hallmark movies other than perhaps the chocolate making.  The starts and stops worked and the conflict worked of the tension between being out and being an advocate. 

They did have great chemistry.  I didn't even mind Billy except for during some of his longer monologues later in the film.

[starri]

On 10/26/2022 at 7:56 PM, Browncoat said:

I saw this last night, and I'm still laughing about "Holly Poly Christmas".

The bisexual "Christmas With Either" is the one that got me.

[Bruinsfan]

I bought the blu-ray, and am now disappointed that we didn't get to see the deleted Pride Fight scene in the theater. It was hilarious, packed to the brim with funny moments, and would have been a highlight if it hadn't been cut. What, they had to cut a third of the movie's jokes out to make room for Billy repeating the last sentence everyone else said to him in a whiny, mocking tone?

(Also disappointed that the Aaron full frontal clip from the pre-Christmas party dating montage that Nick Stoller mentioned wasn't included among the deleted scenes, but I can at least understand the rationale for that decision even if I disagree with it...)

Edited December 3, 2022 by Bruinsfan

[Scarlett45]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:35 PM, Irlandesa said:

This is streaming on Peacock starting today.  I really enjoyed it.  Many of my fears based on some of the promos (like comparing this to Bridesmaids) didn't pan out.  There was no gross out humor. 

I loved all the Hallheart titles but I didn't think this was a movie parody of Hallmark movies other than perhaps the chocolate making.  The starts and stops worked and the conflict worked of the tension between being out and being an advocate. 

They did have great chemistry.  I didn't even mind Billy except for during some of his longer monologues later in the film.

I had wanted to check this out and will make room in-between holiday things.

Edited to add- I liked this so much! It was cute and funny. It hit all my rom-com beats, it poked fun at Hallmark which I very much enjoyed (I do watch many Hallmark films and Luke MacFarlane is still so handsome). I liked that it was specifically a gay romance but so many themes are universal. Bobby wrote him a SONG- it was so precious.

[starri]

I think what I liked the most was how refreshingly drama free the non-romance parts were.  There was no angst about coming out.  No one was dying of HIV.  It was just the story of two adult men who have very clear senses of their identities and have lives that they're pretty much settled into who can't help liking each other.  I can't tell you the last queer movie I saw where there wasn't at least one of those things.

[Scarlett45]

31 minutes ago, starri said:

I think what I liked the most was how refreshingly drama free the non-romance parts were.  There was no angst about coming out.  No one was dying of HIV.  It was just the story of two adult men who have very clear senses of their identities and have lives that they're pretty much settled into who can't help liking each other.  I can't tell you the last queer movie I saw where there wasn't at least one of those things.

I kind of wanted to build on this, in that I appreciated the film didn’t fall into the tropes that aggravate me in rom coms (I love them by the way, but these things can make or break them):

1. I believe them falling for each other and it occurring over a reasonable period of time- it wasn’t months of longing across a hall or three days together leading to a declaration of love. They met, hooked up, kept seeing each other, developed feelings, had conflict, thought about things and still wanted to be together. 
 

2. Their conflicts seemed very human- rooted in their personalities, short comings, and very real life experiences; you could see where each one misstepped and how it wasn’t a “huge misunderstanding that could’ve been solved in two minutes if people actually talked.”- they did talk, but there were years of insecurities, judgments etc that people don’t just get over. 
 

3. The supporting characters were actually funny and fit in the plot line of the story well. 
 

I also wanted to say, although I liked this one very much (and I have been admiring Luke Macfarlane for years on Hallmark), it wasn’t as good as Fire Island, for reasons I can’t put my finger on.

[Scarlett45]

On 12/2/2022 at 3:35 PM, Irlandesa said:

They did have great chemistry.  I didn't even mind Billy except for during some of his longer monologues later in the film.

Yeah I believed they were hot for each other. 
 

I am a hetero black woman, so forgive my ignorance, but according to the standards of white gay male attractiveness was Bobby not supposed to be handsome?? Or was he just crazy insecure? No he wasn’t quite as built as Luke MacFarlane,* but he was in great shape, lean body toned body, handsome face, the way he was talking about himself you’d think he was a “4” to Aaron’s “9” (if you like built men I would put Bobby at a 8 and Aaron at a 9, but I am not the demographic they are aiming for).

I did appreciate how Aaron pointed out the hypocrisy of judging steroid use but loving the look it gave. 

*I wonder if Luke changed his workout regime for this part. I have been watching him for years and dont recall him looking this way, it may have been a character choice- not complaining though he looked great as usual.

[Irlandesa]

22 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

I am a hetero black woman, so forgive my ignorance, but according to the standards of white gay male attractiveness was Bobby not supposed to be handsome?? Or was he just crazy insecure?

I am no expert either but from other fictional depictions I've seen of gay men, I think it's part insecurity but an insecurity developed by environment.  For instance, Aaron is white, chiseled, groomed, masculine and arguably could pass for a straight man. And in the circles in which Bobby hangs, clubs, those characteristics make Aaron a 10. Bobby's attractive and clearly draws interest but he feels less so in comparison. 

Fire Island also touched on this a bit.  Assuming I'm remembering this correctly, Bowen Yang and Joel Kim Booster were having a conversation where Joel's character (Noah) was lamenting feeling invisible because he's Asian and Bowen (Howie) shot back that at least he's muscular and therefore more coveted than Howie who's also Asian but nowhere near as fit.

[scarynikki12]

One small moment I really like is when Bobby's debating calling Aaron and starts singing "just watch Ozark like a normal person". I routinely break into song when I'm by myself and we all do silly things at home so that was a nice touch of realism.

[Scarlett45]

8 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

Fire Island also touched on this a bit.  Assuming I'm remembering this correctly, Bowen Yang and Joel Kim Booster were having a conversation where Joel's character (Noah) was lamenting feeling invisible because he's Asian and Bowen (Howie) shot back that at least he's muscular and therefore more coveted than Howie who's also Asian but nowhere near as fit.

Yes I remember this in Fire Island, which I understood. I guess to my eye Bobby appeared pretty fit and masculine presenting (although no, not as much as Aaron) so this insecurity didn’t make sense. Noah and Howie’s convo in Fire Island made a lot of sense to me (their friend group is also multi racial, poorer, less masculine presenting etc). 

[possibilities]

I loved this movie! 

I thought it was hilarious but maybe that's an insider view. What some people are calling ambivalence, I'm calling irony. There was a lot of self-mockery in this movie, but in a loving, not degrading way. 

I also don't understand why so many people are upset by the excitement over it being historic. Representation matters. When these things get mainstreamed, without diluting and code switching and pandering to the heterosexual norms, it's a huge sea change in the culture and does have a real impact.

Maybe if you live in a place that is totally unfamiliar with the references being made, or a place so steeped in them that it's nothing new to see it on screen, it has less impact. But most people don't live there. 

I found Fire Island super-boring and kind of rote. It didn't really say anything to a queer sensibility. It was basically dudes inserted into straight culture. And it was grossly insulting to women. It would have been better to not have Margaret Cho's character than to have the only woman in the entire movie be a maudlin male-servicing stereotype.

Bros managed to be a movie about cis dudes, which isn't really my jam. But they did it in a way that was much more respectful and inclusive of the rest of the not-cis-dudes community. I'm a lesbian and I laughed a lot at the jokes about us, which is a real change of pace for this genre, which usually seems to genuinely hate our guts or find us totally humorless.

I also strongly appreciated the lack of coming out drama or queerbashing or reactions to straight-induced violence/discrimination or hate of any kind being the driving force. This movie was 100% inside baseball. It references those external things as influences we've all grown up with, but it wasn't primarily about reactivity and oppressors. It's a relief to have a movie that is about what life is like, not some tortured fantasy of being crushed by it, nor some bland insert-queer-person-into-het-culture-as-blandly-as-possible sanitized treatment.

The conflicts in the move are real ones that I've seen in the community. The personalities were believable. I didn't think anyone was being portrayed as solely at fault or solely the victim. Yes, it was exaggerated for effect, but that's how movies of all kinds generally work.

I loved that they were saying yes and no at the same time to some of those tropes. Yes, there's pain. But there's also joy. No, we're not the same. Yes, we're the same sometimes. No, we're not aspiring to total assimilation. Yes, we can get along. No, not always. For a movie with such wild comedic swings (like the ride at the museum) it was also fairly nuanced. Even such things as the "sell-out" being the one who actually got the funding for the "too crazy" museum, and the fact that the so-called "sell-out" was actually doing wills for gay people. It's hilarious because I've seen those kinds of tensions within the community-- who's "a true freak" vs "a passing person" and how crazy that kind of division is, but it happens. So the movie exploited all of those fissures while not actually taking sides.

I thought it was the funniest movie I've seen in a long time, and maybe ever. But I really think it depends on how much of this kind of thing you've seen in real life, whether it comes across as funny vs confusing or hard to understand.

And yes, people do get excited about being on a film where all the actors are LGBTQ. It's rare. It's a relief. If you're always in the position to be the majority, you have no idea what it feels like not to be, and how exciting it feels to suddenly have an opportunity to feel what that is like. 

Edited December 6, 2022 by possibilities

[starri]

18 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

according to the standards of white gay male attractiveness was Bobby not supposed to be handsome?? Or was he just crazy insecure? No he wasn’t quite as built as Luke MacFarlane,* but he was in great shape, lean body toned body, handsome face, the way he was talking about himself you’d think he was a “4” to Aaron’s “9” (if you like built men I would put Bobby at a 8 and Aaron at a 9, but I am not the demographic they are aiming for).

It's hard to put this into words, but that seemed very incredibly realistic and perhaps why it wasn't commented on more fully.  The default assumption with a guy who looks like Aaron wouldn't go for a guy who wasn't at least also a 9, to use your classifications.  It can be brutal on the dating/hookup apps for the same reason.  While I would never compare it to what I know women go through, there are horrible issues with body image issues amongst queer men.  I belong to a Facebook group for gay male doctors, and two years ago when the vaccine was first being rolled out to health care workers, people began posting selfies of their shoulder after the shot.  A lot of the guys who didn't look like they spend a mind-numbing about of time in the gym actually prefaced their photos by apologizing for not looking like the others.  It was some of the most toxic bullshit I've seen in my life.

Which actually does dovetail into something else else I liked:  the movie didn't kink-shame.  It didn't body-shame (Guy Branum's character was allowed to be sexual and the movie was willing to acknowledge there would be guys who'd be into him).  It didn't shame the throuple.  And even Harvey Fierstein hitting on Bobby and Aaron was treated as funny, not horrifying.