BROS has carefully positioned itself as a representational object--not an artistic object to be assessed according to its aesthetic qualities, but a political object to be voted for according to your alignment with the intersectional identities on display within its construction. BROS has been loudly proclaimed as "the first gay rom-com from a major studio with a principal cast that is actually LGBTQ+." This is stressed in the trailer. It is the reason why The Advocate is currently blaming the movie's lackluster opening weekend on homophobic "review bombers." It is, ironically, why one of the few negative reviews from movie critics is able to fault the film for choosing to center its story on a white, cis-gendered male (i.e., Billy Eichner) when a story centered on the trans or nonbinary persons of color in the film would ostensibly be much more valuable--a critique which is not only the exact apology made by Eichner's character in the first line of the film, at the climax of the film, and several times out, but which also essentially means that, regardless of how "groundbreaking" this film's existence is, it is unfortunately about ten years too late for any story Eichner tells about himself to have any cultural value.
What exactly is the groundbreaking milestone that this movie is meant to celebrate? When I was in college 20 years ago, there were plenty of gay rom coms starring gay actors at my local Blockbuster in rural Virginia, but I suppose none of those count because they were not released by a major studio. LOVE, SIMON, its television spinoff, and HEARTSTOPPER likewise don't count, I guess, because we're not entirely sure at this moment what the actor Kit Connor thinks about when he's indulging his private fantasies. It doesn't matter that he plays a very believable, empathetic, and likeable bisexual character in a television show that was both genuinely romantic and truly comedic that reached number 1 on the juggernaut that is Netflix--our uncertainty about his actual sexual orientation (which cannot simply be queer and fluid, like the character's own uncertainty about his identity, but must be labeled for public consumption), rules out the show's eligibility for being groundbreaking. Likewise, something like HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH is, well, not romantic enough in its comedic celebration of self-accepting love, I guess. I suppose only BROS checks all the boxes of major studio release, openly gay cast, and cliched rom-com in the vein of HARRY MET SALLY.
I am on board with that! I thought the trailer looked hilarious. I have watched Eichner's "Billy on the Street" videos many times over the years, and I love asking my friends if, for a dollar, they're "giving Nick Jonas credit where credit is due." To clarify that I am not a homophobic review bomber, I should also mention that I am very gay and have been married to a gay man for years. I saw this movie with enthusiasm on opening night, assuming that it couldn't possibly have such consistently glowing reviews if it wasn't actually good.
This movie is painful. Although Luke Macfarlane is very handsome, he and Eichner have zero chemistry, their characters have zero depth, and their romance seems entirely scripted and unbelievable. Aside from some running jokes about Hallmark Christmas movies that got a few chuckles from me, there is very little that is funny in this film. I think the editing is largely at fault; the jokes are rapid fire, yet the scenes are tediously languorous. It's a jarring feeling that sustains the entire film, that a lot is being thrown at you yet nothing is sticking or sinking in. Side characters shuffle in for single scenes to deliver stereotypical "jokes" and then largely disappear from the plot. If the movie were half an hour shorter, perhaps it could have actually been engaging like the trailer was, but instead it is a chore.
And of course I should mention that unlike his Billy on the Street persona, Eichner has decided to rebrand himself as an "intellectual" jerk instead of a shallow one in this film--a decision that is baffling, unrealistic, and results in one of the most obnoxious, narcissistic, unrelenting main characters I've ever seen in a film. You're not a historian! You're not a scholar! If you were, you'd know that the evidence for President James Buchanan's homosexuality far outweighs any rumors about his successor Abraham Lincoln. This is fairly well known history, both today as well as in the 1850s! It's hard to take these pseudo-historians' superserious work (and the thesis of the film) seriously when they fail to even mention this. Is it because admitting that the first gay president was a Confederate sympathizer who essentially caused the Civil War is too problematic?
BROS exists and stands on its claim to being a very particular history-making cultural object. Its own ignorance of history, and its hyperspecialized definition of trailblazing, make that status hardly worth celebrating. The fact that the movie itself is abysmal is far more important. Just like James Buchanan, who is widely considered one of the worst American presidents, being the "first" of something doesn't necessarily mean you're praiseworthy.
What exactly is the groundbreaking milestone that this movie is meant to celebrate? When I was in college 20 years ago, there were plenty of gay rom coms starring gay actors at my local Blockbuster in rural Virginia, but I suppose none of those count because they were not released by a major studio. LOVE, SIMON, its television spinoff, and HEARTSTOPPER likewise don't count, I guess, because we're not entirely sure at this moment what the actor Kit Connor thinks about when he's indulging his private fantasies. It doesn't matter that he plays a very believable, empathetic, and likeable bisexual character in a television show that was both genuinely romantic and truly comedic that reached number 1 on the juggernaut that is Netflix--our uncertainty about his actual sexual orientation (which cannot simply be queer and fluid, like the character's own uncertainty about his identity, but must be labeled for public consumption), rules out the show's eligibility for being groundbreaking. Likewise, something like HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH is, well, not romantic enough in its comedic celebration of self-accepting love, I guess. I suppose only BROS checks all the boxes of major studio release, openly gay cast, and cliched rom-com in the vein of HARRY MET SALLY.
I am on board with that! I thought the trailer looked hilarious. I have watched Eichner's "Billy on the Street" videos many times over the years, and I love asking my friends if, for a dollar, they're "giving Nick Jonas credit where credit is due." To clarify that I am not a homophobic review bomber, I should also mention that I am very gay and have been married to a gay man for years. I saw this movie with enthusiasm on opening night, assuming that it couldn't possibly have such consistently glowing reviews if it wasn't actually good.
This movie is painful. Although Luke Macfarlane is very handsome, he and Eichner have zero chemistry, their characters have zero depth, and their romance seems entirely scripted and unbelievable. Aside from some running jokes about Hallmark Christmas movies that got a few chuckles from me, there is very little that is funny in this film. I think the editing is largely at fault; the jokes are rapid fire, yet the scenes are tediously languorous. It's a jarring feeling that sustains the entire film, that a lot is being thrown at you yet nothing is sticking or sinking in. Side characters shuffle in for single scenes to deliver stereotypical "jokes" and then largely disappear from the plot. If the movie were half an hour shorter, perhaps it could have actually been engaging like the trailer was, but instead it is a chore.
And of course I should mention that unlike his Billy on the Street persona, Eichner has decided to rebrand himself as an "intellectual" jerk instead of a shallow one in this film--a decision that is baffling, unrealistic, and results in one of the most obnoxious, narcissistic, unrelenting main characters I've ever seen in a film. You're not a historian! You're not a scholar! If you were, you'd know that the evidence for President James Buchanan's homosexuality far outweighs any rumors about his successor Abraham Lincoln. This is fairly well known history, both today as well as in the 1850s! It's hard to take these pseudo-historians' superserious work (and the thesis of the film) seriously when they fail to even mention this. Is it because admitting that the first gay president was a Confederate sympathizer who essentially caused the Civil War is too problematic?
BROS exists and stands on its claim to being a very particular history-making cultural object. Its own ignorance of history, and its hyperspecialized definition of trailblazing, make that status hardly worth celebrating. The fact that the movie itself is abysmal is far more important. Just like James Buchanan, who is widely considered one of the worst American presidents, being the "first" of something doesn't necessarily mean you're praiseworthy.