Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Donald Seymour This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

scarlet812-593-111967 In short, this is an old, very low-budget, poorly acted, "artistic" movie with LOTS of profanity, graphic sex talk & some nudity/sex scenes. I watched this movie as part of a meeting with LBGTQ youth & group admins, as basis for discussion about LGBTQ experiences in the 90s vs. how things are today. I'd advise reading some background on the film & on Troche before watching it. It's a significant film in some ways, as it was Troche's early work & she's now incredibly successful, famous, etc., plus, for the time, it was daring subject matter. You should prepare yourself to NOT expect this to be a regular movie - it's not done as a story depiction in the typical way. It works very hard at being "artsy," sometimes rather too hard, IMO, but I am not a fan of that stuff anyway. I prefer getting lost in a story, for lack of a better way of putting it. As I was watching it, I thought "This must be what people used to joke about as'avant garde' cinema or 'art house' films." The acting is pretty bad, the sound is often lousy, and though some of the characters are interesting, they are portrayed woodenly. If you like off-beat artistic style filming, you'll probably enjoy it more than I did. Like instrumental jazz solos with oodles of scales, it's something that the artist, and other artists, enjoy a great deal more than the average consumer. LOL It is shot in B&W, with lots of symbolic images flitting across the screen at different points, and not always linear in story progression. One scene does not even attempt to be realistic; it's meant to make you think about the varying, often contrary, judgments made about someone who goes outside the "norm" of what's accepted sexual activity among a peer group; in this movie, lesbians are the norm - the controversy isn't about same-sex sex. Half of the content is meant to be thought-provoking in that way, and the other half is supposed to be about relationships, mostly focusing on one potential relationship. It tries, and sometimes manages, to be funny, but then you get some freakish angles, like at knee level (a shot of their blue-jean clad knees???) or closeups of someone doing dishes, and it derails the feeling of the story progressing. Sex is almost always the topic of conversation, and the characters are cliché - one sleeps around A LOT, there's one committed couple, and then the two that everyone else wants to fix up with each other. Getting the two of them together would seem fairly simple, except one is not the least bit attracted to the other, and the other has a long term, long distance "partner" that she's not broken up with yet. It's useful for discussion, but for enjoyment, the movie didn't suit me.

rsg2033 This movie was somewhat interesting. The characters in it were well rounded, but the acting had a lot of room for improvement. This film revolved around dialogue and there was plenty of it. For the most part the dialogue was funny and somewhat interesting, but overall this film mostly felt like a dirty version of Sex and the City: Lesbian Edition. I did think it was interesting that the film included real depictions of lesbian women and didn't just have classically beautiful women in it pretending to be lesbians. It also wasn't afraid to show uncensored lesbian relationships, which a great number of people in 1994 would have found repulsive. The film also included a variety of shots and wasn't afraid to play around with camera angles, but this wasn't necessarily a good thing. A few shots in particular were simply annoying, for instance: the laundry room shot from the drier and the conversation between Max and her black friend in the coffee shop. The transitions in the movie also didn't seem to have much relevance to the plot of the film. Some transitions would be kids playing in the park and others would be up close images of hands—there is one exception—when Daria and one of her sex lackeys are making love it shows Evy splitting some bread in half, but other than that the transitions do not have any relevance. Overall Go Fish is not a bad movie, but it isn't a great one either. I personally would not watch it again given the opportunity.It is a somewhat interesting movie, but it leans heavily on the lesbian aspect and given that this is the twenty-first century it doesn't carry the same shock value that it did back in '94. Don't get me wrong, if the characters in this film were not lesbians it probably wouldn't be interesting at all. In fact it would be the same romantic comedy that we've all seen over one hundred times now.

tedg Spoilers herein.I just came back from a trip visiting an artist whose specialty was lesbian art. Not making, but curating and collecting. She really showed me some stuff that blew me -- a straight guy -- away. Film for me is capable of mainlining the same sorts of effect: The ability (with a little commitment) to transport to new worlds, intensely internal, personal. So I rushed to this film.Alas, its a miss. It had some powerful images and lines, but it really would have been better, even worldclass as a photo shoot with enticing captions. The production was so unartful -- despite valiant aspirations -- that I felt embarrassed. The acting was largely night-at-the-Y. The dynamics of the camera just weren't understood. Its so strange that for some communities if you speak to them at all with honest intent, they forget all else. In a way, this film is like `Left Behind,' which fundamentalists love, but most others think is curious but fundamentally blunt and bad art.Guinevere Turner does have an endearing film presence as the focus. I have seen some of her later films and frankly didn't notice her. But here she is everything.

matt-201 Even if you live in Park Slope, and your idea of a big time is a cup of herbal tea, a Sweet Honey in the Rock CD, and a curl-up with a volume of Audre Lorde, this suicide-inducing lesbian indie will probably have you craving a late Steven Seagal feature, a chili dog, and a six pack of Miller Genuine Draft. Characteristic moment: poker-faced non-actor erupts, "Hey you guys! Does our community really have to get down on an empowered woman who's in charge of her sexuality?"