Traveling to Olympia (2001 Video) User Reviews

Earnest film that recounts a story more than shows it.

[Havan_IronOak · 4/10 · 7 January 2002]

The film deals with gay issues and presents progressive and well thought out points of view but the film really needs the help of a good screenwriter, director and editor. The drama of the situations are robbed of their power by being recounted to us rather than shown to us. Several of the characters tell us their points of view rather than showing us. While I am an avid supporter of gay film, and I applaud this film's good intentions, I cannot recommend this film from a dramatic point of view. The old saw that "exposition is deadly" is proven true in this film.

I do suggest that folks see it as there are worthwhile moments but perhaps you should reserve this for a `double feature' night and make sure that the other film has more of the conventional aspects of a well-told story about it.

I also suggest that other film makers see it as an example of how the excitement can be sucked out of a storyline by too much exposition.

Well intentioned, but...

[Kevin-94 · 2 September 2002]

This film is well intentioned but very amateur. It's hard to imagine a film this technically poor (it's shot on video) getting a home video release. I guess it can be marketed to the gay home video market, since it has cute naked guys in their twenties. The script is weak and unfocused. Actors mumble their lines like they can't remember them. There are several moments when the story takes a sudden left turn into soft-core sex scenes. (Less than a porn video but more than you see on one of those Showtime `for adults' films.) One such scene includes characters who are not involved in the regular story, which makes for a confusing moment. (And what the young hottie sees in the old senator is a mystery t me.)

For some reason, characters have absurd amounts of money, which solves any problem they might encounter. While the film is commendable for its belief that gay teenage boys (especially cute ones. No ugly guys here.) should be free from prejudice, it's just too poor in its creative and technical sides to recommend.

Two Movies in One - Unfortunately

[beptep · 2/10 · 16 March 2002]

The main problem with TRAVELING TO OLYMPIA is that it can't decide what it wants to be: an indictment of unfair treatment of gays or a soft-core porn flick. It is much too "talky" and "preachy" and it's lecturing to an audience that is already converted. And it's slow. Oh, is it SLOW! There are also numerous gratuitous scenes--such as a clumsy dance by unattractive, would-be cowboys in a gay bar, and a song by a singer whose off-keyed wail is so bad you will reach for the mute button. There is also an interpolated scene with two people we have never met before who have a tender, highly erotic love scene. ("This was your first time, wasn't it?" "Yes.") But we stop wondering who these people are and just enjoy the first enjoyable thing in this movie. As to the main love stories, Justin McFarlane and Michael Harboush are engaging performers and make us care for their final declaration of love. Though it seems odd that someone who has spent from age 16 to 19 in a maximum-security institution would have his navel and both nipples pierced; and someone who is in his early twenties would be a successful attorney. But most peculiar of all is why the cute, wealthy kid played by Donald Allen wants a balding Daddy-figure? (Wealthy Daddies keep cute twinks. Wealthy twinks do not keep old Daddies.) The final annoying thing about this film is that there are no chapters, so one has to fast forward to get to the "fun" scenes. The film means well which is why I gave it two stars, but the scripting, the direction, and the acting (with the notable exceptions of the three performers mentioned) is stricly amateur.

So awful it is funny

[Robnbill · 1/10 · 31 December 2006]

Apart from very bad acting, writing, and direction this movie could not decide what it was supposed to be. Some of the characters were given dialog that sounded like it was copied straight from a community service announcement, then there was the plot which was so thin it was generally hard to find, and when the director seemed to be totally lost, he would throw in a sex scene. Sometimes the two people involved had nothing else to do with the movie. Some of them had no lines. It seems they just had to be willing to take off their clothes, get groped while showing everything. It is really difficult to put two relatively cute guys in bed, have a sex scene which shows everything but penetration and make it absolutely boring. But they did it. There are a few scenes (including one sex scene) that had absolutely no bearing on anything else in the movie.

I caught one of the viewers in our showing checking out his emails on his blackberry during a sex scene. It was just that boring. Then there was the over the top music that at best did nothing to add to the scene, but generally set an entirely wrong tone for most scenes.

The actors would be hard pressed to get jobs in community theater. They would mumble their lines or deliver them like they were stand alone lines that had nothing what-so-ever to do with the other person talking at the same time.

That all being said, it was so bad we found ourselves laughing out loud at how bad it really was. So if you want to watch a movie that has some pretty cute guys (not all mind you) having pretty graphic sex while delivering bad dialog, then this ones for you.

Impressive Independent Film with Imperfections

[christopher-208 · 6/10 · 20 October 2006]

I liked this film. It was filled with good qualities, and yes, some flaws. I purchased this film out of curiosity - how could it be rated a 1 and a 10? I had to see for myself.

The Good: I liked the story line, and the valid attempt at making a point (almost documentary style) about speaking out about the gay rights of youth in America. I was around when "ACT UP" first made waves in our country, and this film tries in it's own way to weave a good story line, and sexual excitement.

The Story: Follows the plight of a young lad (Johnny) after his release from several years in a correctional facility. He gets a job, and a small place to live, makes an honest living and will not hustle for sex - Cheers on this point! He actually has great qualities, and soon finds himself in a relationship with a somewhat older guy named Joel. The second story line follows 2 friends of Joel's, one a young wealthy college student, the other a 40-something politician. The 2 forge a relationship (quickly I might add) which includes the movies first intense sexual scene (some might say soft porn - we never see the act, but you'll see more then in an R-rated film). The relationship changes viewpoints and makes our politician come "out" while supporting gay rights. A third story line (sub-plot) is odd, and would likely have been cut from any major studio release. You might call it a filler plot to add some more beauty and sex to the film. Clearly the idea behind the film is to keep the viewer waiting for more (sex that is). The ending is wrapped up nicely...no more details here.

The Bad: The audio is bad. But deal with it. They clearly didn't have a lot of money here. I'm not making excuses, but let's be fair - this is not a Warner Brothers release - because they would never release such an artsy in your face film. The acting and direction are on par for a film with a small budget, and yes, some of it is bad - but could I do better? It often reminded me of a community theater performance. There are no DVD extras, and I wasn't expecting any. It's clearly an original film, and some simply won't like the flaws in acting, direction and sound. The royalty-free background (and often the foreground) music got to be a bit overbearing.

Bottom Line: This would be a great film for a party with friends - you will laugh, either at some of the campy lines, or the film flaws that are in your face! And you'll like it if you want to see some sexual scenes - without the sex actually on camera. Parts of the movie are hot! Definitely not a 10, and definitely not a 1. I will likely check out other films from Richard Anthony Films. And if you want the true independents to survive, support films like this one.

shockingly bad - a real treat

[phwilkens · 31 July 2002]

I'm a big fan of horrible movies - they're so much more fun than most of the movies currently being produced as comedies. This movie really opened my eyes as to how bad a film can be. It's too dramatic to be accidental, and I'm not entirely sure how the makers accomplished this...

It wasn't the acting. What is more difficult, to write lines for bad actors, or to get good actors to act poorly? I no longer think the acting is at all incompetent, despite my first impression.

It wasn't the plot. The character development and the events that follow are an exact match to the techniques used by teams of writers on Hollywood blockbusters. The opening is from a Coppola manual, right? It just missed the harsh studio exec cutting sessions, so it remains a little slow.

It wasn't the twenty-year-old-borrowed-media-room-camera-on-a-thin-tripod cinematography; the alternate interpretations of "flesh tone," or even the After School Special score.

They all helped, but it is the blending of the elements that makes this movie great. I conclude that this film has been carefully crafted, and the outcome is near exact, true to intent. No film could move me like this by chance alone.

They might have tipped their hand with the gay porn. Porn is potentially the best gag of all. If our mythical studio execs had a chance at it, they'd have cut the porn down to one or two pieces of carefully placed relationship development, called them "love scenes," and no-one would notice it at all. Yay for us, studios don't produce movies like this!

Many thanks to the team that put this together! So much fun, you won't want to miss. I don't know how to vote on this - should I give it a 1 like it wants, or a 10 like it deserves?