Is It Just Me? (2010)

the audience applauded

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

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

"Is It Just Me?" is a film about a self-deprecating guy who finds his soul mate on the internet, but just as he makes a date with his newfound internet crush, he realizes that he was logged onto his roommate's account the entire time. Instead of owning up to his mistake, he asks his roommate to go on the date for him.This film is paced very nicely and tells an interesting story. The story is sweet, romantic, funny and filled with eye candy. The actors perform very well and are very relatable.Overall, this is a great romantic comedy with a fascinating premise and a very satisfying ending. I highly recommend this film.

Yes 'is it just me' is a well intentioned little film. But when did watching a gay movie become like watching a Christian film, or even worse a Tyler Perry movie! So many gay films of the last 10+ years have been so limp and predictable and this one is no exception. You know exactly what is going to happen and it features the usual gallery of gay indie clichés, the fag-hag, the slutty friend and the dryly funny/ miserable old queen. Thankfully the performances are good and characters likable. Believe me I get it, there's little money in gay cinema and we need our rom-coms too but we need more genre benders like Hellbent and Another Gay Movie, I can't keep watching the same story just to support gay indie films. Shelter did it best, that felt like a 90s movie, the glory days of gay cinema. Is it just me? I don't think so.

I was really rooting for this one--the "gay rom-com" can be a wonderful thing that indulges one's fantasies and even conveys a truth or two. There is still much territory to be mined in stories about dating in the digital age, life in big cities, coming of age as a gay man in a more tolerant society, the relationships between gay men and women and young gay men and their elders, but I guess we'll have to wait a little longer for those stories. Here we have a fantasy that is so far from reality that it's not fun for the viewer, shaking his head in disbelief. It's as if the author of the film wants to have his cake and eat it without so much as a glance into a cookbook to see how much actual work cake-baking requires to get such pleasant results.First the "one note joke" of the film, that two people who have had at least 2 nights of intimate phone calls (although, other than phone sex, it appears all they do is say, "I like that TOO!") would not pick up right away that a mistake has been made when they meet, just doesn't work. This concept would be perfect for a short film or sitcom (specifically Three's Company) but is a tough one to sustain for 90 minutes. Because all it would take is one or two sentences to clear up the whole mess (and end the movie), and because no one SAYS those sentences, we are left believing our protagonists are stupid people, and it's difficult to enjoy the process of their discovery or even like them (despite being portrayed by guys who are handsome and not bad actors--you can't blame them for some of the wince-inducing dialog). I looked at my watch halfway through the film with disbelief...the "reveal" (that even a 4 year old could see coming--would anyone rent a movie like this to NOT see the heros get together eventually?) was going to be delayed for another 45 minutes? Yes.Second, the world of this film is curious to the point of drawing one out of the movie. I know the coffee shop where some of the action takes place, and the magazine that is highlighted, which would seem to indicate the film takes place in West Hollywood...if so, it's an alternate universe where everyone is white, under 30, gay or gay-friendly. One of the bars looks suspiciously like a set built in someone's garage (we only see 2 walls of it). No one really seems to work...do these people have hobbies? What do they do all day when they aren't involved in our protagonist finding or not finding the man of his dreams? How do they know each other? Why do they CARE about each other? The women we encounter are by and large fag hags who exist only to comfort or antagonize their gay companions (the one whose only personality trait is having sex with a riding crop in particular). There is one man who appears to be (gasp!) over 50 and he is treated, as is often the case in films but not real life, like some wise sage, a knowing gay Gandalf who again exists for no other purpose than to support the young heroes. Meanwhile, his sudden, and constant, intrusions into his hot young ward's life are creepy and borderline criminal. Bruce Gray delivers some fun quips but was clearly not "directed," though he seems to do his best. Meanwhile--what if the old man and the young kid had found something in common? Or if Xander had turned out to be ugly or of some ethnic persuasion Blaine found initially distasteful? Now there are some challenges. Well he SAID he was in love with the PERSON didn't he? But mostly I found the central conceit of the film the hardest to swallow...Blaine, like most love-sick protagonists in rom-com films, is supposed to be a sort of undiscovered Cinderella: if only a guy would show up in his life everything would be better. This fallacy is the essence of good rom-coms of course, but ignores the truth, which is that a "good" relationship is born out of trust and develops gradually over time. In the same way that a person with little experience would see older gay men only as quippy, neutered fairies, gal-pals as emotional tampons and go-go boys as hot-pantsed (it's not a "g-string" btw) older brothers, one might look at a "good relationship" between two people as something built on a couple great phone calls and attractive looks. Oh, if only.What has Blaine offered? What has changed about him by the end of the film? He got everything he wanted and didn't have to do anything but admit he made a mistake that was so foolish and ill-conceived it would be a deal-breaker even for someone desperate, let alone a perfect knight in shining cowboy suit (at least until he sneaks into Blaine's apartment to "sing"...well, to each his own--frankly I might have called the cops). People who say they want to take long walks on the beach with someone should try taking one themselves first--it can be really nice, and then when you do have someone you can share your location with them. People who say they want to cuddle in bed on Sunday with someone ought to be made aware that sometimes people don't smell that good first thing in the morning, but if you care about them you get over it.Well, again--this isn't reality, it's fantasy, and for all its faults the film looked pretty good for a micro-budget, had many cute moments, and I thought about it enough to warrant writing something on IMDb about it. I hope for many more films that try to tackle the issues of this one, and I hope they succeed in the attempt where this one failed.

Ooooohhh La La..La...LA....LA.....Los Angeles! And its happy Gay Boy scene----was a wild and zany place in Director Todd Stephens' 2001 film and later sequel.....But here it's a quieter and more introspective place, in the script given us by Director J. C. Calciano for his "Is It Just Me?" So, yes, perhaps weirdly, this movie struck me as something of a beginnings.....a buildup to what might come later in the raunch and wild zaniness of Stephens' works. Now choose which suits you better, Mr. / Ms. Viewer: This current, more quietly romantic approach.....or the runaway, sexual hijinks of those earlier works?(( Being upfront with you, I ask that you bear in mind my following thoughts are those of a much older viewer who never learned to care for Stephens' 2-film series. Though I'm sure you younger kids out there are much more appreciative of such works, as well as Calciano's efforts in this new film. Now, to business. ))You've likely already read about the done and done again storyline of this "Mistaken Identity and Comedy of Errors" film, so why waste our time with that. Instead, let me just spin a few thoughts about the leads / characters, and the manner in which they come across:A soft-bodied (read: no gym time), main lead (Nicholas Downs as Blaine) who, though low in self esteem, seems able to rally our support for his character (maybe we're seeing too much of ourselves there). While I wouldn't call him the best actor of the bunch, he cries convincingly and does come across as sweet (a good foil for roommate, Cameron's persona). Strangely enough, in his DVD Special Features interview, Downs presents as the more lively, less deadpan person we were rooting for him to become in the film.A second lead (David Loren as Xander) is a guitar playing songwriter who can't play guitar.....and can't sing (oh, you think I'm wrong, do you). But what those areas lack, he more than makes up for in hunky cuteness (it's what counts, eh?). He's the real romantic in this film, and he presents his lines in such a way as to prove it. A really nice guy who always comes across as that; I'll take him over either of the other two leads. Oh, and while speaking of "X", let's not forget his oh-so-helpful landlord / housemate.....an old "Gay Philosophizer," endearingly (and too often, interruptingly) played by a well performing Bruce Gray.Last, but far from least, we have our explosive tertiary lead, Cameron (Adam Huss). A waxed and gym-toned cutie who's as carefree as can be.....yet still winds up being the standup friend you always need. If possible, this guy is more fun in his Special Features interview than he is during scenes (hey, Adam, your grandfather doesn't happened to be named Robert, does he?).Now to Writer / Director Calciano and some final thoughts. My overall impression of this work leads me, as so often happens with gay themed films, to wonder: As opposed to better foreign productions / directors, why can't US film makers consistently give us gay romance films in which romantic emotions and physical acts come across in such a way that we, the audience, can SEE and FEEL the passion....the tenderness....the closeness between two men? The best you'll do with our meant-to-be-together leads in this movie is a little (interrupted) phone sex and conversations about similar likes and interests. Worse, our great director is in such a hurry with the final kiss by the leads.....well, all I can say is: Don't Blink!DVD Special Features consist of Cast Auditions and Interviews, along with some Deleted Scenes (in which you sadly learn that it's Adam Huss, as Cameron, who gives us the best kiss in the whole movie).So, how to end all this? Let me do it by asking: Is it fun and cute and attention-holding? Well, yes.....for the most part. But that doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.....and my rating reflects that. (And yes, yes, yes.....I have watched it more than once before butting in). PS--Looking out for your viewing welfare, here's a little tip for you. If you want to see a movie in which the love and passion between 2 men is almost real enough to touch, be on the lookout for a little Peruvian 2009 production titled, "Undertow" (I've reviewed it here at IMDb.com). It's my understanding Wolfe Video will be releasing it in the first half of 2011 (or if you've got an all-regions DVD player, the film is now available through Amazon.com.co.uk and other European outlets). Oh, and for one of gay film's longest (and hottest) male kissing scenes, please check out "Ciao" (2008) (yes, I've reviewed that, too). ****