MusicChat It's complicated... I really like the directing, acting and writing but, there are issues with the way it's shot that I just can't deny. As much as I love the storytelling and the fantastic performance but, there are also certain scenes that didn't need to exist.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Davis P I mean if we're being honest, you should know what you're going to get just from looking at the trailer for this sexy romp. Longhorns is really about a college aged Texan male who thinks he might be gay when he begins to fall for the only openly gay guy at his college. The movie isn't meant to have good writing or even good acting, its purpose is just to be a short sexy, sometimes sweet romp. And I think it does an alright job at doing that. Jacob newton is likable enough in the lead role of Kevin. Dylan Vox's only job in his role is just to be a homophobic, testosterone filled, sex crazed good ol' boy. And he succeeds at that. The comedy doesn't really work, I suspect though that if you're watching this it's not to laugh. So let's get to the sexy part. The sexual scenes include many scenes of males masturbating to tapes of pornography (hand moving under the covers while moaning). There's also a man drawing another man nude and a scene of a woman riding a man. The sentimental aspect of the movie only works in the sense of Kevin realizing his true love/sexuality and accepting it.

jm10701 This could have been a really good movie, but it wore out its one-joke theme - straight guys who love nothing better than masturbating together while watching porn - about the third time it played out. That may be a powerful and persistent fantasy and an infallible source of amusement for lots of gay men, but it's not for me, and watching it in a movie gets old very fast. It wasn't even remotely believable the first time it happened, and it got less believable every time.The second recurring theme has one man stripping completely naked and standing still for another, fully clothed man to ogle. Each of the five main characters did it once each, with another of the five (two, in one instance) as the clothed ogler. Was that supposed to be funny too, or was it just an extremely clumsy way to get as much full frontal (but as sterile as a nun) nudity as possible into the movie? So the movie is almost unbearably contrived, stupid and unfunny. It has two redeeming strengths, though.Three of the main cast members are genuine Southerners who talk with real Southern accents, not the Hollywood fake-Southern accents non-Southern actors always affect (even Meryl Streep can't get it right) in movies. Non-Southerners must not be able to tell the difference, but I can, and as a long-time transplant to the North, hearing people who talk like me on screen warms my heart and points out how very, very rarely it happens. Even Southern actors almost never use their native accents in movies, which is sad.The movie's other strength is the cast, particularly Derek Villanueva and Dylan Vox, who shine (Jacob Newton, though sort of cute, is a little weak as the lead). I wish someone would remake Longhorns with the same cast but as a serious movie, not a very lame, very unfunny comedy.

Anne Under I was honestly not expecting too much. This was obviously a low-budget, indie production, so I readied myself for all the inevitable flaws that this usually entails.I was pleasantly surprised: the production values weren't incredible, but they were definitely better than one might expect, the script was smart, touching and funny, and the acting was much better than I anticipated, especially the two leads. I think what particularly worked for me was the humor, it added a nice, knowing wink to the loveliness of this little gem.This is the story of a Texan "all-American" boy at college who seemingly conforms to the stereotype in every way back in the early 80's. When he meets an openly gay student, he has to confront himself for the first time in his life. Or does he?

Suradit A cast of unexciting, not especially good-looking actors, most of whom would not make the cut in an audition for a high school play, certainly complement the mediocre, sophomoric story.All the indoor scenes appear to have been shot in various rooms of a $5 a night motel and one suspects their rental expense probably consumed most of the production budget.The standard over-worked components of a gay-themed movie, homophobia, state of denial and self-revelation, are played out awkwardly, are totally unbelievable and generate no emotion other than acute embarrassment for all concerned, especially the viewer.This might have been cutting-edge 40 years ago, but these days there is no shortage of well written, superbly acted and beautifully produced movies dealing with all aspects of gay life. This oeuvre is to 21st century gay-themed movies what Amos & Andy would be to modern Black cinematic entertainment.Even worse, it appears to have been mistakenly labeled a comedy. The comedic highlights include: (a)One of the characters has given names to his three house plants and (b) The same character unintentionally wears blue jeans on Wear Blue Jeans if You're Gay Day. I hope revealing that didn't spoil the hilarity for anyone.Don't bother.