Q: This movie was for a while in my collection, but it wasn't before a friend of mine reminded me about it until I decided that I should watch it. I did not know much about Close to Leo just that it was supposed to be excellent coming out of age movie and it deals with a very serious topic Aids.

Although the person who has aids is Leo the scenario wraps around the way in which Marcel (the youngest brother of Leo) coupes with the sickness of his relative. At first everyone is trying to hide the truth from Marcel he is believed to be too young to understand the sickness of his brother the fact that Leo is also a homosexual contributes to the unwillingness of the parents to discus the matter with the young Marcel. I know from experience that on many occasions most older people do not want to accept the fact that sometimes even when someone is young this does not automatically means that he will not be able to accept the reality and act in more adequate manner then even themselves . With exception of the fact that the family tried to conceal the truth from Marcel, they have left quite an impression for me the way they supported their son even after discovering the truth about his sexuality and his sickness. The fact that they allowed the young Marcel to travel along with Leo to Paris to meet his ex boyfriend was quite a gesture from them most families I know will be reluctant to do that. There is a lot of warmth in the scenes in which the brothers spend some time together you can see them being real friends , concern about each other.

Close to Leo is an excellent drama, which I strongly recommend
A: positive
Q: There is a lot of obvious hype associated with this film. Let's just face it, though, the main reasons why anyone would watch it would be for Leo and Cate, who are not necessarily the best actors in this film. I'm not saying they're not good actors, I'm saying they stunk in this film. The special effects were decent (and I will say the film makers did a good job making the ship eye-pleasing), but IT even has several major flaws. For instance, right before the ship goes under, you can see an unfinished blue-screen image behind your main characters.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the story of the REAL Titanic, but I find this movie an insult to that story. Editing was atrocious--there's no reason for any film to be over 2 1/2 hours (with the exception of MAYBE a biographical movie), and the writing and screenplay was horribly stilted.

I will say that the music was perhaps better than I could have predicted (and not just the "My Heart Will Go On" song either). There is one scene that stands out to me when the ship is sinking and pounding bass music is heard. That could very well be the highlight of the film. As for the mood throughout, it was extremely dull. I was more relieved than sad when Jack died, which I know cannot be what the director intended.

In a nut shell, I find it horrible that they turned the beautiful story of the Titanic into an over-hyped chick flick.
A: negative
Q: A film about wannabee's, never-were's and less-than-heroes making it against all odds. Where have we heard that before. But when the unfortunates are the Shoveller, the Blue Raja and Mr.Furious you know this is not your conventional rags to riches story.

A classic performance by Eddie Izzard as Tony P. one of the Disco boys leaders and Geoffrey Rush as Arch Villain shows actual thought went into the casting.

Even Greg Kinnear, at first glance an odd choice for the role of Captain Amazing turns out spot on.

Watch this film if you're sick of comic-gone-film stereotypes. Why couldn't anger be a super power?
A: positive
Q: Roger Corman is undeniably one of the most versatile and unpredictable directors/producers in history. He was single-handedly responsible for some of my favorite horror films ever (like the Edgar Allen Poe adaptations "Masque of the Red Death" and "Pit and the Pendulum") as well as some insufferably cheap and tacky rubbish quickies (like "Creature from the Haunted Sea" and "She Gods of the Shark Reef"). Corman also made a couple of movies that are simply unclassifiable and simply put nearly impossible to judge properly. "The Trip", for example, as well as this imaginatively titled "Gas-s-s-s" can somewhat be labeled as psychedelic exploitation. In other words, they're incredibly strange hippie-culture influenced movies. Half of the time you haven't got the slightest idea what's going on, who these characters are that walk back and forth through the screen and where the hell this whole thing is going. The plot is simply and yet highly effective: a strange but deadly nerve gas is accidentally unleashed and promptly annihilates that the entire world population over the age of 25. This *could* be the basic premise of an atmospheric, gritty and nail-bitingly suspenseful post-apocalyptic Sci-Fi landmark, but writer George Armitage and Roger Corman decided to turn it into a "trippy" road-movie comedy. None of the characters is even trying to prevent their inevitable upcoming deaths; they just party out in the streets and found little juvenile crime syndicates. "Gas-s-s-s" is a disappointingly boring and tries overly hard to be bizarre. The entire script appears to be improvised at the spot and not at all funny. Definitely not my cup of tea, but the film does have a loyal fan base and many admirers, so who am I to say that it's not worth your time or money?
A: negative