Reviews

San Francisco photographer Fred Lyon is featured in this one-hour documentary about his work. Very little of his life is revealed, but most of the film is Mr. Lyon speaking and his sparkling personality, insights into photography, and complete lack of ego give this film a wonderful feeling.

Sadly, not much of Mr. Lyon's work is shown after the first half of the movie. I would have loved to have seen more of his prints, especially ones that are not already in the published books of his works.

In one long scene, Mr. Lyon is wearing a striped shirt that clashes with the camera, vibrating so much that it hurt my eyes. The director should have realized this and either cut this scene or reshot it with Mr. Lyon wearing a solid shirt. In another scene, Mr. Lyon gives advice to a young photographer, which certainly showed his kindness but did not add much to the movie. It would have been better to have featured more of Mr. Lyon's work.

Maybe the problem is that the same person wrote, directed, and produced this movie, so there was no one to tell him what didn't work.

I could not get past 20 minutes of the inadequate story line and wooden acting.

Why is it so difficult to find a good gay movie?

Pat Rocco made movies. Way back when. And they featured beautiful men. And the beautiful men were frolicking, walking through the woods, holding hands, kissing, and caressing each other. The affection, romance, and pure beauty of the men is still an amazing statement today. No tattoos, no piercings, no waxed and shaved bodies, no dirty talk or rough treatment. These men love and respect themselves and each other.

The filmmakers interivewed Pat Rocco shortly before he died and found vintage footage of him to include in this tribute. Unfortunately, they also recorded interviews with "experts" to tell the audience what to think and how to react. The unintentional incongruity between the appearances of the "experts" and the men in Pat Rocco's movies shows how far we have strayed from our natural bodies in an effor to be "edgy" or fashionable.

It would have been far better to let Pat Rocco's romantic, playful, joyous work speak for itself instead of bombarding viewers with folks telling us that this work was groundbreaking, important, etc. Don't you think we can see that for ourselves?

The added interviews make the movie feel padded. Repeating some of the vintage footage only adds to this feeling. And it is a shame because there must have been hours of additional shots they could have used instead of showing us the same clips two or three times.

If you are a gay man, treat yourself to this movie if you can find it. But you might want to fast forward through the talking heads.

Men who saw the International Male catalog during their formative years will enjoy this documentary about the birth and growth of the over-the-top (and below the waist) clothing company. Those who are too young to remember International Male may have a difficult time believing it existed.

Two first-time filmmakers interviewed the founder of International Male (just in time) as well as many of the models and former employees. I would love to know the backstory of how this film was made.

This very light topic does not warrant a lot of screen time. Clocking in at nearly and hour and a half, I was ready for it to wrap up long before it did. The best parts were when the folks who were there were allowed to tell their stories, often to the B-roll of excellent vintage photos. Unfortunately, the filmmakers fell into the trap of adding contemporary and (sort of) well-known people, to try to make the movie seem current or something. This was not needed and the movie drags each time it takes us away from the catalogs and model shoots to folks like Carson Kressley (the most obnoxious cast member from "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" which seems more dated now than International Male) and social media "influencers."

I get the impression that the filmmakers took their subject a little too seriously. It's too bad, because with stricter editing, this could be a "must see" film for its target audience.

First time filmmaker Peter McDowell takes us on his journey of unraveling a 50-year old family mystery. On the way, there are surprising revelations, dead ends, and much sadness. But there are also the moments of humor that surface in any well-told true story.

There are many levels here - the personal family story overlaps with American history.

Documentaries seldom reach large audiences. This one deserves to.

62-year old David Pevsner has some good stories. And he tells them well, with humor. Unfortunately, he also fancies himself a songwriter and lyricist and the vast majority of this filmed stage show is Pevsner singing his own songs. You have to endure a lot of mediocre songs (or fast forward through them) to get to the stories, and I cannot say it was worth it. It's too bad, because there is a good one-man show here somewhere about growing up gay, life in the theatre, working as an "escort" and trying to be in a relationship. Oddly, the title has been changed for Amazon Prime to "Musical Comedy Stud" although if you search for the original title it still comes up, so to speak. That's a story I would have like Pevsner to have told!

This documentary starts out easy, with footage of the vibrant LGBT scene in Tel Aviv. After some eye candy and "good news" interviews, it digs deeper to show life in Jerusalem, in an orthodox city, and on a kibbutz. Anti-gay violence is covered, as is the question of whether Israel promotes its status as the only gay-friendly country in the Middle Eastern to deflect its mistreatment of Palestinians.

While a wide spectrum of the community is shown - transgendered people, drag queens, gay parents, and parents of gays - there is a glaring omission of LGBT Palestinians. It would have been fascinating to hear from this double minority.

And because so much of this 2016 production deals with what were then current politics, this film will rapidly become dated if it is not already. It also seems a bit long at an hour and 15 minutes. Some of the repetitive comments and videos of people dancing or lying on beaches could have been cut.

As of December 2020 this documentary is available on Amazon Prime.

The makers of this film found a gold mine of historical footage of Kaye Ballard performances. Unfortunately, most of it is truncated in favor of talking heads.

Michael Feinstein tells us twice that a lot of cabaret acts were preserved as television performances. And the black shoe polish in his hair makes him look very poorly aged. Liz Smith repeats the same accolades several times. The film drags during these testimonials. The best parts are Kaye telling her own stories.

But after all the career highlights we learn nothing of Kaye Ballard's personal life. She grew up in Cleveland and then what? There is some mention of her mother not being supportive and a sweet clip of Kaye with her grandmother. But did she ever have a relationship of her own? Or a life off stage? The end result was unsatisfying as we were not given a true biography.

Thanks to the folks who made this documentary. They did great work finding archival interviews of Hank Wilson and news footage of his accomplishments. Interviews of family members could have shed light on where Hank got his core values.

I would have liked the movie to have explained how the Ambassador Hotel was funded. Where did the money come from? Ditto for the Valencia Rose. And why did the Valencia Rose close?

The film did not cover Hank's campaign against poppers. Hank was convinced that poppers were a major co-factor in the spread of HIV. And while he and a few others succeeded in getting laws (or at least a local ordinance) passed against poppers, it seems to have had no effect on their sale and use.

Later in life Hank ran for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors and the Democratic clubs, including the one Hank co-founded, did not support him. I am surprised the documentary made no mention of this campaign. It was Hank's last hurrah and perhaps the one time he put himself first. And after all he had done for the community, the community was not there for him.

The animation of still photos worked very well, but in my opinion the inclusion of the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence bogged down the movie. It made the film seem overlong and that time could have been spent telling us more about Hank.

Be aware that the DVD has no subtitles or captions for those who need them.

If you lived in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 70's to 90's and dined out or followed the food scene in the press, this documentary is a must see.

It starts with a shocking revelation from Mr. Tower about a childhood experience. It then proceeds chronologically, until about two thirds of the way in, where the storyline becomes shuffled, perhaps in an attempt to make it more interesting.

There are lots of holes in the story, such as what JT did between Chez Panisse and Stars, any personal life he had (was there ever a boyfriend or anything more serious?) and where he went after Stars closed. Also, his attempt to create a Wolfgang Puck style culinary empire, with restaurants around the world, was barely mentioned. When they finally wind back to the closing of Stars, the 1989 Earthquake is blamed. The restaurant remained open for ten more years, so that could not have been the reason. They don't even mention the closing date.

There is much talk of his parents at the start of the film. Once JT graduates from Hahvahd, his family is never mentioned again. Did they ever visit Stars? Did they cut ties with him when they found out he was gay? Did he cut ties with them over money issues? Did they die young and leave him the money he needed to open his own restaurant?

Lots of talking heads and not enough historical footage. They could have done much more with still photos, Herb Caen clippings, and other media articles. Clearly, they started this documentary when JT tried to tackle Tavern On The Green, and there is ample footage of him working in that kitchen.

Unfortunately, Alice Waters is not interviewed. This is unexplained. If she declined to participate, the documentation of her response would have been interesting. If JT insisted that she not be given a chance to tell her side of the story, the viewer should have been informed. Instead, how she feels about JT today is just another hole in the story.

If you want to learn about the last quarter of Aldous Huxley's life and his relationship with his second wife, you would be better off reading "This Timeless Moment" which Laura Huxley wrote in 1968 when she was young, the events were fresh in her mind, and she worked with an editor.

This documentary preserves some of Laura's memories, but they are not in a coherent order. The effort comes across more like a home movie than a documentary. Lots of footage of Laura Huxley walking around her home and yard, exercising, and playing with her grandnieces and grandnephews. She is not seriously interviewed, but gives a stream of consciousness narration about her life based on whatever objects in her home prompt a recollection. As a result, the movie runs a bit long.

Some things that might have been interesting were not pursued. There is a photo of Orson Welles dining in their home. What was it like to have him as a house guest? We'll never know. The director didn't ask.

Because Aldous Huxley died so long ago, the filmmaker resorts to interviewing people who did not know him but have something to say about him. Nick Nolte is one of the stranger talking heads, appearing because he allegedly starred in a movie version of Aldous Huxley's, "The Genius and the Goddess." No such movie can be found in imdb under general titles, films based on Huxley's writings, or films in which Nick Nolte acted.

This movie desperately needs subtitles and does not have them. Laura Huxley has a strong accent that caused some content to be lost.

Nixon / McGovern is the first presidential race that I can remember. I was in the third grade, so of course I did not understand the issues. All I knew was that my parents supported Nixon and my college aged brother supported McGovern.

History classes in elementary and high school never got past WWII, so this film helped me fill a gap. One of the deleted scenes explains how the U.S. first got involved in Vietnam and perhaps should have been the opening of the film.

It is great that they were able to capture McGovern in his own words while he was still alive. There are wonderful insights by Dick Gregory, Gore Vidal, and Gloria Steinem. Some of the other "talking heads" added very little and should have been excluded or cut way down. Framing them in extreme close ups made for unpleasant viewing.

The rest of the film is both too much and too little. The film opens with footage of Bush II, Clinton, etc. in what may have looked current when the film was made, but now just seems dated. It also hits you over the head with the creator's political agenda. The film returns several times to political events of the 80's, 90's, etc that have nothing to do with McGovern. It's a pointless (and wildly speculative) "look what happened because McGovern wasn't elected" argument.

The narration is over the top severe, but blandly delivered by a woman who sounds like she is reading a script.

We know how brutal Vietnam was. After a while, the repeated footage of body parts and mutilated people seemed gratuitous. We get the point.

Meanwhile, news footage that would have brought the past to life is missing. We hear about a debate in which fellow Democrat Humphrey brutally attacked McGovern. Why not show it?

McGovern's wife is barely mentioned and we learn almost nothing about her. Ditto for his children. If he had any life outside of politics, we weren't shown it. His political career ended in 1972. What did this man do for the next 40 years?

The film assumes too much knowledge of people and events. Muskie, Wallace, Humphrey, and other names and faces flash by with little explanation of who they were. As a yearbook for McGovern campaign workers, this may not be needed, but for educational purposes, this should have been included.

This film could have used an independent editor. I recommend this film, but if you weren't following the events when they occurred, you may have to supplement it with outside reading.