Redwoods (2009)

well, actually i had big hope for this movie. but, unfortunately this movie out of my standard of "gay themed movie". as far as i watch this movie was really sucks. I can't even imagine why the director (and the writer) makes this movie being cheaper than should be. So many "minus thing" in this movie. but one thing that make me annoyed is the story. the story was made me felt uncomfortable. perhaps because this movie portrayed about betrayal. and i don't like that story.if you compare this movie with "Brokeback Mountain" i thought that would be BIG MISTAKE. This movie is really out of standard. so i just give 3 out of 10

This film is a great story and it made me cry , that in my book is a sign of a good one. It would have a made a cool series with all the characters in Humbolt having expanded story lines. The chemistry between the main characters is brilliant and you can feel the dilemma they face. Beautiful setting ! Gets your imagination going about the characters and wanting to know more that the film doesn't expand upon. It's sweet but sad story but quite believable and makes you reflect on life and it's fragility.I think people should realize it's not a Hollywood movie but just a great story. If you don't have an open heart don't watch it ! It's not a European style film. I didn't regret buying it ;) Thumbs up to all the actors :)

I'm not Jewish, but I'll use a Yiddish term here. Does anyone know the meaning of "schmaltz"? The definition is "excessive sentimentality, esp. in music or movies", and there was plenty of excessive sentimentality going around in Redwoods.The story revolves around two gay characters, one being a stuck-in-a-rut type guy (Bradley) whose relationship is going nowhere, and the other being a "lost soul" (Montgomery) trying to find himself. Montgomery's character Chase tries to find the nearest B&B to finish his book and gets lost on the wrong street. He asks for directions from Everett and while giving directions, there is a spark and the two eventually fall in love. This is so wrong, because a) it happens too quickly, and b) Everett is already in a relationship.While Everett's partner and son are away, Chase and Everett spend a lot of time together and then Everett's partner calls and says he's coming back early. The relationship between Chase and Everett has to end abruptly but they make a point to meet at the same place at the same time, 5 years from now. Unfortnately Chase doesn't make it back (he has a good reason) and then we get the schmaltzy ending.Redwoods is nice, scenery wise, but is full of cheesy acting and moments where there is too much silence or not enough movement to keep the viewer interested. Parts of it are slow and poorly acted. With a better cast and supporting characters, this could have been a really good gay tear-jerker but it falls short of that due to characters who don't put their heart and soul into their roles.I've seen lots of gay-themed movies, and this one falls way down the list near the bottom, right above "And Then Came Summer". If you want to get all verklempt, skip this one and watch "Prayers for Bobby", then you'll know what good acting is.

I wish I could go to Redwoods and engrave on the trees Oscar Wilde's aphorism so that everybody could marvel on the splendor of the insight.For at least one more thousand years, oh Oscar, stay with us, for I go Wilde with this, this thing, for this is a symptom of our current predicament, not a film: Suffocating cheap chords of piano and wind mark our downfall to letting cheap soundtracks describe our intimacy; no I do not want any more bad music describe my, or anybody's intimate moments. They make their own f***ing music.Mediocre writers-cum-directors feeding primly on previous films, not as films, but as hits, and they miserably miss, dragging us with them.(The actors in their two bed scenes were somehow let to be, and these are the only almost redeeming moments in the film - along with Brendan Bradley's bland expression playing the harmonica towards the close, that achieves something of pathos - , but, oh, so bereft when then one remembers the pap surrounding them.)No I do not want any badly informed directors turning the unlived life into one more self-indulgence!(And why is it that Matthew Montgomery is involved with creepily mediocre gay films ("Socket", "Gone but not forgotten")?) But let's start at the beginning: Dear trees, fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in - did you get the headache spin; No, cut it to the middle: slow mo so oh slow mo cut with mom and dad pensive so; slow mo and tears aboard this is really worstward ho; scenes with me and my lover so, wait, no, this is mom and dad again, this editing is so -FIVE YEARS LATER Now this what can it mean?...Are we to marvel that the protagonist has not aged a day, that the film comes five years after "Brokeback", or that five years from now that we are going to have more of this kind of film? One starts to get the feeling we need more of the punk sensibility that informed Derek Jarman's films; one yearns for films with spunk.