Love is Touch Touch is love Love is reaching Reaching is loveNo one could sum up this film better than this nearly final music. But the film is going a long way beyond the simple words in these four lines and two verses. It is not enough to just touch the other and be touched by the other. We must understand that touching is a very complex activity. You have to touch the mind of the other and vice versa be touched by the mind of the other and in the same way your mind is supposed to touched the other and the other is supposed to touch your mind. But speaking of the mind, everything must be included and sorted out not in any way to judge or try what is good or bad but just to know who the other is and vice versa and to accept the other the way he is and to be accepted by the other the way you are. And that's what is meant by reaching.Straight sex erases this dual relation since one is a man and one is a woman and everything is reduced to that difference, but when the two persons are two men, or two women, the differences are so much deeper and more secret, less visible and more complicated. They cannot be reduced to a simple difference in sex since the two people are of the same sex. The differences are mental, intellectual, artistic, physical and of course the past of the people is different, their heritage is different and so many other things are different, but not the sex and nothing can be reduced to that circumstantial difference. It is so easy to forget all these things in a straight couple, to reduce the whole thing to a simple difference in sex. Actually the sex difference, or similitude, itself is the least important element in a love relation that can be even just as strong and yet not lead to sex. Love does not have to be realized in sex though sex should be a continuation of love, which it is not all the time.This film is touching at that level, emotionally strong and it really takes a whole village to bring two people together against all the odds that accumulate against them, especially when the two people are of the same sex. And when you live in East Village, New York, it takes the whole neighbourhood to do it and doing it changes the whole neighbourhood. That gives a tremendous density to this two human roads crossing and the two travellers coming together and little by little settling together. The story is complex and at the end we sure know there is no Bernstein curse of any sort, just a pile of unluckily coincidences that can be ended when you deeply believe that there is no curse on you.To conclude let me say that bringing together a Jewish birdwatcher from New York and a Christian psychiatrist from Texas is not that obvious, and we have to keep in mind that "the end is in the beginning and yet you go on" as Samuel Beckett said and he knew all the details of the curse of being different in a world that accepts only absolute uniformity and homogeneity. Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Why some the the better-known actors were willing to attach their names to this "so-bad- it's-awful" flick, I do not know. Cartoonish script, over-acted roles, under-directed scenes, ridiculously lame costumes...you name it, this inept attempt at a comedy possesses it times ten.Even the "1987" opening of the film is off-base, with music and wardrobe missing the mark by about three years. The two lead characters presented during this segment bear no resemblance to their 17-years-later counterparts.Randomly mixing "Airplane"-style slapstick with standard sitcom fare results in an awkwardly unfunny "farce."The gay-bashing "joke" running throughout the film isn't funny - getting hit in the head with a full beer bottle can do some serious damage. Is the intended gay audience happy with a film that appears intent on making them look like morons? Yes, it's a freshman flick by one of the two leads, but being that he's been in several gay-themed films, you'd think some of the earlier, more professional experiences would have "rubbed off."

So you're gay and you're thinking of seeing this movie, and, knowing that it's a gay movie, your expectations are already lowered. Maybe rightly, judging from most of what's out there.Interestingly, this gay movie has both the best and the worst of the genre. What's bad? Oh, some of the acting, some direction, some dialog, some of everything, really. What's good? Some of the acting, some direction, some dialog--again, some of everything. Which is to say, when it gets it right, it gets it Really Right. Laugh out loud right. When it gets it wrong, well, you can't fix it so you gotta stand it.So yes, if you're debating, see it. Especially if you're gay and especially if you like to laugh. Just seeing Craig Chester in his goth get up made me laugh. That's something that anybody could laugh at, but some of the humor is gay-specific and might sail over the heads of straight people. Mostly, though, it skewers contemporary life in a way that both gay and straight will understand and appreciate.What makes this worthwhile is the dialog, some of which is razor sharp and very, very funny. Any big budget Hollywood comedy could be improved one thousand percent by stealing just a few of these wickedly funny lines that are tossed off so casually. Parker Posey has the lion's share of them and her delivery is fast and furious; she hits the bulls-eye every time. The players are all competent and likable. Chris Kattan is good as an envious, maybe even jealous, straight roommate. Julie Hagerty plays Chester's mom; she's another one that just makes me smile when I see her slightly ditsy persona on screen. Bottom line: if you're looking for art, keep looking. Want a few yuks? Adam and Steve will deliver.

along comes this DVD, which i picked up and bought on impulse. i'm not sure if the film was ever released in my city, and if it was, i wasn't aware. at any rate, i did want to see it after reading about it in "metro". i'm not going to blather on about the plot, storyline, etc., but i am going to throw in my 2 cents.1. yes, it's formulaic and predictable on the whole, but it makes the viewer comfortable by giving enough of the formula for it to be familiar -- that's a good thing.2. the movie is a comedy, so a certain amount of levity is expected. what's unexpected is that it is riddled with wit and off-the-wall situations. it also tackles some really serious stereotypes and spins them into things that are really just plain silly (again, the whole comfort thing seems to be the underlying theme). it touches on subjects like homophobia and presents it as something other than hateful, rather just plain stupid; that revealing a gay relationship to your loved ones will not necessarily mean that the sky will fall, etc. it presents these things, among others, without being preachy, patronizing, or totally unrealistic.3. how can one not want to watch this movie? though only supporting, one of the best actresses working is in it -- Ms. Parker Posey -- she should be enough of a reason to see it. also while Chris Kattan was okay in the movie, i wonder (in light of the recent pepsi commercials), if the movie would have been funnier had Jimmy Fallon played Chris's character...(the mind wanders)...and Malcolm Gets...*sigh/swoon*kudos to Craig Chester for writing and directing this very friendly and comfortable movie. it was over-the-top, yes, but that serves *not* to alienate the viewer: there are no icky affection scenes or situations (though some may disagree), and really the movie just gives you permission and license to take some things at face value. not everything needs to be dissected and that being gay (even with all its baggage and burdens) does not have to be serious all the time. it is definitely a gay movie in more ways than one. just watch it. =)