GAY Horror & Thriller Flicks

This movie is based on a book by Gerard Reve, a Dutch novelist who is very famous in the Netherlands. It's quite useful to know something about this writer, for it helps to understand the movie. Reve was one of the first public figures to come out of the closet. Many of his novels contain explicit homosexual content. Practically porn. Furthermore Reve's career was marked by lot of controversies, and not only because of just his literary work. For instance, he also made a lot of television appearances and quite often his performance was shockingly provocative. Most of his books are about himself and are written in the I-form. Nevertheless they contain a lot of fiction. Reve wrote about himself as an alcoholic, a catholic, and as a very cynical, selfish, opportune man. Not at all likable. Most Dutch people have read some of his work and are aware of his personality, whether it's real or not. He was the only person in the Netherlands who ever got prosecuted for breaking the law against blasphemy. In his book "Nader tot U" (1966) he writes about making love to the incarnation of God as a one-year-old donkey. Eventually he was acquitted. So when Reve writes about having sex with a woman, no-one in the Netherlands thinks he all of a sudden turned bisexual. It is used to emphasize the magical power this woman, who might or might not be a witch, has over him.

Jeroen Krabbé is perfectly cast as Reve. Possibly one of the best roles of his career. I alway thought Krabbé, who btw is not gay, has a slight effeminate side. Here he is able to use it with aplomb - and thank god he's not overplaying it. He also manages to imitate the constant cynicism of Reve while keeping it subtle at the same time.

The direction of Verhoeven is superb. I'm not a big fan of his, neither of Reve of Krabbé. But somehow everything fits perfectly in this movie. There's a lot of Hitchcockian suspense. The score helps a great deal. The camerawork is very clever. The somewhat overt symbolism actually is spot on in this specific case, because this makes that the audience constantly sees what Reve is experiencing.

Haven't finished writing this review. Just a sketch.

Highly recommended for those who are in search of a good scary horror movie with a handsome gay lead character and a nice romantic subplot.

This review contains spoilers!.

Hellbent is probably the best movie available at the moment, that really covers the gay-horror subgenre. First of all it's really a horror movie and not some camp spoof. There are a few funny moments, but they don't interfere with the horror plot and they don't ruin the suspense. Secondly the protagonist is a handsome young gay guy who gets romantically involved and this subplot really works! Well at least it worked for me. This is less the case in Bite Marks, Zombies of Mass Destruction and Cthulu (see below). At the end our hero has to rescue his lover - and succeeds in this. An "old fashioned" happy ending which in this specific case is very welcome to me.

This movie is very well made. The only questionable thing is the use of very dominant primary colors during the late night scenes. This is not the case in the daylight scenes, which are actually built on pretty smart color schemes. Because of this contrast I've actually began to like the overdone coloring of the scenes that otherwise would be plain dark.

This review is somewhat short. In future I'll try to improve it, but for now I only want to state once more, that I like this movie very, very much. I've seen it several times and it doesn't start to bore, which is quite unusual. In contrary I like it better with each repeat viewing. Usually I watch it on Christmas Day, while drinking a lot of booze. Afterwards I watch Black Christmas - the original ofcourse. Some kind of personal tradition that's rather difficult to explain...

Bite Marks is unjustified underrated. Yes, it IS low budget and yes, it has some very obvious weaknesses, but in contrary some other aspects are very well done.

First of all the cinematography by Clifton Radford. I thought the chosen compositions were clever, appropriate and aesthetically pleasing. The colors and the use of filters sometimes a bit overdone, but not too disturbing to my taste. And it's always a bit of a relief if those totally cliché dark blue, washed-out colors, which for some reason seem to be incredible popular nowadays, are absent. I'm so sick and tired of that brainless "approach of style".

Secondly - the music of Rossano Galante. According to his imdb page he is a very successful composer and the orchestrator of the music of several big Hollywood productions. (The Thing, Don't Be Afraid of the Dark, Repo Men, Max Payne, etc) It doesn't surprise me at all, because the music of Bite Marks is just very good! Probably the best element of the movie, when judged separately. And not a sign of thrift. A lot of scenes have 'custom' written music of their own. It supports the different types of mood and the tension perfectly.

Thirdly the movie starts with a very nice animation to present the opening credits. Well, after the prologue that is of course. It wasn't very expensive - clearly not - but at least they tried to make something out of it, instead of choosing the most obvious way: embedding some hard coded titles directly to the film. To me this animation sequence is like the frame around a painting. It adds something extra to the presentation of the film. It really sets the mood. Hearing the music, watching the animation. It all makes me want to see the movie.

The weak part is that the movie focuses to much on some gay aspects - which to be fair, are not very interesting - and not enough on creating suspense and horror. I like gay romance of course, otherwise I wouldn't have made this list. But the relationship of the main couple in this movie, two holiday hitchhikers, isn't very believable. This was done a lot better in Hellbent, although not perfectly either. The subplot about the closeted truck driver was a bit better, but in the end it seemed wasted too. This part was played by Benjamin Lutz and I must say he did an excellent job. A quite talented actor. Handsome as well.

Another weak part is the sound. Probably because of the budget. It's not very disturbing, but sometimes you'll notice it. There's a fair chance they managed to achieve the best possible, with such limited financial resourses. I don't get it, although I AM gay, I haven't the faintest idea why anyone would like to watch the intercourse scene in that disgustingly filthy public restroom. They could've filmed it easily in all kinds of different ways and it could be situated in a lot of different places. Clean places. Or someplace, somewhere, that adds to the romance. But there's a total absence of anything romantic during the entire picture. I'm exaggerating a bit, but it could have been done a lot better, I'm quite sure of that.

Nevertheless the story is clearly structured. It has an interesting approach on the vampire tale. And thank god, there's no tragedy and drama about becoming or being a vampire. Vampires are just dangerous monsters, which have to be destroyed without moral issues. Some parts are rather scary. Not extremely, but the suspense is there. Some of the jokes work pretty well. I liked the references to the original Fright Night. The apple, the way Cary says "charmed", Geoffreys saying "You're so cool Brewster". It was a bit strange to see Stephen Geoffreys that "old". He actually made a remark about it himself: "I'm getting to old for this". I wonder if it was scripted. At some point there's even a very clever similarity between the scores of the movies. The music when Vogel and Brewster are sexually involved with each other is much alike the music when Dandridge and Amy are having a "close moment".

I think this film will mainly appeal to an all male gay audience. I've seen it twice now and I liked it the second time even better. It sure doesn't deserve its current low imdb rating.

A beautiful dramatic thriller. Among the best TV movies I've seen. Very professionally made. The visuals are all splendid. The tension is built with a lot of care. The score accompanies all dramatic events with the appropriate atmosphere.

Like "The Talented Mr. Ripley" this is not really a sincere true-love story. The main character - much alike Ripley - fulfills most prominently some kind of merged role of both prota- and antagonist at the same time.

Superb, an incredible strong movie. Very tense, very atmospheric. Highly - highly - recommended.

The gay plot is sub-textual. But very deliberate.

Subplot 8.5/10

This extremely suspenseful horror movie has a remarkable gay character in it. I hesitated about calling it a main or supporting role. The story is about 5 doctors on a wilderness outing and one of them is gay. So he is one of the protagonists. This is actually the earliest movie I could think of, no matter what genre, that has a openly gay character, without that being an issue. He is as much a part of the group as any of the other four guys. Moreover he is characterized in a non-stereotype way. Just an average guy. It isn't even really important for the plot, but strangely enough it makes some of the drama all the more gripping.

Don't let the average imdb user rating put you off. A lot of people voted it a 10, but the calculation system happens to ignore that.

Don't know if Mr. Ripley is the protagonist or the antagonist, but he's the gay one in this thriller.

Beware, this review contains some serious spoilers!

It's actually pretty weird that an extremely unsettling movie as this one doesn't qualify for the horror/thriller genre. The body count must be something like 15 and most of these killings happen quite graphically on screen. One of the most cynical scenes take place at a ridge that is used by criminals to dump corpses - although a sign reads, that one is not allowed to do so. After watching this film I had a very restless sleep because of it. Almost a nightmare even. It contained so incredibly much of my own concerns and worries. All my misanthropic, pessimistic thoughts about modern-day life and society. My irritations towards antisocial behavior (loud music playing everywhere). It was throughout very easy for me to empathize with the main-character's inner moral conflicts as well as his nostalgia-based sadness (fortuitously he even liked my favorite composer's music)

To me, this gripping, subversive film is a true masterpiece. Technically it's perfect. Dramatically it's beyond that. 10/10

Beware, this review contains some serious spoilers!

While I've been complaining about some lack of romance in several of my other reviews on gay horror movies, 'In the Blood' doesn't have any gay romance at all. And sadly enough there's nothing to complain about. It's just not a part of the plot. Cassidy, the main character, is a closeted gay adolescent, a senior at a NYC college. His repressed homosexuality is a major plot point. They could have added a secret love or something, but actually it's of no importance to the story. He tries to live a straight life, and he actually has an attractive girlfriend. But he needs to take Viagra to have intercourse with her and even then he doesn't manage to get to the "climax" (or whatever it's called in English). He also suffers from having some nasty visions of his sister Jessica covered in blood. This of course is related to the horror part of the movie. A serial killer on campus is killing girls, who all more or less have the same profile as Jessica has. Right from the start of the movie it is made clear that these visions occur at the same time when Cassidy's real sexual feelings unwillingly take part of him. There's a very logical but nevertheless clever explanation to this. It may be not very realistic, but that's beside the point. Seeing the future never is realistic. This explanation is given later on in the movie by Cassidy's aunt. She tells him that these foretelling visions will become more clear, when he has free, fulfilling sex. A modest trouvaille, isn't it? Or is that an oxymoron? A huge dilemma for Cassidy. To save his sister, he must have his first gay sex experience. And it needs to be a good one too. It may sound all very comical, in fact it is served deadpan and in total earnest.

A lot of reviewers seemed to hate the ending. (So here come some spoilers). I haven't the faintest idea why. This movie is partly a whodunit, like for instance Scream. There are just a few people who'll make a probable killer. Cassidy actually is the first one. He's having these strange visions, and at first we don't know why. Was he is spectator, or is he seeing things he's planning to do? We really don't know. The second one is the new boyfriend of Jessica, Michael, a right Casanova. Is he just taking advantage of her and did also date the previous victims? We don't know. The third one is the dean. He has a lot of documentation collected about the killings. Is it just because he wants to warn the girls and to track down the killer? And why did he talk Jessica's out of her plans to dye her hair? As I said - a straight whodunit. There are a few other people involved, but they would make a less probable assassin. The most important one is a male prostitute Cassidy has been visiting. At the end there's some huge mix-up. Cassidy thinks Michael is the killer, Michael thinks it is the prostitute. And Jessica has had some interfering visions as well. This actually makes sense because of the aunt's story we already knew it was an inheritable talent. To me it all seemed very plausible. The only less logical aspect was the visions Jessica had about the dean. This could have been let out. The newspaper explained enough. But that's just a small detail.

So in short. I liked the ending.

And I liked the movie too.

Horror-comedy-musical. A bit Waiting for Guffman goes slasher. A bit darker than Drop Dead Gorgeous (1999). But it definitely isn't as funny as either of those movies

A supporting character is gay or two actually And at the beginning of the movie, there's a song called "I'm Gay (but not in that way)." It contained a couple of nice gruesome killings. Parts of the movie swap from unconvincing camp to plain silliness. The parody parts are not very clever, and they miss some sharp edges as well. Moreover the movie borrows elements from a large range of (horror) movies, but it fails to reveal for what purpose.

I still enjoyed it. Probably a bit more than it deserved. 6.5/10 for entertainment.

Edit: I don't agree any more with my first little review above. I've seen the movie a lot of times since then, and it got better with each repeat view. Especially the treatment of the music is very well done. First of all it quite often supports very synchronized the on-screen action in detail. So it's more than just adding mood or atmosphere to a sequence of subsequent events. I also like the use of musical themes, or even reoccurring typical sounds (such as the vocal exercises of Leanne Miller(?)) The supporting cast is also rather funny, which is important to enhance a musical's re-watch values. So I need to re-write my review.

I've raised my vote several times, and it's now on a 9/10

A television adaption of the opera "Der Vampyr" by Heinrich Marchner. Not just a registration of a stage performance but really drastically reworked to a very ingenious tv movie. One of the best. However for those who don't like early romantic opera, it's probably a lost case.

There's a lot of intended gay subtext.

It comments on yuppie decadence, although it flirts with it shamelessly at the same time.

Intended gay subtext (although hidden because of its controversy in those days). Actually I think it's even slightly too overt to be just subtext. Both "antagonists" are gay without any doubt. This movie is based on the Leopold and Loop murders.

Well, the zombie flick had a huge revival during the last decade. And this trend doesn't seem to have ended already. Most of these movies have very familiar plots, although they usually provide some kind of specific twist on the basic idea. In Zombies of Mass Destruction the main focus seems to be on criticizing small town prejudice. I don't have a problem with that. Actually, I fully agree with most of the political statements expressed in this movie. The problem however is, that this is all been done in a rather blunt naive way. This movie has three protagonist. An Iranian girl and a gay male couple. So when a zombie plague is spreading, these three get the blame. As covered by a tv news report, some terrorists claim responsibility for the outbreak. A neighbor of the Iranian girl is immediately convinced she's collaborating with the enemy. Later on in different plot-line, the gay couple get imprisoned by some religious fanatics. These so-called true Christians consider the zombie outbreak as the start of Armageddon. Eventually the Iranian girl as well as one of the gay guys, each in their own subplot, are both strapped to a chair, with the intention to be tortured.

This movie boast a melting pot of different genres. None of these really seemed to work. It wasn't very scary and there wasn't much suspense or action. I think some kind of "witch hunt" on the protagonists in a little village overrun by zombies would have had much more potential as idea. Then the continuous confrontation with and between the small town inhabitants and the zombies, would create a lot of possibilities on all kind of levels. Certainly much more than the chair-tying torture-porn cliché. Furthermore it wasn't very funny. The satire was way too simplistic. That's really a weak point. If you want to make some kind of statement about narrow-mindedness you have to be very cunning to make it work. And don't spare the audience. Usually they're far to ignorant to feel addressed. There are a lot examples how it should/could be done, varying from the comedies of the Boulting Brothers (Heavens Above is a fine example about the hypocrisy in religion) to for instance the mockumentaries of Christopher Guest.

Alas, the movie wasn't very romantic either. There isn't much to say about this. It just wasn't. Even Bite Marks scored a lot better in this aspect.

Technically this movie at first seems more mature than Hellbent or Bitemarks. This actually isn't the case, it's just more mainstream-like build. There's constant some cameramovement, if little. So they used a steady-cam, I guess. Very annoying, when used otherwise than for a POV. The late-night scenes appear quite dark, although it's perfectly possible to see whats happening. This was done by using just a few sharp bright lights, shining - out of frame - from above or behind the characters. It worked - but it wasn't very pretty. After a while it gets very tiresome constantly watching people whose facial expressions are covered in shadow. But my overall conclusion about the technical aspects of this movie, is that it was rather decent. Very functional, to say the least. But it lacked of aesthetics.

When I've watched a movie and cannot recall anything about the music afterwards, it probably wasn't very interesting. Some imdb reviewers complained about the sound. It didn't annoy me much.

This movie wasn't so bad. The first time I saw it, I did enjoy it. But the second time was quite a bore.

Gay protagonist

Horror comedy.

An environmental disaster tv-movie involving acid rain. This specific rain is so dangerously acid, it burns through wooden roofs and even metal within a limit amount of time. Needless to say, it also burns right through clothing, skin and flesh almost instantly. So without protection you're dead in a few minutes. And of course the protagonists in the movie are just backpackers with no kind of protection whatsoever.

Ron Oliver is a rather decent director. Most of his (TV) movies work quite well. This one is a bit uneven, although the premise is rather interesting. And with the premise, I mean just that basic idea of an highly acid rain, while it's almost impossible to find some proper place for shelter. That's a pretty scary idea. And so it was in the movie. The directing, cinematography and editing are all done cleverly enough. The problem is the slightly preachy story which seemed to be built out of a combination of banality and a lot of illogical circumstantial aspects. Maybe the budget was a bit of a problem too. When there's an acid rain pouring down, it shouldn't just affect cars and buildings... There shouldn't be a leaf left on a tree in the whole forest. These kind of inconsistencies are difficult to avoid when you're trying to make a big time disaster flick while there are only "supplies" for a TV movie in stock.

And oh, I almost forgot, there are two gay protagonists. But... hardly any romance.

I dislike to start with the most obvious and banal thing to say about a movie such as this one, but here goes: the budget was ultra low. I read in an external review that the director was just 22 years of age during filming, in which case the movie must have been shot before November 1997. (This is of course very well possible). His only effort as a director to date. Much of the crew and cast weren't very experienced either, with a few exceptions.

As most critics point out, the story is some kind of allegory in which "being a wolf" serves as metaphor to "being gay". Society doesn't understand these outcast and regards them as dangerous. Misguided and led by a very hypocritical church, it condemns and hunts these so-called "wolves".

It isn't very clear what the makers were striving for. The gay-wolf parable is very clear right from the start. Rather simplistic and a bit pretentious. A lot of reviewers call it a fairy tale. But don't expect something like The Company of Wolves. The gay wolfmen are sometimes referred to as werewolves. They aren't. Don't expect a horror movie. There's another plot in which two old "hags" try to murder their employer. It feels a bit 'Agatha Christie' but it doesn't become a detective story. There isn't much suspense. There isn't much mystery.

It's not a thought-provoking drama. It neither is a provocative satire. But... it IS a bit romantic, a tiny bit. And a little bit sad.

So I'm actually saying the same as all the other reviewer did.

Could I recommend this movie? Should I ...?

Well alright: Watch it! Choose a rainy Sunday afternoon, while reading a not-so interesting newspaper, or book at the same time.

This movie combines several genres. First of all it's a spoof of the beach party movies from the 50's and 60's. Secondly it's a spoof of the slasher flicks from later decades. Thirdly a lot of camp is thrown in between. And I mean really a lot. Furthermore it's loaded with good looking guys and there's a nice gay couple coming out of the closet to spice it up. There's very little horror. And alas, it neither contains much black humor. But there's a lot of satire. It isn't a very good movie, but it has a very good feel to it. And it is rather original. Don't expect to much and you'll probably be pleasant surprised.

I'm always a bit surprised this movie was already made in 2000. For some reason it seems from much later date to me.

A rather good thriller. But because of the subject not really enjoyable. I felt continuously dis-comfortable.

Beware: This review contains spoilers!

Lloyd Kaufman has a guest/cameo appearance for literally 15 seconds. Rounded upwards. This tells us two things. 1) This flick is a real cheapo. Even John Carradine's role in 'Red Zone Cuba' had more substance. 2) Anyone familiar with Troma pictures now knows the type of genre this movie is trying to present. The combination of both, actually gives a fair description of this movie: a low-budget, amateurish Troma wannabe. It sounds a bit like a pleonasm, since Troma pictures glorifies in low-budget amateurism. (As it does in bad taste.)

Well, that said, it was a rather amusing film. Not at all bad. Especially the first half had some funny sequences. Although there is a reasonable amount of of gore, it never gets scary. The technical values are digestible. They could be a lot worse.

The gay guy is of course Peter Stickels. He has played in several gay movies, as well as in several horror movies.

At the end one of the main characters reveals he is gay. Homosexuality however, never actually is a subject. So don't expect anything romantic. It's just a minor plot-twist without any necessary meaning. Unless perhaps it was used as an excuse for his death. He is killed soon after his "confession".

This thriller serves a lot stuff to keep the mind busy. It's like a long chain of minor plot twists, each with the potential to trigger some frustrating thoughts on some social, ethic or cultural dilemma.

A good tense movie with a very dubious ending.

An amazing movie. Very good. Will write a little review as soon as possible. It contains a small part about a necrophiliac who picks up a gay prostitute. It's a very direct into-your-face scene. And the gay guy is a handsome fellow, very open and unashamed, and not portrayed stereotypically. But as said: it's just a small subplot.

Brilliant!! But don't expect much romance.

aka Wonderland