Last movie you watched and your critique of it

[Bastian]

My first problem with this movie: since it is an all boy's school the director casts boys for the female parts. Yes, in Shakespeare's time this was how it was done, but this is NOT how any Catholic boy's school would do it EVER.

Since I've never been to an all boys Catholic school, I can't say if they wouldn't do it,

You'd be hard pressed to find a non-religious school putting on any play with guys kissing each other, let along a Catholic school. It's pretty much 100% unreasonable. Huge mistake of the movie Number One. And even IF somehow the drama department got away with it, you'd be hard pressed to find straight guys willing to play those roles, especially the straight guys as shown in the film.

The main character is a homo who plays the fairy (hahahaha) in the play. He finds a "magic love potion" in the play . . .
My second problem with this movie is that NO SUCH POTION EXISTS IN THE PLAY! Bad, bad, bad screen writing to invent something that is supposedly in a famous piece of literature that simply isn't there.

Dude, the script magically revealed a potion that made the magic flower that he uses both in the play and on the town. So that part is not as bad as you are making it seem. [/quote]
What if I told you I was doing a movie about someone who finds a copy of The Wizard of Oz and discovers in the old book a diagram to build giant robots to take over the world?

The reason why that's idiotic is because EVERYONE knows there's no such diagram in the book The Wizard of Oz. So should I write a script where a character finds such a thing, it would be considered a VERY awful device in screen writing terms.

If these people wanted to do a movie about some gay boy turning everyone gay, fine. But it has NOTHING to do with A Midsummer Night's Dream. And they should have left it alone. Or at least followed the rules set up in Shakespeare's play.

This would mean NO "magic potion" but the boy would somehow have to find the flower that Puck originally used in the play. This flower would not make people magically adopt a gay stereotype, but just make them fall for whomever they first saw. That's not difficult to pull of. But resorting to idiotic cliches and juvenile screenwriting explains why these film makers can only make bad gay b movies.

The boy uses the magic potion to cause people to fall in love . . . but by some absurd coincidence, the first person each person sees is only that of the same sex.

Kinda the point of the whole movie...:P[/quote]
The point of the movie is to rely on laughable coincidences? Better screen writers would not depended on the gay aspect and caused the love flower to create all sorts of OTHER interesting combos. It's just insulting to ask us to accept that SOMEHOW the first person each individual saw was of the same sex, thereby causing the entire town to go gay. Insulting. I require more intelligently written films.

Naturally the main character causes the straight jock he has a crush on to fall for him.

He's a teenager, so I don't blame him. If I were in his shoes, I can't say I wouldn't have done the same.[/quote]
Despite the fact he already had a girlfriend and as far as we knew, they were perfectly happy? Extremely immoral. But fine, that would make an interesting story if the main character had to struggle with his immoral decision. Does he? No. Bad writing.

So when the drama teacher catches on and doesn't seem to be surprised at ALL that there is magic afoot
she advises him to return everyone back to normal, including the jock he likes. He does. But what's this? The jock is still in love with him?

I suspected the drama teacher was more than well aware what was gonna happen. [/quote]
Why? Is she some bad reject character from Charmed or something? Why would any sane person EXPECT that magic is going to turn everyone gay? If she's supposed to be some sort of supernatural being or whatever, they should have developed it. As far as we know, she's just some weird old lady who doesn't blink an eye when magical stuff starts happening. Bad writing.

Same thing for the jock-boy, they had made hints throughout the movie that he was more-than-he-seemed or at least not as homophobic or straight as we'd like to believe. At one point, he does slap Timothy on the ass and a few other small things as well.

Guys can slap other guys on the ass in a sports environment and not have it construed as anything other than hetero. But I know what you're getting at. However, it's not so much that they DEVELOPED the character in such a way that makes it seem natural, but that they never contradicted that it could be a possibility.

Still, from a story stand point, I think it's cheesy and weak. A better screenplay would have the main character deal with having to give up the straight guy at the end. This was the easy way out.

Regardless, it's an awful movie.

But the boys are cute and the music is good.

Wouldn't say "awful" but it wasn't amazing either.[/quote]
I would say awful. It's seriously the worst movie I've seen in at least a couple years. And I've seen some bad horror movies. But at least those bad horror movies have clear character development and storyline pay offs and justifiable rules.

This badly written of a screen play would NEVER have made it in mainstream Hollywood had the characters been straight. The only reason why it got made is because we have laxer standards for gay movies.

I hated it. Vehemently.