I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed the similarities between this movie and "Single White Female." However, SWF was made in 1992; so if there has been any copy-catting going on, it's on Schroeder's part, not Hanson's.
I also agree that there is a STRONG sexual element between the two men. The scene where Michael talks to Alex to thank him for stepping in with the menacing bar patron looked, to me, like a gay pick-up scene. There was all this weird awkwardness between the two. Michael seems like he's inviting Alex for way more than a drink. And the way Alex changes his mind when Spader turns around and walks away? It looked like Alex saw his butt and decided to give this guy a chance.
Even the "sharing" of Claire, the videotaping of Michael and Claire's sex, the "You make a funny face when you come" - I'm a woman, but I honestly cannot imagine any two straight men having an exchange like that. Alex fools around with Claire before Michael does, although Alex had previously "given" him Claire. To fool around with her and then have her have sex with Michael - it's one degree of separation from Alex having sex with Michael. And then Alex videotaping it and watching it openly on Michael's TV - he did everything but give Michael a golden invitation with a butt plug inside!
Just think this through - do you know any straight male who would like to watch his friend's sex act on tape? And worse, having done so, would comment on said friend's "cum face"? I may be naive, but I think this answers the question of what Alex wants. Alex wants Michael for a lover, and when he spurns him, like some jilted lovers, he exacts his for revenge. He even keeps Michael's own brother away from him - clearly, Alex doesn't want Michael's attention to be on anyone but him.
So for me, this clears up that question - it is undoubtedly a twisted kind of sexual relationship that Alex desires. And Michael had to have seen it and known it and even encouraged it. Remember that Alex's whole spiel to Michael was that Michael was too afraid to stand up for himself and be a man. And Michael didn't seem too upset when Alex showed the sex tape at the party. He seemed relieved, and in fact, went out drinking and celebrating with Alex. Alex uses this as an excuse to see how far Michael would stray from what he thinks are his values out of gratitude to Alex. Would you rob a convenience store? Hell yeah. In fact, let's do a 7-11 next!
And then, who does Alex choose to kill? Claire - Michael's new fling. Perhaps Alex was trying to drag Michael out of the closet, and he felt that by destroying all his other relationships, Michael would be more likely to stay close to Alex and do what Alex wanted. I think the "Navy" mention was consciously done to point out Alex's intentions That and Alex walking out of a bed that had TWO women in it to go concentrate on the next step of his plan. Again, I ask - is there any straight man on earth who would leave a bed with two beautiful women in it, both of whom want to have lots of sex with him?
As for the acting, I agree with those who said it might have been better if they reversed the acting. Seeing Rob Lowe, the California pretty boy as an insecure, wimpy loser would have been interesting. And Spader playing Alex? I know he's done those kinds of roles before, but damn, he always does it so well!
Rob Lowe had the worst haircut I have ever seen on a man, and I lived through mullets AND the '80s. Honestly, I thought he was really bad in this thing, and not just because of his hair. Especially when he had to recite lines like his closing "People are such hypocrites" speech. His face contorted in a totally inorganic way. It seemed like he himself was embarrassed.
Maybe that's why people are unclear as to his motivation. Not wanting to commit all the way to who the character was, he chose instead to indicate a stereotypical villain to us. Instead of committing to the gay thing which the role so clearly requires, he goes neither here nor there. Perhaps he was afraid that "playing gay" would hurt his career. I'm so glad he's become a much better actor now
I also agree that there is a STRONG sexual element between the two men. The scene where Michael talks to Alex to thank him for stepping in with the menacing bar patron looked, to me, like a gay pick-up scene. There was all this weird awkwardness between the two. Michael seems like he's inviting Alex for way more than a drink. And the way Alex changes his mind when Spader turns around and walks away? It looked like Alex saw his butt and decided to give this guy a chance.
Even the "sharing" of Claire, the videotaping of Michael and Claire's sex, the "You make a funny face when you come" - I'm a woman, but I honestly cannot imagine any two straight men having an exchange like that. Alex fools around with Claire before Michael does, although Alex had previously "given" him Claire. To fool around with her and then have her have sex with Michael - it's one degree of separation from Alex having sex with Michael. And then Alex videotaping it and watching it openly on Michael's TV - he did everything but give Michael a golden invitation with a butt plug inside!
Just think this through - do you know any straight male who would like to watch his friend's sex act on tape? And worse, having done so, would comment on said friend's "cum face"? I may be naive, but I think this answers the question of what Alex wants. Alex wants Michael for a lover, and when he spurns him, like some jilted lovers, he exacts his for revenge. He even keeps Michael's own brother away from him - clearly, Alex doesn't want Michael's attention to be on anyone but him.
So for me, this clears up that question - it is undoubtedly a twisted kind of sexual relationship that Alex desires. And Michael had to have seen it and known it and even encouraged it. Remember that Alex's whole spiel to Michael was that Michael was too afraid to stand up for himself and be a man. And Michael didn't seem too upset when Alex showed the sex tape at the party. He seemed relieved, and in fact, went out drinking and celebrating with Alex. Alex uses this as an excuse to see how far Michael would stray from what he thinks are his values out of gratitude to Alex. Would you rob a convenience store? Hell yeah. In fact, let's do a 7-11 next!
And then, who does Alex choose to kill? Claire - Michael's new fling. Perhaps Alex was trying to drag Michael out of the closet, and he felt that by destroying all his other relationships, Michael would be more likely to stay close to Alex and do what Alex wanted. I think the "Navy" mention was consciously done to point out Alex's intentions That and Alex walking out of a bed that had TWO women in it to go concentrate on the next step of his plan. Again, I ask - is there any straight man on earth who would leave a bed with two beautiful women in it, both of whom want to have lots of sex with him?
As for the acting, I agree with those who said it might have been better if they reversed the acting. Seeing Rob Lowe, the California pretty boy as an insecure, wimpy loser would have been interesting. And Spader playing Alex? I know he's done those kinds of roles before, but damn, he always does it so well!
Rob Lowe had the worst haircut I have ever seen on a man, and I lived through mullets AND the '80s. Honestly, I thought he was really bad in this thing, and not just because of his hair. Especially when he had to recite lines like his closing "People are such hypocrites" speech. His face contorted in a totally inorganic way. It seemed like he himself was embarrassed.
Maybe that's why people are unclear as to his motivation. Not wanting to commit all the way to who the character was, he chose instead to indicate a stereotypical villain to us. Instead of committing to the gay thing which the role so clearly requires, he goes neither here nor there. Perhaps he was afraid that "playing gay" would hurt his career. I'm so glad he's become a much better actor now