Rating: 
Summary: Hot Pants College 2
Review: a nice and charming story about obsession. John Hurt plays a writer who walks into the wrong movie and finds the handsome Jason Preistley fasinating and he goes and becomes so obsessed with the actor he goes to Long Island to seek out where he lives, he eventually finds out and meets him threw his girlfriend because he told her hes such a big hit in London, so they meet and they become friends. Hurt's passion for Preistley grows(only if it where someone other then a old man loving a guy, ehhh) and then people are rejected. good filmmaking with superb performances all around. Maury Chaykin and his fellow restaurant staff are hilarious, especially the highlighted scene where they all talk about dog names. a wonderful film
Rating: 
Summary: Delicately engrossing, beutifully intimate.
Review: As I sat channel surfing several months ago I came across the end of this film - the last five minutes actually. Though nothing much of the plot could be inferred by what I saw, I was nonetheless enthralled and taken aback by a feeling of what must have come before the moments I watched. I found the movie soon after and prayed it would live up to the notion I had of it. I should have set my expectations higher, to say the least. This film involves (without ruining the plot for you) the premise of exploring the human heart in ways that both characters never expected to. It is a beautiful meloncholy of scenes in which Both "Giles"(John Hurt) and "Ronny" (Jason Priestly) find their horizons expanding to their own fright and amazement. It is a tragedy though, for both of them in the end; though in very different ways. John Hurt - one of The Best living actors - brings Giles's sexual awakening to the surface with painful beauty and truth. But he never makes Giles embarassing by pre judging anything; rather he lets each moment unfold from within. Jason Priestly gives a surprisingly solid and honest performance (surprising since we know him mostly as "Brandon Walsh"). My only wish here is that his character would have been explored further. However, this maybe part of the effect of showing who his character turns out to be personally; not what "Giles" hoped.
This story is touching and, for some I hope, eye opening. The concept of infatuation and its undiscerning eye is dealt with wonderfully. To steal a line from "Giles", ...' The discovery of beauty where one never expected...'. There are just a tiny few production details that were on the inexpensive side, but it's of no harm to the film's integrity. This is truly a great film; intimate and very localized around the human condition of two men. 'Gods and Monsters' is equally capable of expressing the same feelings, though through a totally different setting; but Both films should be viewed. I'd suggest starting with this one!
Rating:
Summary: Journey Through Such Different Lifestyles and Places
Review: As my headline says, the lifestyles and places seen throughout the film vary so much that the viewer feels like he's speeding through the universe on a spaceship.You can enjoy the hilariously dowdy British charwoman played by respected British character actress Sheila Hancock. I laughed for a minute when she gestured toward Giles' new VCR and said, "Those things are more trouble than they're worth." You visit modern British stores: an appliance store and a video club. You attend a high-brow lecture in London at which protagonist Giles De'Ath rambles on about an intangible idea he created while enjoying the work of the teen heartthrob. The film makes a statement about homosexuality that is much more profound than the many films made since the 1980s that have shown men glaring at or kissing each other: "My Beautiful Laundrette," "Boys Life 3," "The Toilers and the Wayfarers," etc. This movie shows that the love you feel with your eyes and ears is more meaningful than anything that happens below the waist. In the diner scene *toward the end*, but not at the very end, Giles admits to Ronnie that he feels love. Ronnie rejects him. The viewer gets a few scenes after that. They show that Giles' life has been greatly enriched by his non-physical experiences with the heartthrob actor. Also, watch the film again and listen carefully to the dialogue in that diner scene for yet another notion not expressed so far in the many "amazon.com" reviews of "Love and Death On Long Island." You will note that before Giles admits his love, he pushes on Ronnie the superiority of the European literary theater world to the American teen sex film genre. Ronnie would have allowed Giles to follow him to Los Angeles and assist with his career there. By agreeing to do that Giles could have kept seeing him without physical intimacy. Ronnie's wife would have had to tolerate Giles eventually as long as Giles developed their planned project about the deaf boy wearing a hospital gown. But no, Giles insists on changing Ronnie's career and attitude toward high-brow vs. low-brow. Giles wants him to start a new career in Europe. We never know if Giles wants to get physical with Ronnie. But we learn that Giles' number one reaction to an appealing young man is to nurture him by indoctrinating him to a world he has missed. This idea says a lot about the many American gay men of a certain age who work in the mental health profession and the priesthood. They love to dominate and nurture young men even if they don't get physically intimate. You don't learn that from the many interchangeable films at gay film festivals. Fortunately, "Love and Death On Long Island" didn't play at one. It got marketed as a general-interest film. That's what it is. Rent it as soon as you can. John Hurt, Sheila Hancock and Jason Priestley are all magnificent. Notice how I'm spelling "Priestley" correctly. Jason, if you're out there, thank you for the risk you took by making this one. You may not have gotten the supporting role in "Jerry Maguire" that you wanted, but you did great with "Love and Death On Long Island." Your name helped sell it. Peace.
Rating: 
Summary: connection??
Review: At no time could I get a connection, between Hurt, and Priestly, long drawn-out dead-end streets. I left puzzled and a bit frustrated at all these people wandering around looking at each other as thru a glass darkley. sorry could not get anything out of this movie!! **
Rating:
Summary: We all love. The object of that love is not important
Review: Being in love is a disease, one that provides both ecstacy and frustration. This movie relates well to Mann's work (Death in Venice) in that the protagonist of that work is amazed that such a creature as Tadzio could exist-- this overturns his entire aesthetic structure. He only then watches, as does the Hurt character. This is a fine film about how love--of any kind-- obsesses one without reservation. Priestley played his role well in that we, the audience, didn't have to find him loveable, only Hurt did.
Rating: 
Summary: Too bad nobody saw it, it's a good movie
Review: First, if you're looking to laugh your head off, this is NOT the film. This is a good, not great movie, thorougly worthwhile if you like good acting in movies. And John Hurt as Gile De'Ath provides the good acting. The film does have it's funny moments, but it is the screenplay, the words spoken by the actor(s) that make this film intriguing, at least for me. I also saw Gods & Monsters, and though both are good, this move is faster paced (yes, faster paced) and humorous. It's a shame it's been overlooked. Even Priestley proved that teen hearthrobs can appear (and act) in movies that aren't aiming for the pocketbook. I'd definitely recommend this one for those who believe good acting.
Rating:
Summary: Very good
Review: I am surprised that this film has not been better received by the reviewers below, as it is well-made, thought-provoking, atmospheric, and even poignant. It tells the tale of a stodgy old British author (expertly played by William Hurt) who, by accidentally wandering into the wrong movie theater, conceives an odd appreciation for Ronnie Bostock (Jason Priestley), a B-movie star of teen flicks. This rare ability to find raphaelite beauty in low pop culture troubles the author for weeks, until his obsession over Ronnie gets the best of him and he travels to Long Island to try and meet his idol. The film does an excellent job of portraying Long Island in the winter as an eerie, vacant place. When the author at last talks his way into Ronnie's home, the ensuing machinations and emotions are played so perfectly that I watched the film twice in a row to see them again, and the plot kept me interested throughout. (The tone of the climax in the diner is just great. Jason Priestley does a fine job here.) We are left with the sense that impossible longing is both heartbreaking and inevitable within us; human truth onscreen.
Rating: 
Summary: Shockingly Bad
Review: I can't believe all the praise this train-wreck of a movie has gotten. Has anyone SEEN this movie? It's unwatchable and embarrassing for everyone involved.
Rating:
Summary: Applause for love!
Review: I had read Gilbert Adair's novel of "Love and Death on Long Island" a few years ago and was so impressed that I not only introduced it to my Book Group but also wrote to the man himself. He agreed that a writer's audience is so far away from the writer that he never hears even the echo of the applause. I was unsure whether this tender love story would transfer to the cinema having seen so many travesties recently of good books brought to the screen. I was wrong to worry as the sensitivity of the director and the two key actors, John Hurt and Jason Preistley brought more than just visual representation to the book they found a way of showing love on the screen between two men that was neither salacious nor mocking. I can not rate this movie too highly - it has the strength of theatre combined with the magic of film. Watch and enjoy
Rating:
Summary: This Film Could Have Been Titled: "Love & Frustration In LI"
Review: I just happened to find this dvd yesterday. I had heard vague echo's over the past few years, that this was A most unique film.
John Hurt gives an incredibly genius performance as an out of
touch, famous British author. An individual of superior intellect
and someone who has virtually isolated himself from contemporary
society. Hurt's Co-Star: Jason Priestley, are even more odd, than
the "Odd Couple", as the two major player's in this film. I understand the cute & light, comic aspects of Hurt's character
coming to terms with the modern world. Despite those few minor
laughs, this film is truly not A comedy, by the stretch of anyone's imagination. Once Hurt's character starts to begin the
process of transforming his otherwise, droll existance, into an
entirely newly reinvented self for the sole purpose of pursing
the Priestley character, only then does the film start to come
into A clear focus. Despite this film's most strange, and also
disturbing, story line, on certain levels it can be very intriguing, on other's, it can be very sad & hopeless. Both
major character's (Hurt & Priestly) are two very lost people in
their individual, and radically different lives. Hurt's character, A loney older British gentleman, in most every possibly way. And Priestley's character, A "Pretty Boy" Hollywood
Heart Throb, who is only getting offer's for the shallow roles,
because he is made out to be the male version of A "Bimbo".
This Film was disappointing, because it had a golden opportunity
to make some very important lesson statements, relative to it's
most odd plot. The ending was very weak, despite the fact that
it closes with Priestley's character, having taken the advice
of Hurt's charcter, by incorporating A scene in the Priestley
character's latest part three, B-movie installment. There is no real closure, just two individual's who's life paths cross, endured a minor, uncomfortable and melodramatic closure, to what was supposed to be a career boosting frienship for one, and the
sexual fantasy of his dreams, sailing into to sunset for the other.
Both leave the film as disillusioned and disbelieving people.
This is definately a must see for those who seek out quality
performances of unusual subject matter. It is also light years
away from qualifying for what would be considered A "Feel Good"
film. In closing, I think that it was A very bold move for actor
Jason Priestley, to play A role, that too many think of him as
being like in real life. Which is unfortunate, as I believe that
Jason Priestley is A highly intelligent & also very under rated, though extremely talented actor. Hopefully other's will recognize
his highly gifted acted skills.
|
