tlavideo.com

Barry wrote on 11/29/2009:

Elsewhere in a review of a film I considered a cynical rip-off by a dishonest company I made reference to low budget films that I respected. This is one of those that I had in mind. Low budget is a meaningless term as it is talent and dedication that makes a film good, not the amount of money invested. Apart from the occasional Epic and Sci Fi extravaganza I avoid Hollywood films like the plague. It is enough for me to see a Hollywood reference to make me avoid the great formula of 'upset no one especially the advertising giants and the noisy religious quarter' combined with 'lets not make it too smart for the demeaned public' and 'make sure there is a coke can placed somewhere in the frame'. Well, that said, this is a bad film as are all the films produced by this group of people. I own them all and I would buy more if they were made. What makes them special is the enthusiasm with which they were made. It reminds me of an old Judy Garland Mickey Rooney film where, when all is bleak they shout '"LETS PUT ON A SHOW" and thus without funds a Zigfield Follies style presentation is mounted in a matter of moments. Well it is not really that either. I have no details about the people who made these films, but I have made up the image of a bunch of friends who want to make gay films and have some simplistic lecturing they need to get off their chest as well as a desire to have as much sex as possible. I admire all these reasons. Their only drawback is that they are completely unencumbered by any talent whatsoever. I do not care. I promote anyone who wants to give it a go with the idea of making a film, not just an idea for making money. On that level I enjoy their efforts.

MattPDX (mattpdx@aol.com) wrote on 08/06/2004:

To all of you out there that think the sex was real...IT WAS FAKE. I was IN this movie and the sex was FAKE. PLEASE don't be fooled...this movie is terrible completey, I'm embarrased to be in it but hopefully I'll make up some of that by helping so NOBODY else buys it!!!

MattPDX (mattpdx@aol.com) wrote on 08/06/2004:

Hi...this is Matthew Dunn, one of the "stars" of this gawd-awful movie. I should have known better than to do this, but I was lured by the money and the idea that this would be a first "independant film" experience.

First off, the script made NO sense whatsoever...the "scenes" were being re-written daily, the cast barely showed up, we had to contend with constant noise problems, etc etc etc. I think the only somewhat professional thing done on this movie was the digital video being used, and even that didn't turn out very well.

The fact that you can hear somebody calling out one of my lines to me (I was having trouble remembering them because as I said ealier they were being changed DAILY) proves how there is a total lack of professionalism on this so called "film".

DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE. If you want to see something better, watch moss grow on a rock. I have one copy of this movie that I keep as a reminder to NEVER have anything to do with this "film company"...do the same and click your "back" button now.

tiny wrote on 02/07/2004:

Hi
This is Tiny, I am a over the road truck driver. I look forward to all the new releases From RAF. This movie is there best with a lot of great sex, nude boys and story. I am sorry I am not one of those gays with my nose in the air and want to dish what I don't understand. I work hard and that 30 bucks. I would not buy all of the RAF films if they were not great. Oh, Tiny comes from y size 300 lbs not my other think. Love RAF.

Dr Graham wrote on 02/01/2004:

Review of the Richard Anthony Film releases from start to now. The production company has released four films. The first in 2001 with "Traveling to Olympia". They followed with Murder in Portland", Gods of Olympia and the last one Revenge in Olympia. All of these movies take place in the Pacific Northwest with three of four in the state capital of Washington. Four films in three years is quite a feat from a independent production company. Are they of Hollywood quality, no but they are as good as any straight or gay low budget independent film company. And make no mistake these are low budget films. What make the concept work is that they are made for the DVD release. There is no pretense that these are going to a theatrical release. They release these productions on both the internet and lesbian and gay books stores. With the thousands of films released for distribution and after checking web sites, I only found a few bad reviews. And all of these reviews sounded the same. It seemed that the same person wrote all the comments. It also seemed that they all were the same type of person. Someone who with the power of the review can make a unfair statement in the community. I am guessing this is a person who never gets cruised at the bar and has had a hard time getting a date. So he goes back to his small apartment and takes it out on RAF. Everyone has the right to speak, it is some who speak with authority and others from picayune. I would expect that the first film was a learning experience for RAF. I thought the films got better and all had great stories. I learned something from each movie, the stories were original and historically correct. Remember no one made you spend the first 29.95, and if you did not like it why spend more for the other three. It seems you are not admitting you buy the movies not for the story but for the cute sex scenes. That is fine, I am sure the producers have that as part of their markenting plan. I understand Richard Anthony Films is starting a new project, by providing venture capital for new young film makers. These first films will be a works in progress and should get better with time. I am old enough to remember the only gay movie at the time was "Boy's in the Band". Now we have gay movies on TV, gay plays at the local community theater, and for better or worse. To all of those people who want to put down RAF put up your own $50,000 make a movie then you will have the right to criticize those who have. These are very small people in our community and do not represent the