Reviews

*May contain spoilers* Bros tells the story of Bobby(Billy Eichner) and Aaron(Luke Macfarlane), 2 gay men in New York, who meet and fall in love. The film follows the path of a romantic comedy but instead of a man and a woman as the main characters, he has 2 gay men as the main characters. It is a romantic comedy with a twist and if you have seen at least 1 romantic comedy in your life, you should know and shouldn't be surprised that by the time the movie ends, our heroes will end up together, but even that has a bit of a twist in the plot.

To its credit, the film is funny, engaging, make a poke of gay dating and gay culture as well of the way Hollywood handles gay characters It is full of sharp observations and the movie is trying to be as much as positive for the whole gay culture and history. Another thumb up the movie receive for casting all characters with an all gay cast on the spectrum of the LHBTQ+ community( on a side note- I have no problems that a straight actor will have a gay role. If he is a good actor and puts on a convincing character, there should be no problems. It goes without saying that a gay actor should have the chance to play straight roles-again a good actor should be able to play any role. However this hardly ever happen and gay actors are never honestly judged by their ability to play a role but are judged by how the will be accepted by the audience, if the audience know they are gay- discrimination has all kind of layers).

Eichner & Nicholas Stoller(co-scenarist and director) tried to make a modern fairy tale that would apply to both gay and straight audience.

I admit I enjoyed the film . I laughed at the right places, I was fairly engaged while watching it, in short nothing to complain about.

Unfortunately there is something to complain about, because after watching the movie , I started thinking about the things I missed and I have realized that on their way to make a modern fairy tale, Eichner and Stoller have rounded up some corners and left out some elements of the LHBTQ+ community which do not fit the picture they wanted to create.

Let's talk about the things which Eichner & Stoller left out: 1. The leading men of the film are 2 cisgender, white men. As if we are 10 or maybe 20 years back in time and no other image exists. Aaron and Bobby are very likeable persons(Billy can be a bit annoying). Both of these men were designed to be very appealing to any straight audience watching, so the straight audience will accept them and think to himself that gay people are not so bad after all. Making the characters likeable also goes down all characters surrounding Billy and Aaron. All of them are presented as harmless people, a bit annoying, yes, but nevertheless harmless. In order to keep to this image, Eichner and Stoller left out of sight all the elements of the LHBTQ+ community, which do not fit this picture.

Let's mention those who were left out - Transmen-check /Butch Lesbians-check/Bears- check/Leather and fetish - check.. Even someone from the drag community is not there. Drag has become mainstream, thanks to RuPaul. New York has a huge drag scene with some famous drag queens and yet the world of this film has not one drag queen in this film(and no, Symone's character does not count as she has a very minor role and her drag person is not shown).

I can only guess why these elements were left out. My guess is that they might have been too challenging to the straight audience with their view about masculinity and femininity or maybe they didn't fit the aesthetic the film was trying to create. At the end a film which makes a point about remembering our LHTBQ+ history, erases part of the present just because it doesn't fit what he wants to say.

2. All characters in the movie are from a mid/high social and economic levels of society. They can afford to be what they want to be and have very supportive families around them(at least the ones we see). In the movie there is a connection made between being gay and being a person with the means to be gay. Unfortunately, most LHBTQ+ people work hard for their money, like everyone else. And this before we talked about those whose family weren't supportive about their orientation/gender and were thrown out home. Tell to these people how fabulous it is to be gay/lesbian/trans person.

There is a lot of escapism in the description of the LHBTQ+. All parts of the LHBTQ+ are very positively presented. Any other part which may seem as negative , is simply left out. And everyone just seems to get along great with each other and seems to be having the same goal. Tel that to the Lesbian women and gay men who don't really get along well. Or to the muscle gay men who dislike the more feminine men walking around. In short the LHBTQ+ community is far from being perfect but you won't know this if you watch the movie.

3. At a certain moment in the film, Bobby discovers that Aaron is injecting himself with Anabolic steroids. Aaron says something like "it helps me look like this" and Bobby just accepts this. Several scenes later Bobby injects himself with steroids and we see a scene with the consequences of those steroids(not really a realistic scene as the impact of steroids is on the long term, not on the short one). However it seems that the steroids are not affecting Aaron the same.

The problem with these 2 scenes is that Eichner says 2 completely different things. On the one hand, steroids are bad but on the other hand if you love someone, and he also looks as handsome as Aaron, steroids can be tolerated. A double message if ever van be.

Speaking about steroids, the film neglect to mentions the problem of drugs usage in the gay community. Having sex under the influence of drugs?-Non-existence. Why? Because it shows a negative side of the gay community and this doesn't bode well with the positive image the movie trays to create.

4. HIV/usage of PreP - Apparently HIV doesn't exist anymore , well that is if you want to believe the movie. Speaking about HIV?no. Talking about the usage of PreP and consequently about safe sax or unprotected sex?, no. Do we know what Bobby and Aaron's HIV status is?-no. When Bobby and Aaron have sex none of this comes to a discussion and as far as I can remember you do not see even a condom in those sex scenes. Your guess is as good as anyone else's guess when you think of what the 2 men think about this issue.

HIV does exist in the community and in the world. There is a stigma for being HIV positive. There are people in the gay community who will reject another man, if they know he is HIV positive. It is as ugly as it sounds and shows lack of knowledge and is pure ignorance coming from those people. And let me not start talking on those who rejects people who want to have safe sex.

The whole HIV issue is just ignored. Sweeping the issue under the carpet makes the whole thing, according to Eichner & Stoller, just disappear and therefore non-existence.

The issue of HIV has been long considered and still is considered as a one which place LBHTQ+ people in a negative light and Eichner & Stoller wanted to have a positive image of the LHBTQ+ community and just left everything that is considered negative out of the movie.

Eichner & Stoller wanted to hold the stick at both ends.

On one side they wanted to create a film which will be recognizable and familiar to the LHBTQ+ audience. Unfortunately they left part of their target audience out of the picture and some of their target audience may not recognize himself in the picture they have created.

On the other hand they have tried to make the movie as accessible as possible for the straight audience, so a straight audience will go and watch the movie. On the way to achieve this they erased anything which could harm the commercial success of the film. Unfortunately the straight audience didn't rush to watch the film and as a result the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.

If you want to watch the film, go and watch the film. Just be aware that you are not getting the full and accurate picture of the LHBTQ+ community. What you do get is an ideal take on this community, which was created to please you as a viewer and only show you the positive side of the gay community.

Contain spoilers.

This review has been written at the end of the 10th season and has been written by a white man.

In its 10th season, Death in Paradise, is keeping with the formula which was working for it for the last 9 seasons. In each episode, a detective and his assistants are solving a murder invetigation, which seemed to be imopssible to solved at the beginng of the espiode. All mysteries look like a puzzle and when all the pieces of the puzzle are falling to the right place, the mystery in the episode is solved. It's not a groundbreaking serie. It's a light entertainment where you can watch one episode and then skip another one and you have not missed a thing.

It need to be said that in the course of the years, some of the solutions to the murder cases are far fetched and will probably will not hold court as they are quite circumstantial. Those solutions are also much dependent on so much if(s). Only if all things are happening the way they are presented, then the conclusion is the correct one. However Death in Paradise is not a realistic program. It's a sort of a show whose main idea is to put the viewer at ease and enjoy the pleasant ride it offers you.

I also want to point out that in its 10th season, the show suffers from its long run. It feels tired and less fun than previous seasons. It seems that the show is running on automatic pilot and with no energy.

The show formula doesn't hold itself to the plot of each episode but also holds formula to the main characters of the series and here I have some issues with the series.

DI Richard Poole(Ben Miller), DI Hamphery Goodman, DI Jack Mooney(Ardal O'Hanlon) and DI Neville Parker(the current DI in charge, Ralf Little) have 2 things in common. They are all male and white. Even DI Charlie Hulme(Hugo Speer)who was in charge before DI Richard Poole, was male and white. During its 10 years run, the DI's in charge were/are described as extremely smart and as the only ones who can put all the pieces of the puzzle together and solve the mystery. The DI's are so brilliant and so good at their work, that even if they are sick(S1. E6 and S10. E4), they are the only one who manage to solve the case at hand.

Together with the white DI, we have the DI's assistants - all of them were/are People of Colour(PoC). They are the ones who do the hard work of collecting information/evidence but they are never able to solve the case. Solving the case is always up to the white DI in charge.

The series says basically that a white man is better, smarter and much more capable of solving the murders played in each episode. The PoC are here to serve the white man in charge. During its 10 years running, there was never a PoC man or women in charge. I can hardly believe that the BBC has never found any PoC or a woman who can be placed as a brilliant DI on the island of Saint Marie.

In my eyes, this makes the series quite racist. In the setting of the main characters the BBC is confirming the notion that white people are better, smarter and more capable then PoC.

You know what is the funny thing - The series knows it is a racist one. In the first ever episode of the series, when it's discovered that Sgt. Lily Thompson is the one who commited the murder of Charlie Hume, Fidel ask her, why she did what she did. She answered something like: I work hard and I always get passed by a white man(not a direct quote, just a summary of what she said). While acknowledging its racism, the series never tried to prove her wrong by placing anyone other than a white , male DI as the leading character.

Some other things to think about- Commissioner Selwyn Patterson(Don Worrington)- Here we have a black man as the head of Saint Marie police. Might be a sign that the series isn't racist after all.

First of all - he is more a father figure or something of a very light comic relief and secondly, unfortunately he has never added anything to the ongoing investigations or solved any of the murders. In fact, there is at least 1 episode where the DI solve a case, which the commissioner couldn't solve in an early days of his career. In season 10 it even get worst. A murder is related to case commissioner Selwyn was in charged, in his early carrier. Again the white DI is the one to expose the fault of a Black man.

The suggested relationships between DI Richard Poole(Ben Miller) and DS Camille Bordey(Sara Martins) - Richard Poole is oblivious to her charm and I do ask myself, why on earth she would be interested in him. She is described as a sexy and smart young woman, who can get any man she wants. Yet, she has developed some feelings for him. I wonder where this was coming from- Did she find him sexy? Or was she attracted to his brain? If the latter is the reason, does this mean that a woman falls in love with a man, just because he is supposed to be smarter than her? It makes the series not just racist but also sexist.

In this setting, you can't ignore the fact that here we are talking about a black woman developing feelings for a white man, but falls for his brain and nothing else. Do the makers want me, as a viewer, believe that a white man can get any woman, just because he is smarter than her.

Later we had a situation where DI Goodman developed feelings for DS Camile Bordey. Lucky for us they decided not to pursue this story line.

Then comes season 10 and the makers of the serie developed a storyline where DI Neville Parker develops feeling for DS Florence Cassell(Josephine Jobert) and the season ends with a sort of a cliffhanger, where DI Parker is standing in front of DS Cassell and want to express his feeling to her. The serie ends where we as viewers do not know if he said anything or not. How stupid the makers of the serie are?- in the age of MeToo, a relationship on the work floor, between a superior in ranking and someone under him, is simply not done.

Let's talk about the ending - If he tells her and she doesn't have the same feeling, it might create an uncomfortable working atmosphere. If she has the same feeling, we are entering the no go area of relationship on the work floor between a superior in ranking and the one serving under him. And if he didn't say anything, we will have another season(or part of it) where we will see DI Parker struggling with his feelings for DS Cassell(and it was quite annoying to see it played during season 10).

To be honest - I don't see any reasons why DS Cassell would fall for DI Parker. Hopefully the series makers will drop this idea as it is such a minefield, you really don't want to get into.

I can go on and analyze the function of the assistants but it will make this review quite long, which it is already. Let's just say that they are divided into 3 groups. All of them are PoC. They are all quite cliché in the way they are described.

1. The comic relief - the ones you can't really trust as a policeman/woman. Are describes a bit as a clown or a womaniser or both.

2. The sexy and smart DS 3. The hard working guys who are really good at their work. And both become a father during the serie.

I hope the above have set you for a bit of thinking. I am not saying you should boycott the show but please be aware of what it says. The fact it's a light entertainment show doesn't mean it can't be held accountable for what it says.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

In general, I liked this little & warm film. The characters are well written and well performed. The subjects of the film are treated with respect and there is no sense of sensation in the way the characters are presented. They remain human with their reaction through the whole film.

Saying that I did have a problem with the last section of the film, which begins around 20 minutes before the end. That part of the film weakened the film and it seems that the makers of the film couldn't figure out how to tie the plot neatly to a satisfying end. There is at least one revelation in the film, which is handled very clumsy and I was left with the feeling that the legal issue around that revelation was left out just to help to move the plot further. This last section of the film has spoiled for me a very charming film. I still recommend the film which has a bitter-sweet undertone and is moving and affective. I would rather have a better last 20 minutes.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* * MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

The trailer was tempting but the film itself was disappointing. All the good jokes were in the trailer and if you have seen it, you should know you have seen more than enough. The same happened with Shark Tale and it is very alarming that this happens 2nd time in a row to Dream Works SKG.

The film run fast, no doubt and is very short, which is a very big plus. However most of the jokes do not work and there are very few hilarious moments. The theme of friendship above all is taken directly from a Disney film and should have stayed there. I am quite tired of the messages that are inserted in such films. We have seen it, heard it and had enough of it.

The only thing that have worked for me in the film(and therefore raised its score to 4 out of 10) is the use of the soundtrack. If you know where the music come from you will appreciate the usage of it here. Beside that it is a waste of money. Wait for the DVD it will cost you less.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* * MAY CONTAIN SPOILER* * MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

This is a very good movie, which tackle a difficult subject without been over sentimental. It works because director Greg Araki manage to touch us and make us care about the people in this film. It help the films a lot that the story is told in very straight forward manner as if Araki was saying- the story is strong enough and I can only interfere it . The highest point of the film for me is the last scene where Brian(Brady Corbet) & Neil(Joseph Gordon-Levitt) finally meet and Neil explain everything to Brian. This is an emotionally charged scene and could easily run out of control and become a real tearjerker, yet Araki hold a grip on that scene and manage to keep it under control and by that making it a very effective scene. The acting is excellent and even some of the clichés, and there are clichés in this film, are handled in a way which help the film rise above them.

*THIS COMMENT CONTAIN SPOILERS* *THIS COMMENT CONTAIN SPOILERS*

I have almost nothing good to say about this film. The characters were not interesting enough. The dialog was as its best dry and simple. The jokes(were there any jokes) have simply passed me without making me laugh. It was too predictable and obvious. As an experienced movie goer I could see for miles ahead that the father will be returning to solve the conflict and that Daniel will not be going to Europe after all. At 100 minutes long, it was too long, and the material could not be holding the 100 minutes. The camera work was irritating. The only thing that was good and may have saved from a total disaster was the acting. It looked authentic and natural.

What a waste of time and money.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILER* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

The film has a great idea as a start point. When I have first read the synopsis I thought to myself that this is a film worth seeing. However the end result can only described as disappointing. The makers of this film could have made a sharp satire and in the way to make a point about the double attitude of USA government and citizens to all Latin workers. Maybe this point is still in the film. However the approach of soap story telling and jokes which don't work well, combined with some of the worse acting presentation I have seen in years failed to serve an idea which look brilliant on paper but fail to impress at the end. I admit that this is a nice movie. You can see but you don't have too, but it could have been more, much more. What a shame.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILER* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

This one has been filmed too early. The script is still in early stages and as a result, the characters are not fully developed. It's a shame because the potential is there. The characters could have been much more explained and developed if someone would have taken the time to work on the script. At this stage we, the audience, are left with questions that will never be answered. Why has Stéphanie became a transsexual? There is nothing in her past to suggest that it should gone this way(although I think the young Stéphanie is actually played by a girl and not by a boy)Why does Djamel do not speak with his mother ? and why has Mikhail ran away from home?

The whole film looks like an half baked cake . Someone mixed the right ingredients but has forgotten to add the extra that will make it tasty.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

The plot outline is straight forward. It may put you off. It shouldn't. No one tells you that it contain only half of the story because the film begins with a completely different story and only in the end of that story come the policeman in question to the scene and from than onwards it his story.

The second half of the film concentrate on the policeman and his cheating wife and focus on the old and famous questions: What is love? Why we love someone? Has sex anything to do with love? And while the subject are familiar the film doesn't land into clichés and manage, thanks to and restrained and charged performance of the main character, to be engaging and touching. The ending is so vague it will leave you thinking a little bit.

Go and see it. You are sure to enjoy it.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* This film works on all levels. Characters we care for. A compelling story and location which is strange to most of cinema goers. It works because the script is good and keep all characters in balance and because the acting is dead on from all actors involve. You have to accept the fact that faith is an important factor in religious' people life. They can go through life solely on the belief that they will be rewarded for the good deeds they have done in their life and that they believe that someone up there is watching them and judge them according to what they do or did. That belief is the core of the film and the actors portray it well.

Recommended by all means.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS*

I was fairly tired when I saw this and unfortunately it was very difficult staying awake through the film. At 140 minutes, this is a much too long film. The story drag and eventually loose credibility. I had difficulties in believing that the children in this film could be left unnoticed for so long . I had difficulties accepting that a child as young as the lead character can take care of his even younger brother and sisters for so long. It works fairly as a social commentary on today's world but it was not enough to hold my attention for the duration of the film. It didn't help the film that the director has chosen a very passive way of filming. The camera is static and almost neutral and it may help convey a message but it didn't help me identified with these children.

Bottom line: This is an OK film. You should only see it only if you have the patient to sit through its length.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* This film is not to be missed. It has all the ingredients of a great movie. A story based on characters. Characters we care about what happened to them. A development both in characters and story. And a social commentary on Japan after The Second World War. Supported by an excellent cast & story telling.

Filmed in black & white and at 182 minutes long, the film is never boring. One can only wish that such films will be made today. Unfortunately in the day of special effects such films have no place and that is a shame.

I can only recommend this film. It worth every money you pay for it and any time you will dedicate to see it.

*MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* *MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS* This is almost one to one adaptation for the famous stage musical of Andrew Lloyd Webber. Almost one to one because unlike what people thinks there are changes. Omissions in the text and changes in 2 scene's. However those changes will only be recognised by die-hard fans of the original stage show.

This said one has to admit that the original stage show had its weaknesses. One big weakness was the fact the characters in the musical are nothing more than a sketch on the drawing board. Webber and his lyrics writer have striped the characters of the original book of Gaston Laroux so they can represent idea's. Christine Daaé is the young orphan girl who seek help. Roul is her childhood friend who becomes her fiancée. And so it goes on with all the characters who represent an idea.

With the above-mentioned in your mind you should not expect much of characters development from this film version. And to be fair, Webber's material have found and apt director with Joel Schumacher. Who manage making the stage show look alive and glittering. Just like an Opera show, where the whole film take place.

Baring in mind the characters' description I can only praise most of the cast. Emmy Rossum(Christine) and Patrick Wilson (Roul) are very good and convincing as the lead characters.(those who complain of the absent of Sarah Brightman should remember that Brightman is in her late 40's and would look ridiculous if she try to play a young girl of 17). Gerard Butler on the other hand was less convincing. It seems his voice was not up for the task and in some scene's he sound like he was pressing his voice too hard. The rest of the cast was fairly good and did it job well. The only one who I didn't like is Minnie Driver. She is simple miscast as the Opera's Diva. She can not sing(and the end title reveal what one has suspected through the film. Someone else was singing for her) and in this film she also can't act. Webber could have found someone better for this role.

All in all it's quite a good film. The question is: For who?. If you are a musicals' fan. If you have seen the stage show and liked it. You should go and see it. You will enjoy the film. Otherwise you should stay away from this film.