Let's be realistic.

A Brilliant Conflict

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

"Lie Down With Dogs" probably only exists because it was a product of the mid-90s, and as such has become a bit of a time capsule of an era that is now long gone, for good or ill. In the early 90s entertainment with gay themes began to capture the interests of straight viewers; "Philadelphia," "Priscilla Queen Of The Desert," "The Crying Game" and the PBS mini- series "Tales From The City" were all successful and proved to Hollywood that there was money to be made in "gay cinema." The sole motivating factor in Hollywood is making a buck; suddenly gay meant cash, and there was a flood of gay-themed movies. Most of them were pretty terrible, some of them ("Broken Hearts Club," "Jeffrey," "Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss," "To Wong Foo") had bigger budgets and tried hard, and sometimes succeeded. The main thing Hollywood created was content: for the first time in history, there was an abundance of gay-themed films that took the subject matter more or less for granted-- these were not stories about perverts, degenerates and losers, the homosexuals of these films were heroes.Nowadays it's hard to imagine how a film like "Lie Down With Dogs" would get any attention at all. Gay-themed films are the "B-movies" of the day, micro-budgeted without much distribution, but there are scads of them. Most of them are, like "LDWD," fluffy, forgettable and mostly fun, low on budget, acting or story but entertaining enough--like a trashy summer read. "LDWD" in particular shows a time when gay men looked a certain way, acted a certain way and thought certain ways...just listening to the soundtrack is like hearing a time capsule of what the 90s *sounded* like. I picked this movie up for a dollar out of curiosity recently and found that what the movie is "about" was of little importance--that it isn't about a conflicted gay man trying to come out in a straight world or writhing in shame is the significant thing. That it's a mindless comedy about a young man on the prowl for love makes it no different than thousands of rom-coms made for straight people, which is also significant. There are now dozens of such movies to choose from but that wasn't always the case, and in a weird way makes "LDWD," which is NOT a particularly good film, a bit of a landmark. Also too the fact that the "author" of the film seems to have passed away lends the film a bit of significance, or at least poignancy; all the bubble-headed, insatiable, selfish characters in the film would now be a good deal older as would be the target audience for this film, gay men in 1995. The 90s are gone, the world has changed and "Tommy" and his buddies would have passed the torch to a younger generation of egocentric P-Town tourists by now. It makes the film seem almost sad somehow, in that light. I would be surprised if anyone even remembers this movie at all in another 10 years (or even today), and that's not the end of the world, but as a time capsule of a different era I think it's rather thought-provoking.

I read a lot of bad reviews of this movie and I saw it 2 times in almost 4 years, but it remains not funny. Well, I have to admit, some things are really original, but that doesn't mean it's well performed. The actor's couldn't act and the director is the star is the producer is the screenplay writer! This picture was doomed to fail, because only Welles and Tarantino can do this. If you're planning to direct a movie you've written and payed for, and acted in, fine, go ahead, but don't show it to people outside your family.But I don't want to write too many bad things about this (cult?!) movie. This picture is good because it's bad and that's the reason you should see this film: to watch and learn how you shouldn't make movies. And if you watch it when you're happy, you can see that the clichés were showed for a reason.

The lighting was bad, the dialog was stiff, unnatural and awkward, the camera work was jumpy and distracting, the sound was in and out, and the acting was terrible.There was nothing redeeming about this movie. Given the cheesy blue screen work (a montage P-Town scenes behind an actor as he marches/struts in place instead of actual film of the actor walking down a street), I should not have expected much, but this disappointed even my limited hope.Low budget films have been done in the past - and done well (Clerks), but this one feels and looks schlocky. After watching it, you feel that your 8 year old niece or nephew could have done better with the family camcorder. What amazes me is that Miramax picked it up and released it.

Ok, I know just about everyone claims that the most recent bad film they've seen is the worst movie ever made. Well, it's been a while since the 1995 release of Wally White's ode to self-absorption "Lie Down with Dogs," and the film still ranks as the worst gay movie devoted to celluloid, and an atrocity on all levels. Here's 10 reasons why the film makes more sucking noises than a Hoover upright: ***1. Our "protagonist" (and I use that term VERY loosely) waxes unpoetically at the beginning of the film about how sucky New York City is, so he packs up and moves, haphazardly, to Provincetown, MA for the summer. Once there, he does nothing but berate the place for not being New York. Go figure. ***2. The film was obviously shot during P-Town's off-season; the summer resort looks more like an old-west ghost town. ***3. We're supposed to feel a sense of connection and brotherhood with Tommy, the lead character. Yeh, right. It's probably unintentional, but White's alter-ego is a whining, self-obsessed doink who is about half as attractive as he thinks he is. I'm supposed to root for this guy to fall in love? I found myself rooting for this guy to be hit by a bus. ***4. The film is extremely offensive to minorities. White tries to be funny, but instead manages to insult everyone from recovering alcoholics to men over 40 to Jamaicans. Even the latino pretty boy is (gasp!) lazy... one of a bazillion stereotypes perpetuated by this wreck of film. ***5. White's summer vacation is boring. I had more exciting stints at summer camp as a kid. ***6. The writing of this film is amateurish through and through. What's meant to be funny is just obnoxious, and what's meant to be touching is cloying. The characters are flat, the plot is nil and there's no dramatic rise to what little story exists. ***7. The director makes the assumption that all gay men aspire to be pumped-up pretty-boy airheads, dancing in their speedos. No, thanks, I'm driving. ***8. Cinematically, the film is poorly constructed. The editing is bad, the camerawork is bland. The movie looks like someone grabbed a camera for the first time and thought, "wow, I'll make a movie." ***9. Did I mention that the lead character is self-absorbed and obnoxious? ***10. The worst offender of all: the utter horror of the "Square State Theory" scene. This little gem sees Tommy as he unfolds his hypothesis that you can tell a guy from a square-shaped state by his tacky wardrobe, lack of dancing expertise or general ugliness. To make matters worse, he actually points out several of these hapless losers out while pontificating from on high in a crowded dance club. ***Can you tell how offended I was by this movie? As a guy from a relatively square state, I have news for Wally White... first, you might be part of a minority, but this kind "better than thou" behavior isn't far off from what fueled such lovely historical eras such as Nazi Germany. Secondly, those square-state guys are PEOPLE... they may know how to point and laugh, too, but things like self-contentment and decency usually stand in their way. Me, I guess I'm not so decent, so I have no shame or reservation when I tell you: your film is mean-spirited and just plain bad.