User Reviews

The friend who rented this thought the story line was that something actually WAS in the water which turned everyone in town gay for a short period of time. That would have been an interesting idea for a film. Unfortunately, this benighted offering gets its title from a joke told by one of the characters about a third of the way through the film. Sadly, the film is as lame as the joke.

The story follows the residents of Azalea Springs, a small, Southern town, as they deal with an AIDS hospice opening in their midst. Most who live in the town are unhappy about the idea, and more than a few are downright hostile. However, Alex Stratton (Keri Jo Chapman) thinks it's a good idea, and despite the objection of her overbearing mother (Barbara Lasater), and wimpy, uncaring husband (Matthew Tompkins), she goes to work there. Once employed she reunites with Grace Miller (Teresa Garrett), her best friend from high school. Meanwhile, Mark Anderson (Derrick Sanders), son of the owner of the local paper, wants to cover the story in a light sympathetic to the hospice, but his father (Tommy Townsend) is only interested in sensationalistic news. And Mark has a few secrets of his own, which he shares with those who attend Brother Daniel's (John Addington) weekly meetings to cure those with homosexual tendencies. And Spencer (John Hallum), the requisite wise old queen with great style and wit, is busy overseeing the death of his unacknowledged lover. However, when Alex and Grace's friendship turns to romance, and Mark finds happiness in the arms of Tomas, a Latin house painter, the whole town is turned upside down. Will these couples be happy together, or will the forces of prejudice keep them apart?

It's hard to know where to begin with this film. Just about everything in it was poorly done. The writing was atrocious. Characters are merely stereotypes who are not developed at all. Their actions make little sense because they seem to have little motivation. And the dialogue was either painfully wooden, or ridiculously clichéd. Even the production values weren't very good, as the cinematography was rather uninspired.

The acting was equally bad. Lasater is so over the top, that you stop listening to her tirades (and that seems to be all she has in the way of lines) pretty early on. Sanders and Townsend are both wooden, and show no sense of any kind of father-son relationship. Tompkins' jilted husband is merely ridiculous and annoying. Garrett attempts to breathe some life into her character, but doesn't succeed terribly well. The only one who does reasonably well is Chapman, and it's not enough to carry the film.

Sad to say, I think there was a good premise here, but the execution was so poor that it just doesn't manage to generate a film that is either entertaining or thought provoking. In the end, it's just a curiosity piece, which fails to engage the viewer. You win some, you lose some...

I first caught this movie on the "HERE" movie package and bought the DVD to see it again and for the commentary provided. Much recommended, both.

Though unpolished at spots, this is overall a very good indie film. What strikes me, and might explain why repeated viewing occurred in my case, is the quality of the performances. The female leads by their IMDb profiles are rather thin resumes. One currently is on a syndicated home improvement show, the other appears not have had work for years. But, they are great.

The clueless socialite -- who of all things recently played a nurse (available free at her IMDb page; a very good performance) in an AIDS hospital -- was also wonderful. Various supporting characters were also very good. For instance, the husband ... a thankless role, sure, but well done. See, e.g., the scene before the ball where the problems the couple has is subtly shown. The gay couple gets less play, but they are nice too. Great cast.

The writing is good as well. It has some rough patches -- honestly, one highlight scene seemed a bit rushed in a way -- but it was equally amusing and heartfelt. The fact the writer/director was writing from experience (up to a pt) shined thru. I also am not sure if the "water" thing totally worked. It ultimately was a bit silly and the true focus of the movie are the two couples.

The commentary is also recommended -- the w/d and the two female leads take part. It addresses some concerns. For instance, yes, as a satire there are caricatures. Second, yes, Kelli Herd herself experienced the gospel choir, which is why she used it in the funeral scene. She also notes she knows a couple who met in a "no mo homo" meeting. More info can be found on the website, which is available online. (The website is now defunct; sadly so, since it had photos and so forth). I'm sure other concerns were addressed as well. It wasn't as deep as some commentary tracks, but overall, it was fun to hear the three discuss the movie.

Someone noted that the dying guy didn't really look sick. I didn't really think about that, but I guess that might be an issue. The decline also happened rather suddenly ... one moment he looks pretty healthy, next he is ready to die. Well, it is a hospice, but still ... but, honestly, it didn't upset me too much.

Another comment noted some characters were mean. Such is life, surely in a conservative little town in Texas, and it should be pointed out that even the mother did hire the gay decorator. And, deep down, we see many in the town are good people.

Finally, I love the expressions on the characters' faces ... were they told to overact in that regard? I don't know, but it is quite funny. This includes various expressions of Teresa Garrett (Grace) in which she looks like she wants to punch Sloan.