_Blackjack_ - the first gay action hero
Brian John Wright
predate Dolph Lundgren's Jack Devlin, but I've never heard of
'em.
I rented this one with the expectation of it being
basically Woo Lite, and kind of movie John Woo puts together
on his coffee breaks while filming more A-list fare. And for
the most part, that's what was delivered, but I had no idea
this movie was gonna be so...uh...unconventional.
The plot's this - Devlin, a big blond badass who uses
razor-sharp playing cards as weapons, is called in by an old
friend to protect his daughter from what appears to be the
Russian Mob. In the ensuing, inevitable melee, Jack is
temporarily blinded by a flash grenade and develops a fear
of the color white.
Yeah, that's what I said.
Later in life, after said friend (and wife) die and
Jack's left with custody of the girl, he involves himself in
the protection of a stalked supermodel, who Jack's former
lover (played against type by Fred Williamson, usually
holding a cigar...maybe that's not that far off type after
all) was critically wounded trying to protect. Thus begins
a cat n' mouse game between Jack and the stalker/sniper.
Jack's romantic life is generally kept pretty cryptic
in this one, but the film makes it clear that the romantic
part of his relationship with Williamson is behind him, and
that there's a new man in town. Thomas, played rather
cheesily by Saul Rubinek, lives with Jack, cooks his meals,
cleans his apartment, and can't decide if he's a Frenchman
or if he's just pretending to be a Frenchman. Thomas is a
lot more "flaming" than the unexpressive Jack.
Jack himself comes from the Rupert Everett school
of gay men - the men want him, but the women want him more.
His psychiatrist, the supermodel, even the counter girl at
Motel Six, all want a piece of Jack's action, but he's got
too much integrity to be anything but a one-man man. The
abortive kiss at the close of the film confirms that Jack
isn't going anywhere.
The action's pretty good overall, if kind of sparse.
The superspectacular leap I saw in the trailer isn't nearly
as spectacular in the movie - maybe my memory's a little wonky.
There's a number of weird moments, too, like when Jack shoots
a guy, who falls over a railing...and for no other reason
than to smash something extra, Jack kicks a glass table
directly underneath the falling body. There's also a weird
scene where Jack's tied up by the villain (who, like Thomas,
can't decide if he's got an English or Southern accent) and
is forced to watch as the villain shoots a bunch of
scarecrows (!), knowing that his lover's inside one of the
scarecrows (!).
Another weird scene is when Jack and the supermodel first
meet. High on drugs, she attempts to cast herself from the roof
of a building, but he pulls her back...and then throws away her
drugs...and then...they dance. Really. Then she chews him out
and lets him know who's boss. Heterosexual relationships in this
movie are generally played as doomed (the dead couple), dangerous
(the supermodel's ex-husband) or just plain false (Fred Williamson
and his "straight" life).
Lundgren is, surprisingly, quite good in his role,
for the most part...light-years ahead of everything else I've
seen him in. Let's put it this way - if Dolph Lundgren doesn't
make you groan and roll your eyes with every single line, he's
doing a great job.
The kid doesn't really contribute anything to the film,
and neither does his shrink, who spends most of her screen time
pouting at him, presumably wishing he'd convert.
Nits aside, it's an interesting film, and probably
worth a look just to see Dolph Lundgren and Fred Williamson
play men we never thought they'd play.
--
-Brian J. Wright
"SWEET MERCIFUL CRAP!!!"
-Homer
Alex Crouvier
> Another weird scene is when Jack and the supermodel first
> meet. High on drugs, she attempts to cast herself from the roof
> of a building, but he pulls her back...and then throws away her
> drugs...and then...they dance. Really. Then she chews him out
> and lets him know who's boss. Heterosexual relationships in this
> movie are generally played as doomed (the dead couple), dangerous
> (the supermodel's ex-husband) or just plain false (Fred Williamson
> and his "straight" life).
What a shallow, stupendously dumb assesment of a film. By your
homophobic standard HEAT, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS among countless others
--are all about homosexuals. I'd let you pass if you use "Homoerotic",
Stupid.
David Nusair
It didn't even *occur* to me that "Jack Devlin" might be gay.
--
David Nusair dnu...@chat.carleton.ca
Come visit my "Reel Film Reviews" site! "http://chat.carleton.ca/~dnusair"
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"The most annoying questions are the hypothetical, like, `what would have
happened if you had quit after Siamese Dream?' Well, what would have
happened? Probably, we all would have been playing samba somewhere."
-Billy Corgan
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Plain and Simple Cronan
[. . .]
> Nits aside, it's an interesting film, and probably
>worth a look just to see Dolph Lundgren and Fred Williamson
>play men we never thought they'd play.
If you weren't an evil three named Canadian I'd marry you.
P&SC
...and your sweet merciful crap
Brian John Wright
: Are you serious?
: It didn't even *occur* to me that "Jack Devlin" might be gay.
Oh yeah. As soon as the strange Frenchman steps on the
scene (no, I don't mean Crouvier), everything falls into place.
Brian John Wright
: What a shallow, stupendously dumb assesment of a film.
Oh my God, NO!!! Alex "Is there an Asian in this movie?
Alert! Alert!" Crouvier just said that I made "a shallow,
stupendously dumb assesment of a film". What am I to do?
Besides, it would seem that the "it's just an action
movie, don't read too much into it" view would be the shallow
assessment. Look at this movie again, Alex - this is the gayest
movie I've ever seen that doesn't actually show two men kissing.
: By your
: homophobic standard HEAT, RAGING BULL, GOODFELLAS among countless others
: --are all about homosexuals.
Alrighty, Alex, here's a challenge for you. Find one
homophobic remark in my review. For that matter, zip on over
to Dejanews where you'll find a few thousand of my posts and
find one homophobic remark, ya illiterate schmuck.
I'm waiting.
: I'd let you pass if you use "Homoerotic",
: Stupid.
Why? (and better yet, why call me stupid when you fail
to counter my assessment with anything intelligent to say?
The only answer is that in this newsgroup, you're comic relief
and not expected to say anything more substantial than cryptic
remarks about dorsal fins) I'm making a good case that this
is one gay, gay, gay movie, not a mere "homoerotic" movie, and
this is the best you can do?
Why did I phrase that like a question? I'll eliminate
the question mark.
I'm making a good case that this is one gay, gay, gay
movie, not a mere "homoerotic" movie, and this is the best you
can do.
-Brian J. Wright, who wonders why he's replying, 'cuz
that's Harkness' job, isn't it?
Alex Crouvier
> Oh my God, NO!!! Alex "Is there an Asian in this movie?
What Asians? We're talking about Asians now? Moron.
> Alert! Alert!" Crouvier just said that I made "a shallow,
> stupendously dumb assesment of a film". What am I to do?
Read more abt films and world's culture?
> Alrighty, Alex, here's a challenge for you. Find one
> homophobic remark in my review. For that matter, zip on over
> to Dejanews where you'll find a few thousand of my posts and
> find one homophobic remark
Notice how you emphasize "gay, gay, gay movie" like somekind of mantra?
Why is it so IMPORTANT for you to point out the gay-ness of BLACKJACK?
Your mention of gay, gay, gay is more "condenscending" than an objective
asessment of the film. You see a Frenchman cook with a guy in a few
scenes you label the whole film "gay"? What is the film's plot, Johnny
Boy? I guess you see somekind of homoerotic subtext in the blinding
white light phobia in the film too? Jesus. I could understand if THE
KILLER might look intensely homoerotic, that probably makes recoil in
disgust "man cannot show emotion like that!" I could understand that but
homosexuals? That's dumb. :-)
> Why? (and better yet, why call me stupid when you fail
> to counter my assessment with anything intelligent to say?
Your assessment of BLACKJACK as a gay movie is lacking in intelligence,
Brian. Of course you are shallow, using gay-baiting issue to bring
attention to yourself. Mommy didn't hold you long enough?
> I'm making a good case that this
> is one gay, gay, gay movie, not a mere "homoerotic" movie, and
> this is the best you can do?
Good case is stretchig it. :-) There is a fine difference b/w homosexual
films, like PRIEST, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT --a German film, TWO GIRLS IN LOVE
etc, and homoerotic films, those directed by Scorsese I mentioned, John
Woo films --because in Italian and Chinese culture male association is
strong and vivid and in the eyes of your WASP perspective they all are
homosexuals. It shows your cultural ignorance not to mention arrogance.
Stupid :-)
Brian John Wright
: What Asians? We're talking about Asians now? Moron.
Look, over there, the point...damn, ya missed it.
: Notice how you emphasize "gay, gay, gay movie" like somekind of mantra?
Like a mantra? Not how I'd put it, but hey, whatever floats
yer boat.
: Why is it so IMPORTANT for you to point out the gay-ness of BLACKJACK?
I don't need to point it out - it's there for all to see.
I just posted this review because, well, how many other gay action
heroes has the world seen? I thought people might find this interesting.
Why is it so IMPORTANT for you to attempt to refute the gay-ness
of BLACKJACK?
: Your mention of gay, gay, gay is more "condenscending" than an objective
: asessment of the film.
How?
: You see a Frenchman cook with a guy in a few
: scenes you label the whole film "gay"?
No, the Frenchman (or ersatz Frenchman - like I said, Rubinek
can't seem to decide just who he's playing here)'s cooking isn't it, it's
just him in general, and his otherwise inexplicable presence in the film
that tipped me off. Afterward, everything fell into place. Dare I
suggest you watch the film again?
: What is the film's plot, Johnny
: Boy?
Johnny Boy?
I already told you the film's plot, in the original post.
: I guess you see somekind of homoerotic subtext in the blinding
: white light phobia in the film too?
I'm still not quite sure what to make of the "white phobia" in
the film, actually (although I found it odd that the film had to
explain - twice - just what a phobia is, like we didn't all already
know). How about you? What do you see there? And why would you
think that I would attach a homoerotic subtext to the phobia?
: Jesus. I could understand if THE
: KILLER might look intensely homoerotic, that probably makes recoil in
: disgust "man cannot show emotion like that!"
This sentence makes no sense, the latter half in particular.
Please clarify.
: I could understand that but
: homosexuals? That's dumb. :-)
It'd be dumb because there's nothing in _The Killer_ to suggest
actual homosexual relationships between characters in the film. The same
cannot be said of _Blackjack_.
: Your assessment of BLACKJACK as a gay movie is lacking in intelligence,
: Brian.
How? You're still failing to even suggest reasons for this.
: Of course you are shallow, using gay-baiting issue to bring
: attention to yourself.
"Gay-baiting"? Huh? How's this? I dare to suggest that
the gay subtext in this film is so strong and clear that it's not
even subtext anymore, and I'm "gay-baiting"? For all you know,
*I'm* gay - what an assumption you've already made.
: Mommy didn't hold you long enough?
Uh...yeah...that's it. Crack kills, Alex.
: Good case is stretchig it. :-) There is a fine difference b/w homosexual
: films, like PRIEST, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT --a German film, TWO GIRLS IN LOVE
: etc, and homoerotic films, those directed by Scorsese I mentioned, John
: Woo films --because in Italian and Chinese culture male association is
: strong and vivid and in the eyes of your WASP perspective they all are
: homosexuals. It shows your cultural ignorance not to mention arrogance.
: Stupid :-)
Another silly assumption, in positing that I have a WASP
perspective, which you'll have trouble backing up, except for the
W part, which is easily confirmed.
You'll note that I haven't said that Scorcese's films are
about gay men, and I haven't said that Woo's films (in general) are
about gay men - the "strong and vivid" male-male relationships in
said films are clearly platonic and asexual. "in the eyes of (my)
perspective they are all homosexuals" indeed.
_Blackjack_, however, is a movie about gay men, with gay
love lives. Maybe not a very positive one (each of the gay men at
its core is a different stereotype, more or less - the "flaming"
Thomas, the "in denial" Fred Williamson, and the "debonair/don't
we wish he was straight" Jack), but it's too clear and obvious
to just be a subtext. Besides, subtexts work largely on a symbolic
level, and _Blackjack_ functions on *every* level as a movie about
these three gay men (well, two - Williamson doesn't get a lot of
screen time). An action movie, no less, making it (to my knowledge) the
first of its kind. Worthy of drawing attention to, no?
--
-Brian J. Wright
Alex Crouvier
>
> Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
>
> : What Asians? We're talking about Asians now? Moron.
>
> Look, over there, the point...damn, ya missed it.
It ain't there in the first place, Brian. :-) Look put down your arms,
stop beating, the horse is dead.
> : Notice how you emphasize "gay, gay, gay movie" like somekind of mantra?
>
> Like a mantra? Not how I'd put it, but hey, whatever floats
> yer boat.
Oh, I see, now it is "deny, deny, deny."
> : Why is it so IMPORTANT for you to point out the gay-ness of BLACKJACK?
>
> I don't need to point it out - it's there for all to see.
You don't need to point it out? You just did in your flagrant post.
> I just posted this review because, well, how many other gay action
> heroes has the world seen? I thought people might find this interesting.
> Why is it so IMPORTANT for you to attempt to refute the gay-ness
> of BLACKJACK?
It's important to challenge shallow assesment of a film based on your
narrow view of the world. Two guys cook for each other --he must be gay!
Guys dressed in neat clothing --GAY! A guy cooks --HOMO!
> : Your mention of gay, gay, gay is more "condenscending" than an objective
> : asessment of the film.
>
> How?
"Gay, gay, gay." You just mentioned the lack of need to point out the
gay-ness of BLACKJACK. Yet in your post, you could barely contain
yourself : "gay, gay, gay!"
Stop beating the horse.
> : I could understand that but
> : homosexuals? That's dumb. :-)
>
> It'd be dumb because there's nothing in _The Killer_ to suggest
> actual homosexual relationships between characters in the film. The same
> cannot be said of _Blackjack_.
I'd say THE KILLER is more vividly homoerotic than anything in
BLACKJACK. So is HARD BOILED for that matter (Tony Leung is torn between
an older man and a more virile Anthony Wong). I wonder why you never get
excited over these obvious homoeroticism (as opposed to homosexuals).
Learn the fine differences, you might sound a little more credible
> Another silly assumption, in positing that I have a WASP
> perspective, which you'll have trouble backing up, except for the
> W part, which is easily confirmed.
Alright, I concede I might be a little enthusiastic to jump into a
conclusion there. Will you?
> You'll note that I haven't said that Scorcese's films are
> about gay men, and I haven't said that Woo's films (in general) are
> about gay men - the "strong and vivid" male-male relationships in
> said films are clearly platonic and asexual. "in the eyes of (my)
> perspective they are all homosexuals" indeed.
>
> _Blackjack_, however, is a movie about gay men, with gay
> love lives.
You see a chivalrous hero holding off screwing a chick, he MUST BE GAY.
Stupid.
> Maybe not a very positive one (each of the gay men at
> its core is a different stereotype, more or less - the "flaming"
> Thomas, the "in denial" Fred Williamson, and the "debonair/don't
> we wish he was straight" Jack),
You wrote a book on the subject? PhD? Get the fuck out.
> but it's too clear and obvious
> to just be a subtext. Besides, subtexts work largely on a symbolic
> level, and _Blackjack_ functions on *every* level as a movie about
> these three gay men (well, two - Williamson doesn't get a lot of
> screen time).
By your standard, every action movie and buddy-buddy cop show from the
70s to LETHAL "Melvin Gibson" WEAPON series are about: "gay, gay, gay."
Homophobe. Not to mention a dumb, shallow homophobe. Watch out for this
guy, folks. He tries too hard to defend his (so-called) harmless "gay,
gay, gay" rhetoric, which sounds a lot like "die homo, die, die! We
don't need your homo flick, 1 -2 -3, go back Asian filmmaker, we don't
need your homo flick! 1 -2 -3 We don't need your..." so on so forth
> An action movie, no less, making it (to my knowledge) the
> first of its kind. Worthy of drawing attention to, no?
By your silly standard, Woo's HK films are definitely even more "GAY,
GAY, GAY" than BLACKJACK. Again, you never address your ignorance and
lack of knowledge of Chinese and Italian culture of male association.
Ignorance, every American's middle name. Say that to your reflection
every morning, Brian : "ignorant, ignorant, ignorant"
Moron.
Franknseus
knows is completely insane, but let me try to rebut your latest diatribe, Alex.
I have not seen Blackjack and have no idea whether I would agree with Brian
or not. And I was surprised to see this post from the same guy who a day
earlier had refuted that Pete Postlethwait's character in The Lost World is
meant to be gay.
However, you are reading his post entirely wrong. You keep bringing up this
"homoerotic" thing, but he never said anything about any movie being
homoerotic. That was your point. Go on and write an essay about it or whatever,
but that has nothing to do with what Brian is saying. All he said was that the
characters in Blackjack were meant to be homosexual. This has nothing to do
with bonding or phallic symbols or whatever you're talking about, so don't try
to push your own thing onto him.
Furthermore, your assertion that his post comes off as "die homo, die" says
(like almost every post you've ever written) a lot more about you than it does
about what he wrote. In fact, if you go back and read all of Brian's posts on
this thread, his point is that the movie is cool because it's about a gay
action hero. He has hit on this point over and over and over and over and over
and over again and he has never once said anything negative about gay people
(and could be gay himself) and yet you continue to make your bizarre, Alex
Crouvier style attacks on him.
Speaking of which, I give the thumbs up to your new one word insult sentences
shtick. Moron. Homophobe. Stupid.
I'm also a big fan of your "say something completely insulting and then put a
smiley face after it" thing, you insane racist deeply emotionally troubled
hypocrite weirdo. ;-)
Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
--
Bucketheadland Visitor Information Center
http://www.bucketheadland.com/visitorcenter/
Alex Crouvier
nothing against you, believe me. It is not a diatribe, it is a challenge
for shallow, short-sighted view of films. It is Brian who imposes his
unique view of the world onto films and say it as "it meant to be
homosexual"
C'mooon.
t. cruise
I'm sorry for being off-topic. But, I visited your BUCKETHEADLAND
site, and can't remember the last time I'd felt so clueless. Is this
a total satire, or part of a subculture that I'm unaware of?
T.C.
On 7 Nov 1998 22:59:11 GMT, frank...@aol.com (Franknseus) wrote:
>Bryan Frankenseuss Theiss
Brian John Wright
: If you weren't an evil three named Canadian I'd marry you.
: P&SC
: ...and your sweet merciful crap
Uh...is that a threat?
-Brian J. Wright, mindful that he could always move, drop the
"J", and stop using dead babies to smuggle diamonds across international
boundaries
Brian John Wright
: Oh, I see, now it is "deny, deny, deny."
'scuse me?
: You don't need to point it out? You just did in your flagrant post.
Because it's not marketed as a "gay action movie" (I mean, if
it were, many people would get the wrong idea). Where else are people
going to hear about the world's first gay action hero (still haven't
heard any precedents) but from the people who see the film?
: It's important to challenge shallow assesment of a film based on your
: narrow view of the world. Two guys cook for each other --he must be gay!
: Guys dressed in neat clothing --GAY! A guy cooks --HOMO!
You make three false claims. One, that they cook for each
other. They do not. Thomas cooks for Jack, not vice versa. Two, that I
said that they're dressed in neat clothing. They may well have been, but
unless clothing is pretty outrageous, I tend not to notice it at all.
Three, that these things would be what would lead me to the conclusion I
came to. They did not.
: "Gay, gay, gay." You just mentioned the lack of need to point out the
: gay-ness of BLACKJACK. Yet in your post, you could barely contain
: yourself : "gay, gay, gay!"
Like I said - those marketing the film aren't saying it (and
money-wise, it's probably a mistake, because the curiosity alone would
bring in a lot of viewers), so that leaves word of mouth (that is, me).
: I'd say THE KILLER is more vividly homoerotic than anything in
: BLACKJACK. So is HARD BOILED for that matter (Tony Leung is torn between
: an older man and a more virile Anthony Wong). I wonder why you never get
: excited over these obvious homoeroticism (as opposed to homosexuals).
: Learn the fine differences, you might sound a little more credible
As Frankenseuss elegantly put, I'm not talking about
homoeroticism. Yes, the homoeroticism in said films is fairly obvious,
but those characters are clearly not meant to be homosexuals on a literal
level. In _Blackjack_, these characters (well, three of them) are gay.
: Alright, I concede I might be a little enthusiastic to jump into a
: conclusion there. Will you?
Sure. I have no real evidence that you're a Frenchman.
: You see a chivalrous hero holding off screwing a chick, he MUST BE GAY.
: Stupid.
No, I'd figured out that Jack was gay about thirty minutes into
the film, and the event you cite happened at the end.
: You wrote a book on the subject? PhD? Get the fuck out.
You have to write a book or get a PhD in...what?...to know that
there are stereotypes out there, and what kind they are?
: By your standard, every action movie and buddy-buddy cop show from the
: 70s to LETHAL "Melvin Gibson" WEAPON series are about: "gay, gay, gay."
Nah, only _Partners_. ;)
: Homophobe.
Evidence, please.
: Not to mention a dumb, shallow homophobe.
Evidence, and self-control, please.
: Watch out for this
: guy, folks. He tries too hard to defend his (so-called) harmless "gay,
: gay, gay" rhetoric, which sounds a lot like "die homo, die, die! We
: don't need your homo flick, 1 -2 -3, go back Asian filmmaker, we don't
: need your homo flick! 1 -2 -3 We don't need your..." so on so forth
What the hell? "Die homo, die, die!"?
Oh yeah, all beware of me. Nothing's more dangerous than a guy
who thinks that a gay action hero is an interesting enough idea to
warrant discussion and exploration.
: By your silly standard, Woo's HK films are definitely even more "GAY,
: GAY, GAY" than BLACKJACK.
Man, I said "gay, gay, gay" twice (and even then, only twice
because the second time was a repeat of the original sentence with
different punctuation) and you've said it...how many times? And
capitalized it, no less!
: Again, you never address your ignorance and
: lack of knowledge of Chinese and Italian culture of male association.
Ignorance, lack of knowledge? Sure, why not?
Now, tell me - who's Chinese or Italian in _Blackjack_?
(and this gets back to your refusal to accept that I'm not talking
about homoeroticism)
: Ignorance, every American's middle name. Say that to your reflection
: every morning, Brian : "ignorant, ignorant, ignorant"
Yet another silly assumption - that I'm an American. Just
look at my EMail address. Look in the mirror every morning, and say it,
Alex: "unobservant, unobservant, unobservant."
: Moron.
Yeah, I love you too, Alex.
--
-Brian J. Wright
Brian John Wright
: Brian, you're a nice guy.
You sure? Yesterday, you called used the following words to
describe me - dumb, shallow, homophobe, moron, stupid, ignorant -
and even went so far as to say people should watch out for me, since
you equated my interest in the notion of a gay action hero with
"die homo, die, die!"
I dunno, Alex, from all that, I sound like an asshole.
: If I stepped on your toes, I apologise. I have
: nothing against you, believe me. It is not a diatribe, it is a challenge
: for shallow, short-sighted view of films. It is Brian who imposes his
: unique view of the world onto films and say it as "it meant to be
: homosexual"
I impose nothing. I merely present. And how shallow is this view
of films when _Blackjack_ is, so far, the first I've seen to which it
applies?
As for the apology - accepted, if genuine.
: C'mooon.
There's only one "o" in "C'mon". Two I could understand...
Plain and Simple Cronan
> Uh...is that a threat?
Yes. You gave me a hernia I was laughing so hard!
> -Brian J. Wright, mindful that he could always move, drop the
>"J", and stop using dead babies to smuggle diamonds across international
>boundaries
You'd never drop it. It's as much a part of you as 'and' is a part of me!
Plain Simple Cronan just doesn't make sense! Stick with who you are. If evil
is your job skill then go with it!
P&SC
...I'm good, BTW
Luis Canau
>Alex Crouvier (troj...@geocities.com) wrote:
>: Brian, you're a nice guy.
>
> You sure? [...]
Hey, there's two Brians on this thread... ...
Anyway, I was missing a discussion without focusing on important things, like
the colour or the sexual orientation. "Blackjack" is crap. OK, it was meant to
be a TV pilot and it shows. It was edited as a movie, but they let a part that
was clearly meant to be developed in a future series, and seems, like this,
that it was forgotten. It has to many suspensions of time; in a middle of a
shooting people talk and lament themselves for 5 minutes, while the bad guy
waits for them to finish it. Even the action is lame. OK, I know it's a TV
movie. I knew when I rent it. But the gays, I mean guys that read "from the
director of Face/Off" (or whatever) on the sleeve, might felt that this was a
very bad "movie".
I don't think that the heterosexual or homosexual (context or subtext) are
very important in the middle of this. :-|
--
luis canau_______________________________
<luis....@mail.euNOT.pt> euNOT -> EUnet
cinema: http://home.EUnet.pt/cinedie
(portuguese reading ability recommended)
_______________________________________