Homo Box Office

After a summer of neglecting -- but paying for -- my Netflix, I finally got around to watching the stuff I had in order to clear the deck for an attempt to watch "Mad Men" from Season 1 on -- a lofty task for a couple who has probably only watched a dozen movies together in eight years!

First up was "Swoon," Tom Kalin's gay-"friendly" look at the horrific deeds of Leopold and Loeb, real-life lovers who killed a young boy just for kicks back in the 1920s. How I managed to miss the one the first around is anyone's guess -- I was big on seeing ALL gay movies back in the '90s, and I'm obsessed with true-life crime stories. But 18 years later I wasn't particularly blown away. Don't get me wrong, it was a well-done production -- and I was tickled (and surprised) to see Craig Chester -- of "Adam and Steve" fame -- in the role of Nathan Leopold. But the film sort of reminded me of "Zodiac" from a few years ago, where it just followed what we knew about the case by the book, but never really added any depth to the characters. Perhaps directors deliberately steer clear of poetic license for a reason, but one-dimensional characters rarely make for a good filmmaking. ("Reversal of Fortune" comes to mind, although I guess it's an unfair comparison since Alan Dershowitz actually knew (and represented) Claus von Bulow.)

Another belated addition to my film resume is "Glengarry Glenn Ross," from the same year -- how ironic that I was living in the film capital of the world then! Despite Michael's snoring through most of this one, I enjoyed it a lot, even if I got the sense I'd have enjoyed it even more if I'd seen it with an audience and while it was "hot." I recall that Al Pacino got the Oscar nod, but I thought Jack Lemmon STOLE the film completely. Those humiliating scenes of him being (all but) thrown out of his (bad) leads' houses were excruciatingly wonderful, as were his cold calls on the phone.

Lastly, I just watched "The Curse of the Jade Scorpion," the only outstanding omission from my Woody Allen resume. I omitted it for a reason -- I've seen just about every one of his films at the movies dating back to "Take the Money and Run" at a drive-in when I was 2 (we had to leave early because my brother Terence had an ear ache!) but had no desire to see this one -- and sure enough it did not not disappoint. I would say it wasn't quite as bad as I expected, but then I think of Woody fumbling through all those scenes talking about "all the dames" that come through his apartment and trying to intimidate people at the insurance office and my face goes red -- and I have to admit to myself that it was indeed as bad as I expected. What I don't get is that as far back as "Bullets Over Broadway" in 1994, Woody has had the good sense to cast other actors as age-appropriate atand-ins for himself (everyone from Kenneth Branagh to Jason Biggs has done it since). Yet for reasons that are unclear, Woody still thought it was acceptable for him to be the love interest of someone 28 years his junior (poor Helen Hunt!). His fascination in recent years with fantasy/magic is a major turn-off to me -- I go to see Woody Allen movies because they're about real life! -- and only "The Purple Rose of Cairo" has ever come close to making it work. (In retrospect, "Alice" had it moments