Leaving Metropolis (2002)

People are voting emotionally.

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

As Good As It Gets

I guess we are all VERY different-at least when it comes to our opinion of the acting. I think the premise was good, very real (my partner and I were both straight-married when we met), the location is unique, the supporting cast interesting, the acting.... terrible! The main actor's skill may be fine for stage where melodrama is a good thing, here, I couldn't stop wondering who slept with whom to get this part. The wife was a bad actress most of the time, the rest of the cast were fine however. Just way to much drama and too little script development.I don't think we need happy endings and this movie lacked meat, but if you can get over the acting, which I couldn't, it is a fair movie to watch, then to forget.

What a great line. I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.

This comment contains a huge spoiler which actually is the reason I'm writing it. More times than most when a writer hands his book, screenplay, story, etc. over to a studio where a new screen adaptation is required, plus a new director, the film is usually unrecognizable from the author's original intent. This movie is one of those rare times when a new script and definitely a new director was needed. When a playwright/stage director/moviemaker goes to put his work on screen, he quite often cannot look at the finished product objectively.Listening to Brad Fraser's commentary on the DVD, he explains so many things that he thought the viewer should've known, but in his concept they were never made clear. For example, he tells us that when the husband enters the bus station, that folded piece of paper under his arm is his acceptance letter from a school for cartooning. That would be great if only the viewer had been told that or even a close up of the paper. But in Fraser's mind, we should have figured that out and where the husband was going. Duh... Fraser keeps telling us 'hidden' things to look for. In his mind he filmed it, so why were we so stupid NOT to notice? I realize that Brad Fraser was the god of this film. Everything in it is his own creation and he and only he should have the right to control each and every destiny. Whether Fraser would like to call this a gay movie or not is up to him.To me it's in the vein of a lot of gay movies which are oxymorons."GAY" movie without a happy ending. What's gay about it? Why do gay writers or producers of gay films insist on unhappy endings. Gays are either depicted as stereotype sissy faggots...or dying Camille's.Can't someone, some time, write a serious drama about gays with good acting and let the two heroes ride off into the sunset? The acting in "Leaving Metropolis" is some of the best I've ever seen, especially Vince Corazza and Cherilee Taylor. They play so well together it makes you wonder why a straight masculine husband would leave his wife for a guy who is so fey? Look at the way Troy smokes a cigarette...it's one step above Bette Davis. Brad keeps talking about his low budget of one and a quarter million dollars. Damn! I've seen better movies with half the budget. Sorry Brad, but the movie you THOUGHT you made and the movie that the viewer sees are worlds apart. After all that the husband and artist went through, not to mention us the audience, the least you could do would be to have the heroes wind up together. Great ideas but sloppy executions!

This Canadian effort is accomplished playwright Brad Fraser's film adaptation of his stage play POOR SUPERMAN, in which a celebrated but frustrated artist rediscovers his muse, in the form of a supposedly straight man who's running a downtown diner with his wife. It takes no stretch of the imagination to guess what the basic plot is.From the beginning, lawyers for Warner Bros. and Marvel Comics had threatened suit if the Superman imagery from the play were used in the film. The play was written at the height of public awareness of the AIDS epidemic in North America (ca. 1993), and was replete with metaphor carried by the very imagery lacking in the film adaptation. Just as the protagonist is seemingly the last of his race (gay men not yet victimized by AIDS), Superman was the last survivor of his Kryptonian race. Gay people were in the closet as Superman was masquerading as Clark Kent. So, the film was bound to have major problems once it was cleansed of much of this context. Fraser seems to have compensated for his loss by increasing the gymbot quotient; indeed, the male flesh watchers in the audience were treated to a parade of pecs, abs, and asses. Fraser, who answered questions for the audience after the film, insisting he was working on the principle for "equal opportunity sex scenes," ended up showing much more explicit straight lovemaking scenes. Coming in at a short 89 minutes, this film had me walking away remembering most these scenes with the wife's extra perky breasts. LEAVING METROPOLIS's dialog started out very stilted and the characterizations seemed too heavy handed when translated to film, but as the plot wore on, the uneven acting brought occasional glimpses of brilliance. Troy Ruptash as David the gay artist (in the past, seen on TV in episodes of ER, JAG, THE WEST WING, and BOSTON PUBLIC) put on an occasionally emotionally believing performance. But it is Canadian actor Vince Corazza, a young but veteran TV movie actor, who shone with a great job as the tormented married guy, Matt. Newcomer Thom Allison as David's transgendered, AIDS-inflicted best friend Shannon only endeared with the queeny quips, and fell short trying to bring out the gravity of her situation. David's boozy mentor, Kryla (Lynda Boyd), and Matt's wife, Violet (Cherilee Taylor), weren't given much more than base characterizations to work with. In the end, we don't care much why David didn't seem to think too much about the implications of his helping to break up a marriage, because we don't see much of what Fraser is trying to say about David himself.