User Reviews

The makers of this film set a bit of a challenge for themselves. How to make an interesting movie about the world of magazine photography. The subject in this case is one that hasn't been comprehensively covered before: male physique photography. Generally speaking, in 30s the emphasis was on art, in the 40s on fitness, in the 50s on sensuality, and in the 60s on sexuality. The film explores all aspects of this industry by focusing on a few of the top photographers and their models. Surprisingly, not all participants had the same ideas or experiences about their work, nor the same recollections. In fact, these folk seemed to rather enjoy their work, which did emphasize a healthy, fit body. The relationships of the models emerges as congenial and brotherly, and the photographic activity as engaging. As in any "entertainment type industry" there were some over-the-top kibitzing, which in some cases digressed into rather kinky goings on. Still, the makers of this film manage to remain light hearted about most of it, while allowing some top models and fitness stars to share their memories in short commentary episodes.

For those who were not into this area, they could simply not buy the magazines nor be concerned about the whole matter. For those who found this an area of interest, they were free to make their own choices. What caused problems were conflict with the law, which itself may be controversial. These clashes are also presented here in enactments. It was interesting to see Joe D'Allesandro, well remembered from some of Andy Warhol's films, being interviewed--and what a candid, down to earth personality he is.

The fellows, though, come across as having a good time. While it may not be the most ambitious of professions, modeling at least keeps one off the streets -- that is, almost everyone.

I was curious mostly about this movie. Not being one to pass up on seeing a movie based on information or history I took a chance and watched it on the HERE! network a couple of years ago. It was better than I expected.

Ignoring the continuous display of frontal male nudity (which didn't offend me in the least), This film was very informative and entertaining. The interviews opened my eyes to a part of history that I have only read about. It is a pity that this film didn't get more exposure, but I believe that the "exposure" on screen would and probably did prevent any real showcasing in worldwide theaters.

I think that anyone who likes to know what occurred in the past in regards to pre-stonewall life should watch this film. And if anyone who just wants to see guys in the nude without the sex involved, will like it too. In any case, it's really interesting.

Beefcake is a fascinating docu-drama about a unique chapter in the history of the Gay liberation movement in the United States. It's a pity this film hasn't received a wider distribution here (if any at all). The MPAA guidelines, no doubt, would require quite a bit of editing to get it under the NC17 barrier. But nudity in the film, however, far from creating a salicious aura, actually conveys a sense of innocence and freshness to most of the dramatic scenes.

The interview materials, in need of some tighter editing, did drag at times, though they were, for the most part, interesting and informative. This is more than made up for in the dramatic scenes. The actors convey both the excitement of this emerging masculine/Gay "scene" and the tragedy of the legal persecution suffered by the people who promoted it.

By all means, see this movie if you get a chance. It's well acted (Josh Peace is a stand out), well directed and a fitting chronicle of one part of pre-Stonewall history.

I was a male physique model in the 60s in LA and this film brought back so many memories of the time. In those days you weren't totally exposed. Yes, I made centerfold! However, in my frontal shots my hand was casually at the right place although my backside was completely in view. I was an actor, new in town and to earn extra cash I modeled for Young Physique Magazine. I never met Bob Mizer although I certainly heard of AMG then. One of the scenes of this film I enjoyed was interviewing such guys as Joe Dallesandro [of Warhol's FLESH and TRASH]. He still has his looks and sense of humor. Almost making fun of himself. I also enjoyed seeing Jim Lassiter, whom I knew, and Russ Warner. The role of Mizer, played by Daniel MacIvor was well played making him human and at times a bit overbearing. Also liked the acting of Josh Peace [Neil] and Jack Griffin . They both seemed natural and not uncomfortable with the nudity. But that mother of Mizer was too much. I still have some of the films of those times, including one with Jim Lassiter. The combination of the documentary look and today's look worked. Hat's off to Thom Fitzgerald the writer/director of this flick. I remember when I had stripped all my clothes off, having a certain feeling of control as others watched me strut my wares. You find yourself in a quiet place of feeling your body being in a state all by itself. It was quite thrilling. The shoot was done on a rooftop in Hollywood. I also remember thinking at the time, of those who were watching the shoot from their neighborhood windows. You could clearly see apartment buildings surounding us. I hope they were saying, "Another star is born".

Watching a doco about male physique models whilst eating a bag a chips makes you think twice. That aside, this is a reasonably interesting film that blends original archive footage, interviews and places them along side recreations of events of the AMG Studios, set up by Bob Mizer to capture the male physic. The recreations are okay to a limit, there is too much flipping between black and white and colour and some of the actors playing the models have less than defined bodies which goes against all the images we are bombarded with that show strong ripped muscular bodies. Some of the acting is also heading to Hamsville. There are some clever scenes where they have melded archive footage with new scenes and this works very well.

There are some interesting, if brief, interviews with some of the people that came through AMG: models including Joe Dallesandro, as well as other photographers and fans. Then there is a vast array of archive footage of models-and yes there is plenty of flesh on display-and it does have a sense of beauty to it, because despite the obvious homoerotic nature of some of the photos and films made and the fact that these were taken for publications that were really the beginnings of pornography, there is an innocence to some of it and perhaps that was the 40/50/60's backdrop which was an all together different time.

The film wins on its old footage and the telling the story of an age gone by, but is let down by trying to have too many ideas at once. Now I have to go do some sit ups.

More of my reviews at my site iheartfilms.weebly.com

I love this movie for a number of reasons: There is a lot of flesh, sometimes even full frontal. The lead character is beautiful and fresh (although he didn't have much of a career after this, which is a loss to us all.) And there's a lot of gay history, albeit about a very specific area of history. It's also filmed beautifully, very stylized and obviously on sets. It's gorgeous. I've seen it many times.

It's not for everybody. I think that's what I like about it. You can see that they spent a good amount of money on it, but it's only realistically intended for a gay audience. So many gay movies suck. The nineties were cruel with their promise of films that were stupid or poorly done. This one isn't either. I've had my copy for years and I will continue to watch it over and over.

Very entertaining and often funny, this re creation - with selected, astonishing genuine footage - of the AMG he-man 'studio' of the 1950s BEEFCAKE is best seen with a large (gay) crowd in a big cinema. That's how I first saw it and enjoyed the reactions as much as the movie. However the dramatic aspects of BEEFCAKE disappoints or falls short for several reasons: some of the casting is really terrible. Throughout BEEKCAKE, we see genuine footage made in the 50s by Bob Mizer. Parts of the production of these films is dramatized. The actors in these re created scenes are far from physically right. The actor who plays 'Red" has a podgy body, unlike anyone in the real footage, and this is jarring against the photos and film strips screened. Also, one stupid scene with what is supposed to be "Ramon Novarro" with a massive black fake phallus, the old man actor looks like Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons. I cannot fathom the point of having really inappropriate looking actors play parts of well known handsome and athletic men. Even the actor playing Mizer does not look like the real Bob Mizer. BEEFCAKE has some excellent interviews with original AMG talent, especially Joe Dallasandro whose early work is astonishing and humorous. However, the recreated scenes often lurch into territory only seedy gay guys want and it is somewhat alienating from what is basically a fascinating part of Hollywood history. There is actually a good story and better movie unmade (yet) here that is half way successful in this production of BEEFCAKE

This is a wonderful mixture of documentary, drama and vintage material, skilfully inter-weaved to tell us the story of AMG studios. It is fascinating to see these physique films recreated before your very eyes and then masterfully inter-cut with the actual vintage material. It is also sad to see the men who appeared in these movies, at the very peak of their physical beauty, interviewed so many years later when it has all but gone. However, their personalities still shine through and all those interviewed remember their experience in this genre fondly. Technically superb, my one and only reservation about this film is that the actors portraying the models are only vague approximations of the real thing. However, Josh Peace gives a thoroughly charming and charismatic performance as Neil E. O'Hara and Jonathan Torrens is excellent as the mightily naughty David. It would be really nice to have a boxed DVD set of these original films, carefully selected, remastered and presented chronologically. They capture a particular moment in time, far removed from the excesses of today, but still carry a hefty erotic charge.

This film is a huge departure from Thom Fitzgerald's first film The Hanging Garden. Beefcake is a loosely woven docu-drama of photgrapher Bob Mizer's Athletic Model Guild. The style of the film will look very familiar to anyone who's seen the NFB's "Forbidden Love" where interviews with those who knew Bob are blended with a storyline about a court case involving an alleged prostitution ring. Good use is also made of archival footage from AMG and others. The interviews are quite well done- Joe D'Allesandro and Jack LaLanne in particular but the new footage seemed a little 2 dimensional and predictable.

In the 50's, a gay photographer called Bob Mizer (Daniel MacIvor) founded an agency of male models, releasing a muscle magazine called "Physique Pictorial" and movie of men, and many of the models became prostitutes. "Beefcake" shows the rise and fall of this pervert.

Alternating footages from the 50's, testimony of many models and Bob Mizer himself in the present days, the director Thom Fitzgerald used this subterfuge to show naked men and lots of penis along 93 minutes running time, in a complete bad taste and very silly crap. I have never heard anything about this morally corrupt Bob Mizer and I do not know what AMG is. In my opinion, only gay and very specific audiences might like the theme of this boring and pretentious movie. My vote is two.

Title (Brazil): "Carne Fresca" ("Fresh Meat")

Most of the guys interviewed in this documentary wouldn't know who Dorothy is. Even men who cross the (often thin) line between male modeling and hustling do not know that much about campy gay culture. BEEFCAKE deals mostly with this fact. The film is precisely about the detail that most of the models (at least initially) did not realize they were posing mostly for homosexuals. So, it is very unfortunate that catty remarks that may taint a potential viewer's image of the movie are often highlighted. Many Film Critics have done the same before. Tackling stereotypes is also part of BEEFCAKE's agenda, and the movie succeeds in addressing the points I've just mentioned. The flashbacks and dramatization/reconstruction of events are woven into the narrative as well as can be expected. In fact, the editing exceeded my expectations. After all, this type of documentary mixing actual footage, recent interviews, narratives, "faux" past footage, and obviously recreated dramatizations is hardly innovative. But it does work very well here. It is all very coherent. All the added 50s and 60s touches introducing interviewees are actually quite clever. This film defines a period that may have gone forgotten. Dorothy or Judy have nothing to do with this film, except in the head of certain viewers, as in all films. This is one worthwhile documentary mixed with fictionalized events.

Interesting combo of documentary and recreations of a muscle magazine done for (primarily) gay men in th 1950s. It's interesting when they show actual footage and pictures from the 1950s...it falls apart when they try silly factual recreations. They just don't work, they all look very fake and (I'm being the kind) the acting is LOUSY!!! Yeah the guys are handsome and muscular. If that's enough to keep your interest...fine. It got real annoying when you weren't able to tell if it was actual footage or recreations! Also putting new dialogue over old footage was not needed. Interesting film, but a lot of bad choices made in presenting the material.

This film is about the struggle of gay porn in the 50's USA, in the disguise of "physique magazines". It is based on a book of the same name.

This film cleverly mixes archive footage with new footage shot for the film. The film flows seamlessly between the past and the present. The interviews with the physique models are very insightful. I am particularly impressed by these interviews, and the effort to hunt these men down.

There is a lot of male nudity in the film, and yet it feels fresh and healthy, without a erotic or pornographic feel to it. I also liked the acting, Bob Mizer is portrayed very well in the film. The pleads for understanding and tolerance in the film is also very effective.

The sexual controversy is toned down a lot in the film as compared to the book. In addition, the book has more history in it, while the film strips all of these away. That's my only complaint.

As one of the models states in the interview, if these events are not written down, they will be lost forever. I am hence very glad that this piece of history is transcribed (albeit dramatised) from the book into a film.

I did not expect this film to be as good as it was. It transcended

the dishy, titillating cliches and avoided all the usual cheap shots

at all the usual suspects.

It also avoided the dry, overly objective and ultimately unsatisfying

approach to such subject matter. It is not afraid of its subject, nor

is it judgmental, nor does it pander. I takes its subject head on,

without flinching.

This film does what a good documentary, or reconstruction,

should do. It allows us, the viewers, to contemplate its subject, an

enigmatic and deeply alluring aspect of human nature, at length,

and come away feeling we know something important that we

might never have known about the erotic if we hadn't seen it.

It says, as all good films about sex always say, that beauty fades,

passion dies, spells break, illusions end, the substance, if there is

any, eludes our grasp, but the mystery and fascination, as far as

we are concerned, are eternal.

It reveals the erotic, and the homoerotic facet of the erotic, for what

they are, virtually indomitable forces of nature. And it reveals the

struggles and the fate of many of those who encounter such forces

most directly.

There are a couple of scenes in this film that capture the

homoerotic in its almost pure elemental form. The filmmakers

include, toward the end, a clip of a naked young man performing a

homoerotic dance. The sequence goes beyond titillation and

prurience and even eroticism to revelation. Or perhaps I should

say, this sequence is both erotic and revelatory.

One comes away informed and humbled, I think, and, not least,

with respect and compassion for the subjects of the film.

I really enjoyed this! I guess you'd call it a docu-drama, since it's a mixture of reality and re-enactment. The story of Max Wiser and the "Physique" magazines of the fifties was funny, sad, and startling. There were interviews with former members of the "Athletic Models Guild", and lots of male nudity. C---, a movie buddy, asked me if I found that a turn-on. Mostly I didn't, though it was interesting to see which young men came across in the pictures as personalities, and which were just standing there flexing.

Beefcake is a decent 'mock'u-mentary of the life and times of Bob Mizer, founder of the 'Athletic Model Guild' in the early 50s - and precursor to todays muscle mags and also the Playgirl type of magazine. Sure, the storyline is predictable (but, so was 'Titanic') but the characters are all but priceless! And, many of the actors playing the models when young look a lot like the actual models did! This was a great use of stock original footage and 'made to look like' stock original footage. The interviews with the models are priceless, if only for the reality they provide. The acting is spot on, the sets are great and (when viewed in comparison to the original films) quite spot on! One of the other great aspects of the film is the recreation of the AMG original title styles for the credits for this film. All around, a good movie which chronicles the rise and fall of the beginnings of the 'Beefcake' magazine industry!

Funny, brave, humane and concise, this movie starts with a sharply different landscape and source material than Thom Fitzgerald's earlier minor masterpiece, The Hanging Garden, but shares with that film a propensity for spotting touches of authentic humanness in the most unlikely places. The flashes of wit range from sheer serendipity (I was startled to hear myself asking my companion, "Who IS that old queen?" when Jack LaLanne appeared, rabbiting on about Muscle Beach) to carefully scripted exchanges in the courtroom scenes. The latter really are a tour de force--think Ed Wood meets Perry Mason--and newcomer Jack Griffin Mazeika turns in a boffo performance as the sly, but vulnerable young Red. Also worthy of praise are Daniel MacIvor as Bob Mizer and the amazing Carroll Godsman as his mother Delilah. Godsman turns what could have been a campy send-up (think Carol Burnett Show) into a remarkably poignant characterization. One weakness of the film is that the script doesn't give her and MacIvor an aftermath scene in the wake of the brilliant courtroom sequence--in fact the ending of the film is a bit on the spotty side, perhaps due to lack of material.

I thought the interview footage was fairly cleverly integrated into the framework of the narrative. I was fascinated to see Joe D'Allessandro looking like an older guy you'd see washing his Caddy in his driveway in your neighborhood. He actually looked fairly healthy which in itself is an amazing achievement.

The credits do end things on an upbeat note. I can't wait to see where Fitzgerald goes with his next project!

I saw this film with some misgivings and enjoyed it a lot

more than I'd expected. It's the story of Bob Mizer and

his Athletic Model Guild and the unfortunate court trial

that took place in the '60's because of pornography charges. Mizer's physique magazines filled with "artistic" photos of nude and nearly nude males seem quite

innocent by today's standards but were looked upon rather

differently back in those less enlightened times. "Beefcake" mixes lots of vintage photos of AMG models with

contemporary footage and actors giving credible performances (Josh Peace as model Neil O'Hara is especially good). There are a number of "talking head"

interviews with people connected with Mizer's outfit in

one way or another. Two of them are Joe Dallesandro (who

went on to Andy Warhol fame) and Jack LaLanne. I was especially amused by the very macho LaLanne's comments.

Especially when the interviewer asks a question that prompts LaLanne to say "are you asking me for a date?"

That remark brought some guffaws from the audience! For

anyone looking for something different in the way of entertainment, I would recommend this film.

BEEFCAKE is a mess. A mix of documentary and narrative feature, the film is a frustrating failure. When the focus is on archival footage and interviews with fascinating people like Jack LaLanne and Joe Dallesandro, it works. But then it shifts to actors to present the Bob Mizer story. And boy oh boy, are they bad actors. Even the copious amount of male flesh on display can't save BEEFCAKE. Also frustrating is the naive and sugarcoated way Mizer is portrayed. According to BEEFCAKE, Mizer just loved helping people and pleasing his customers and was practically asexual. Puh-lease. It's as if the filmmakers did not want to "go there." LaLanne must have been embarrassed to be involved in what could have been a decent documentary. Listen, if you really want to see skin, rent a porno or get those French rugby team videos from Dieux Du Stade. And if you're interested in the Athletic Model Guild and Mizer's work, seek out the old Physique Pictorials and/or the complete book compilation instead. I cringe just thinking about this movie.

entertaining film. peace's naivete and macivor's enthusiasm never waiver as the story unfolds. a visually engaging film! interesting use of archival photos and real life interviews with several of the actual players in the story. do not leave before the end credits are completely finished.

Beefcake is a film that flits between documentary style 'talking heads' and a pseudo-narrative based on the story of Bob Mizer and the rise and fall of his not-so-secret, voyeur-satisfying empire. Throughout the narrative Beefcake does seem to teeter between the subject of pornography and actually becoming soft-core pornography with the plot emphasis less on the subjectivity of the Athletic Model Guild (AMG) industry and more on the gratuitous recreation of poses and scenes from Mizer's original films and photographs.

The film was partly funded by Channel 4 / Film Four and felt as if it were a cross between two other Channel 4 programmes: Eurotrash (a popular, long running, mildly pornographic programme that eroticised both sexes) and Queer As Folk (a gay drama series released in the same year as Beefcake). Though it did come under attack from some conservative viewers (and notably Gary Bushell's review in the Sun newspaper helped to ensure that alcoholic drinks company Becks pulled out their ad-break sponsorship of the drama) Queer As Folk managed to attract a large heterosexual audience. Similarly to Beefcake, Queer As Folk explores the subject of underage gay sex, male desirability and the naivety of young people. The difference is though that over the course of the series Queer As Folk tries to morally justify (and in some cases; punish) those who break the patriarchal rules whereas in Beefcake the actions of some of the characters don't seem to be justified at all – to the extent that they're being celebrated or glorified. If Beefcake is more a celebration of homosexuality than an exploration of homosexuality, then it does seems to cut down its audience to a niche.

The documentary aspects of this film (the interviews with ex-AMG models) all tend to show the AMG in a positive light. This isn't to say that they shouldn't, or that the interviewees were lying or manipulated, but there are no interviews with any one who opposed the idea of AMG publications at the time, and the nearest we get to a disapproval of the situation is when one of the interviewees claims that Mizer was a 'pervert' but continued working for him because the money was good. There doesn't appear to be two sides to this tale beyond the comparatively small sequence at the end where Mizer is found guilty and his mother is shamed – though this seems to be immediately glossed over with footage that Mizer took in the years after the court case. How can such an unbalanced, bias film be intended for a general audience?

Without a coherent moral judgement, a purposely jumbled plot, and a fictional story interspersed with non-fictional interviews of the AMG models, Beefcake becomes a pastiche of the AMG magazines it's exploring and therefore leaves the audience in no position to judge the subject of the film fairly. It becomes a specialist film for someone who had already made their mind up about the situation.

Beefcake could be described as a 'feel good film'. This phrase is something that's often attributed to 'gay' films by gay viewers. Beautiful Thing (1996) directed by Hettie MacDonald, is part of the same spectrum of gay cinema in that though there is a plot, it's very, very thin and concentrates on showing the aspects of homosexuality that it explores in a positive light. People like to see characters on screen that they can associate with, so it's no surprise that gay films (and even gay characters) can attract a cult following. Whilst it does (to some extent) counter balance homophobia or under representation in mainstream film, it doesn't necessarily mean that the characters are accurate depictions or that few people will watch the film other than homosexuals as the content is far too specific. Not only is the film about homosexuality, but more importantly it's about homoerotic pornography, a subject that a non-homosexual male might even feel slightly afraid of.

Nostalgia is also something played upon heavily in this film through the ex-models and fans of the AMG reminiscing about the now defunct publication. How could you be nostalgic about a time that you didn't remember or didn't agree with in principal in the first place? With out prior knowledge of the marketing, viewing the film alone, you could make a pretty safe assumption through the lack of disavowal that this film was made for a specialist audience. We're also left with no clear idea as to whether Mizer genuinely was interested in male beauty as an art form or whether his only interest was in the pornographic nature of the prints – though the two fields of thought aren't necessarily mutually exclusive.