This film is about lesbians but it has a message for all. First off, it is to me the first film that does not have issues with being a lesbian or gay for that matter. Go Fish works from the inside out and features real members of the chicago lesbian community. Go Fish urges you to just get out there and date rather than waiting for the perfect woman or man. Unlike Philadelphia, it doesnt try and make any pc claims about sex or homosexuality. I give these girls snaps, they put it together for p
33 Reviews
Mediocre At Its Best
jacob rosen4 October 2001
Rose Troche's understanding of film language brings this film about lesbians looking for true romance up to the level of mediocrity--otherwise, it would be virtually unwatchable. Troche's eye and odd sense of what is important on the screen (the scene transitions are especially weird) transcend some horribly amateurish acting and writing. (The screenplay is by the director and her star, Guinevere Turner.) The film makes every effort to come across as a simple story with characters who just happen to be gay but is continually compromised by ponderous lesbian polemics that sap whatever sweetness the story tries to put across. Turner has a kind of toothy charm that reminds one of a more compact Geena Davis but Troche never instructs her to slow down enough so that her lines have some kind of impact. The rest of the cast seems to be doing it only as a labor of love.
Dated but worth seeing
BRU672 February 2020
I remember seeing this near the time it came out and found it very stylish and interesting. I just watched it again after 25 years. I still enjoyed it but, of course, it definitely feels dated, and doesn't pack the punch it packed back then due to 25 years of progress on LGBT issues.
I think some of the bad reviews might be coming from people putting it into modern context. Some are probably saying, "ok, and...?" That's because today (fortunately) it simply isn't all that earth-shattering to think that same-sex couples seek romantic relationships much like straight couples do.
But back in 1994, this was not commonly thought of by those outside the LGBT community, so the film was a big deal conceptually. It was also very modern in style. Put two and two together and you had a very hip little art house movie.
It doesn't come off that way now though. The concept is pretty mainstream and the film is definitely not modern in style. So really, the film needs to be viewed as a piece of history and it will be much more enjoyable.
I think some of the bad reviews might be coming from people putting it into modern context. Some are probably saying, "ok, and...?" That's because today (fortunately) it simply isn't all that earth-shattering to think that same-sex couples seek romantic relationships much like straight couples do.
But back in 1994, this was not commonly thought of by those outside the LGBT community, so the film was a big deal conceptually. It was also very modern in style. Put two and two together and you had a very hip little art house movie.
It doesn't come off that way now though. The concept is pretty mainstream and the film is definitely not modern in style. So really, the film needs to be viewed as a piece of history and it will be much more enjoyable.
Felt its impact for days afterwards
Seething31 August 1999
I saw this movie in the summer of 1994, as a young lesbian who was just comming out of the closet who had never had a girlfriend. I found the chemistry between Max and Ely so real, that I found myself yearning for that kind of relationship. Daria's trail was also very well done, as many lesbians do share that attitude.
Just because...
alli_katz2 June 2001
A movie is independent, and about gay women, doesn't make it good. And, it's a shame, because the actress who plays the lead character, Max, actually is very good. But the movie is so poorly constructed, and most of her friends are so one-note, that the novelty gets old pretty soon. I was bored halfway through it; there is a clever twist near the end which raised it to a 5 for me, but don't expect much in between.
Hand in the "Honey Pot"...
film-critic20 April 2005
This may be the first time you hear me say this, but Go Fish was too artistic and dated for my enjoyment. I think that if I had seen this film when it was first released back in 1994 I would have been impressed. This was a very avant-garde film that tried very hard to discuss an issue that was very "hush-hush" back in the early 90s. Lesbians were very closeted back then and were not a major part of the culture norm as they are today (well, as much as we recognize them today). This makes for a very provocative film, but it also makes for a very dated film. This was my biggest issue with this film was that it nearly felt like a comedy instead of this symbolic struggle to pursue happiness like any heterosexual relationship. I realize that director Rose Troche was trying to show us that a lesbian relationship is no different than a male and female relationship and even lesbians talk like men talk about women, but somehow it just felt very dated and cliché for me. It didn't open more doors in my mind to the lifestyle of lesbians, but instead gave me this dated image of this butch lesbian that is rebelling against something instead of embracing the true lifestyle.
The black and white photography, while symbolically trying to show the black and white of the situation and relationship, just felt like an art film. This was an art film, so what am I griping about? I guess I just didn't want to see an art film with this topic. I wanted to see something along the lines of Kids or even a documentary, not something where the uneducated will laugh at and ridicule even harder. I wanted a film that was going to punch me in the face, not build upon dated/old clichés that instead poked my mind randomly and not very hard. It was unimpressive. It wasn't bold film-making, but instead just this random, average production about a lesbian love story. Was it to be educational? I think there were elements that could have been explored greater and into detail to cross that education/lifestyle acceptance line. The scene dealing with bisexuality is the first that comes to mind. This probably sounded great on paper, but when it was actually filmed out, it seemed high schoolish and bland. The inner voices were not struggling with the character, but instead causing confusion and chaos that will never be resolved. Another scene that could have played out just a bit better was the dinner scene where a group of lesbians have gathered for a party. There could have been more discussed between the lesbians like lifestyle, issues, and current problems (that would help with the dated feel) instead of just sex, sex, and more sex.
That was a huge downfall for me was the constant reminder that all these women wanted was to have sex. There were times when I was watching this film where I felt a bit of sweetness in my mouth because I thought there was some candy-coating happening. This does not need to happen in a film that is supposed to bring the lesbian lifestyle closer into the spotlight. I never felt that these women in this film were given the best light to show their stuff anyway. From the beginning of the first scene until the last (and all those snippets in-between) all they could talk about was sex. They wanted to have sex more often than I honestly think about in a day. It really made the rest of the non-existent themes seem blurry and unimportant. There was just a consistent lack of togetherness for this film that ultimately hurt it in the long run. This wasn't a film about women's rights, but instead a dire attempt to show the similarities between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. I agree that this happened, but just not very coherently. There seemed to be other elements strewn together in a very loose fashion that took away from the overall power of the film. Don't get me wrong, this could have been a very powerful film about a lifestyle that this world is still not accepting, but instead it went too far to the left (which isn't bad, except in this case) and chose to go the bleeding artist route instead of the informative, here are the facts route. The black and white photography, the lack of character development (who really was Ely's partner?), and the cheesy moments between scenes where women talked to me about the illusive "honey pot". It just wasn't coming together well for me and eventually fell apart all together.
Overall, I was not impressed. There are greater films out there that express the power of the relationship and do not create this unimpressive "raw" sensation by trying to shock the audiences. One of my favorites is the film Big Eden which accepts homosexuality like it is commonplace in society. If Go Fish would have been done in a similar style, I think I could have walked away from the film with a better taste in my mouth. Instead, I am stuck with an unimpressive story that did nothing except joke about why lesbian women like to play the game "Go Fish". Ha ha ha h .it just isn't working for me. I do not recommend this film in the least bit. There was one, singular scene that made me chuckle and for the likes of me I cannot remember why. It was an unmemorable feast of bad cinema. Skip it.
Grade: * out of *****
The black and white photography, while symbolically trying to show the black and white of the situation and relationship, just felt like an art film. This was an art film, so what am I griping about? I guess I just didn't want to see an art film with this topic. I wanted to see something along the lines of Kids or even a documentary, not something where the uneducated will laugh at and ridicule even harder. I wanted a film that was going to punch me in the face, not build upon dated/old clichés that instead poked my mind randomly and not very hard. It was unimpressive. It wasn't bold film-making, but instead just this random, average production about a lesbian love story. Was it to be educational? I think there were elements that could have been explored greater and into detail to cross that education/lifestyle acceptance line. The scene dealing with bisexuality is the first that comes to mind. This probably sounded great on paper, but when it was actually filmed out, it seemed high schoolish and bland. The inner voices were not struggling with the character, but instead causing confusion and chaos that will never be resolved. Another scene that could have played out just a bit better was the dinner scene where a group of lesbians have gathered for a party. There could have been more discussed between the lesbians like lifestyle, issues, and current problems (that would help with the dated feel) instead of just sex, sex, and more sex.
That was a huge downfall for me was the constant reminder that all these women wanted was to have sex. There were times when I was watching this film where I felt a bit of sweetness in my mouth because I thought there was some candy-coating happening. This does not need to happen in a film that is supposed to bring the lesbian lifestyle closer into the spotlight. I never felt that these women in this film were given the best light to show their stuff anyway. From the beginning of the first scene until the last (and all those snippets in-between) all they could talk about was sex. They wanted to have sex more often than I honestly think about in a day. It really made the rest of the non-existent themes seem blurry and unimportant. There was just a consistent lack of togetherness for this film that ultimately hurt it in the long run. This wasn't a film about women's rights, but instead a dire attempt to show the similarities between homosexual and heterosexual relationships. I agree that this happened, but just not very coherently. There seemed to be other elements strewn together in a very loose fashion that took away from the overall power of the film. Don't get me wrong, this could have been a very powerful film about a lifestyle that this world is still not accepting, but instead it went too far to the left (which isn't bad, except in this case) and chose to go the bleeding artist route instead of the informative, here are the facts route. The black and white photography, the lack of character development (who really was Ely's partner?), and the cheesy moments between scenes where women talked to me about the illusive "honey pot". It just wasn't coming together well for me and eventually fell apart all together.
Overall, I was not impressed. There are greater films out there that express the power of the relationship and do not create this unimpressive "raw" sensation by trying to shock the audiences. One of my favorites is the film Big Eden which accepts homosexuality like it is commonplace in society. If Go Fish would have been done in a similar style, I think I could have walked away from the film with a better taste in my mouth. Instead, I am stuck with an unimpressive story that did nothing except joke about why lesbian women like to play the game "Go Fish". Ha ha ha h .it just isn't working for me. I do not recommend this film in the least bit. There was one, singular scene that made me chuckle and for the likes of me I cannot remember why. It was an unmemorable feast of bad cinema. Skip it.
Grade: * out of *****
Realistic, artistic... one of my favorite movies.
rbernsdorf24 April 2001
These women, though similar to the "Dykes To Watch Out For" comic characters, are incredibly realistic in their interactions, activities and dress patterns/self presentation. There is, after all, a reason that DTWOF is a hugely popular lesbian comic strip. The characters in "Go Fish" are modeled after real lesbians, not Hollywood creations. You get the sense that part of the film is scripted, and other parts are ad-libbed. I watched this movie (again and again) and thought THESE ARE DYKES! This is NOT a Hollywood flick with shiny Hollywood glitz gals and high budget special effects. This film is RAW, and will appeal to lesbians and independent film lovers. Warning: if you thought "Bound" was the quintessential lesbian flick, you will NOT like "Go Fish".
I love you Guin, but really...
Corky-1216 December 1998
"Go Fish", at first glance, appears to have all the elements of a good dyke film; good writers, great background, and above all a rather scrumptious leading lady. So why, then, did it fail to even moisten my appetite? There was no energy in the piece. I found myself creating my own little stories in my head to keep me occupied while I watched good material being drawn out to its maximum, and therefore losing all appeal. There was simply no pace, no excitement, and it seemed to me very dated. Guin, please, drag us into the twenty-first century, I know that you are capable of it. And this time, find a gorgeous girl to do it with?
A true classic lesbian movie
ladarius199112 March 2009
In retrospect, lots of people would say go fish is a bad movie due to the bad acting and the bad script writing, but that's not the point.The movie go fish, which is the first actual lesbian film, teaches everybody about the ups and downs of every lesbian's lifestyle that most people doesn't seem to recognise in mainstream films during the 1990's and this low budget movie made by real lesbians (in a realistic documentary feel that's similar to spike lee's first movie "She's gotta have it") is very non Hollywood and is not in such total cliché of mainstream films during that decade that portray lesbian/bisexual women as serial killers (i.e. basic instinct and heavenly creatures) and that's what i like most about go fish because it's witty, romantic, and very close to the heart and although it's not the best film ever made, but who knows, a person who is a student in high school or in college might watch the movie during history/social studies class on lesbian history.
Nice try, but...
d5witkow_995 February 2001
Go Fish is a great effort as far as amateur film making goes, but it falls very short of the mark. The characters are one dimentional, the dialog is stilted and lame, and the acting is terrible. I don't know how the film was cast, but it seems that Troche and Turner just gathered up all the lesbians they knew and said, "Hey, wanna be in a movie?" If someone made this film as a part of an undergraduate film study program, then I might be impressed. The scenes where Max's friends lay on the floor with their heads together commenting on the film's events are difficult to watch and feel like bad communtity theatre. There are some interesting montage sequences interspersed throughout the film, but they have nothing to do with the story itself, and in the end just seem to exist soley for the purpose of being arty and pretentious. If you're looking for a great entry into lesbian film, this is not it. Try But I'm A Cheerleader or Better Than Chocolate.
Loved it, it was better than Cats.
Aleatha21 April 1999
So, my friends forced me to watch this movie and I was prepared for an artsy film with high philosophy and low interest. Instead I found myself captivated by the "documentary" approach. Daria's "trial" was a unique way to air the varied questions and challenges that face the lesbian community and individuals as they attempt to define themselves without limiting their possibilities. Max and Eli's exploration of love and relationships was equally entertaining, combining a look at what it means to be committed (Eli's "girlfriend" that she hadn't seen for years and Max's search for someone.) And the nail clipping scene was just the right touch of the absurd to make the moment feel like something that could happen rather than something that belongs only in the world of Hollywood fantasy.
Go Fish: Not Worth Multiple Views
rsg203323 September 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was somewhat interesting. The characters in it were well rounded, but the acting had a lot of room for improvement. This film revolved around dialogue and there was plenty of it. For the most part the dialogue was funny and somewhat interesting, but overall this film mostly felt like a dirty version of Sex and the City: Lesbian Edition. I did think it was interesting that the film included real depictions of lesbian women and didn't just have classically beautiful women in it pretending to be lesbians. It also wasn't afraid to show uncensored lesbian relationships, which a great number of people in 1994 would have found repulsive.
The film also included a variety of shots and wasn't afraid to play around with camera angles, but this wasn't necessarily a good thing. A few shots in particular were simply annoying, for instance: the laundry room shot from the drier and the conversation between Max and her black friend in the coffee shop. The transitions in the movie also didn't seem to have much relevance to the plot of the film. Some transitions would be kids playing in the park and others would be up close images of handsthere is one exceptionwhen Daria and one of her sex lackeys are making love it shows Evy splitting some bread in half, but other than that the transitions do not have any relevance. Overall Go Fish is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great one either. I personally would not watch it again given the opportunity.It is a somewhat interesting movie, but it leans heavily on the lesbian aspect and given that this is the twenty-first century it doesn't carry the same shock value that it did back in '94. Don't get me wrong, if the characters in this film were not lesbians it probably wouldn't be interesting at all. In fact it would be the same romantic comedy that we've all seen over one hundred times now.
The film also included a variety of shots and wasn't afraid to play around with camera angles, but this wasn't necessarily a good thing. A few shots in particular were simply annoying, for instance: the laundry room shot from the drier and the conversation between Max and her black friend in the coffee shop. The transitions in the movie also didn't seem to have much relevance to the plot of the film. Some transitions would be kids playing in the park and others would be up close images of handsthere is one exceptionwhen Daria and one of her sex lackeys are making love it shows Evy splitting some bread in half, but other than that the transitions do not have any relevance. Overall Go Fish is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great one either. I personally would not watch it again given the opportunity.It is a somewhat interesting movie, but it leans heavily on the lesbian aspect and given that this is the twenty-first century it doesn't carry the same shock value that it did back in '94. Don't get me wrong, if the characters in this film were not lesbians it probably wouldn't be interesting at all. In fact it would be the same romantic comedy that we've all seen over one hundred times now.
But my dream...
chrisdrew21 December 1999
This film is beautiful and shows a variety of lesbian lives. Butch, femme, multi-cultural, tea lovers, radicals and 9 to 5ers. The film does not persecute the lesbian who sleeps with a male friend as another comment says. It begs the viewer to question the judgment and paranoia that is baggage for many oppressed people. This film was made over many years on weekends off by a dedicated crew (or so I've heard) and the result is fun, funny, erotic, thought-provoking and a ray of hope for lesbian film that tries to reach beyond lesbian versions of 90210. Thanks Ros
An admirable film
MarilynManson26 February 2000
You can see how passionate about the subject the writers Rose Troche and the fabulously talented Guinevere Turner were about making this movie and it must have been a labour of love for them.
I don't think this movie is just for gay women, I'm a straight man who enjoyed it too so it must have worked on a lot of levels. I thought it was a beautiful film with a lot to say and was very well shot. It made me a big fan of Guinevere Turner, I just watched Preaching to the Perverted with her in the lead role last night which I also enjoyed immensley...she has a lot of talent and obviously chooses her roles selectively.
It is an arty film which I think some people may watch with the wrong intentions...they will be disappointed but so what...they're not the people the writers intended the movie for.
I don't think this movie is just for gay women, I'm a straight man who enjoyed it too so it must have worked on a lot of levels. I thought it was a beautiful film with a lot to say and was very well shot. It made me a big fan of Guinevere Turner, I just watched Preaching to the Perverted with her in the lead role last night which I also enjoyed immensley...she has a lot of talent and obviously chooses her roles selectively.
It is an arty film which I think some people may watch with the wrong intentions...they will be disappointed but so what...they're not the people the writers intended the movie for.
too stereotypical and no depth
purplpxy21 September 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I was hoping that this movie would actually be interesting. I'm used to artsy films and can usually appreciate them. However, this film was just not my cup of tea at all. First of all, the plot seemed too shallow. The main character finds love with some random woman she was set up with and there is no explanation as to how or why they fall in love. I think the problem was that Troche was trying to hit on some major lesbian issues while at the same time portraying a lesbian love story, but in the end came out too scattered and unstructured. The characters seemed way too stereotypical, almost like they had to reinforce the whole dyke image. Granted this movie was released back in 1994, I knew plenty of lesbians back then who were a lot more feminine and not as obviously gay as the characters in this film. I felt a bit annoyed that they had to sort of scream dyke so loudly by the way they dressed, talked, and wore their hair. That's not to say that I have anything against the butch image, but as a "lipstick" lesbian myself, I felt like the femmes weren't properly represented. The only things that seemed to really give the movie any actual substance were the scenes in which Evie's mother threw her out of the house after she found out she was a lesbian and also the scene in which Daria was being interrogated and jeered at by other lesbians for having sex with a male friend. Those are real issues for us today as lesbians and I liked how she touched upon them, but I felt like Troche could have done more with Daria's scene. So many lesbians out there judge their own kind too much and bisexuality has become so abhorrent in the gay community due to its current trendiness. All in all, it felt like the movie, quite literally and figuratively, was just too black and white for me. (I can disregard the bad acting as this WAS an indie film and many of the actors looked like they were real lesbians with no acting experience who were looking to do a film about their lives.) Troche seems to portray the lesbian world and life as similar to straight life and yet totally different. But it's just not that black and white. Sexuality, in my opinion, is very fluid and I felt like the theme of the movie focused too much on what a lesbian was SUPPOSED to be, feeding into too many stereotypes and clichés.
Girl power at ts best
dueyboat10 June 1999
This film is one of the best films I have seen. It presents Lesbians as independent and confident, as well as doing away with the usual stereo types. Go Fish shows that lesbians are human too, dealing with topics such as love, parents, relationships and sex, it gives insight into a world that most people don't believe exists. Rose Troche's directing is amazing, giving a real image of lesbian life instead of a Hollywood idea. As far as I am concerned, Rose Troche is one of the best directors of our time and Guinevere Turner is an amazing and beautiful actress. Keep it up girls!!!!!!
bad acting, not much of a plot.
furslide27 May 2002
I didn't like this movie much at all. It took itself too seriously. I hate that. Also, none of the actresses could really act. It felt like they were reading their lines. They didn't put much emotion into their parts.
It was like a really bad dream that wouldn't end and seemed far longer than 84 minutes.
It was like a really bad dream that wouldn't end and seemed far longer than 84 minutes.
Too stereotypical!
kergillian20 January 2001
This film was severely lacking. It caters to stereotypes, both of lesbianism and of women. It has an example of each 'category' of lesbian, with generic scenes of man-hating, and of the plight of lesbian desire and desperation. It had so much potential, all wasted by dreary screenwriting and a film that is disjointed and *much* too drawn out. 3/10.
Great picture for the time...
kfaget30 December 2003
The most boring movie I've seen
Tessio7 February 1999
I agree with Holly on all points - the only thing I would add is that the acting was in general horrible and the story boring and pointless. I saw no point in the movie - the reviews seemed to suggest comedy? There was none.
the real L word
PrometheusUnderground10 March 2006
this is a little indie film with a lot of heart. it is a sincere looking-for-love story about likable lesbians who aren't stereotypical and flat like we see so often. in terms of story and character, i think Go Fish compares favorably to the L Word and Chasing Amy. funny enough, the gorgeous Guinevere Turner who wrote and starred in Go Fish, was the inspiration for Kevin Smith to write Chasing Amy and she plays a small role in it, and also she acts in and is a writer for L Word. don't expect many comparisons between Go Fish and L Word or Chasing Amy in terms of production tho, there's not really any comparison since Go Fish is a very gritty 90s indie. but i found all the characters to be really interesting and likable with believably naturalistic performances. also, i must say that the sex is pretty hot.
It's a crying shame.
stagesong9 March 2002
I wanted so badly for this movie to be good.
But it's terrible. The acting was awful, to begin with. Max (Guinevere Turner) is the only person onscreen with any semblance of acting ability, but it's possible that I was merely distracted by her prettiness. The characters are strange and difficult to relate to, except perhaps again the central character Max. The film tries so hard to be arty and highbrow, but succeeds only in being pretentious and utterly ridiculous. Skip this one. Sigh.
But it's terrible. The acting was awful, to begin with. Max (Guinevere Turner) is the only person onscreen with any semblance of acting ability, but it's possible that I was merely distracted by her prettiness. The characters are strange and difficult to relate to, except perhaps again the central character Max. The film tries so hard to be arty and highbrow, but succeeds only in being pretentious and utterly ridiculous. Skip this one. Sigh.
clever investigation of dating, love and lesbianism.
tig-77 February 2000
an interesting portrayal of what could have been a very heavy subject matter, goes deep enough to make you think but no so deep that you can't enjoy the fun of the film. the flashback sequences are very interesting... made me consider my opinions on some issues. let down only slightly by one or two below par performances by bit players and an obviously small budget.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
