tlavideo.com

Amos Lassen wrote on 02/20/2011:

“LUSTER”
Refreshing, Funny, and Sexy
Amos Lassen
Unrequited love is usually not much fun and neither is it sexy nor refreshing. At least it is not until you see “Luster” (Here! TV). Jackson is a cute, lanky frustrated poet who works in a record store. He is mad about Billy, a sexy young blonde who he meets at an orgy but Billy loves Sonny who is a musician into S and M. Then there is Jackson’s customer, Derek, who is in love with him and the owner of the record store who is straight (?) but obviously infatuated with Billy. (Got all this down?). Next we add Jed who is Jackson’s cousin who is responsible for leading his relative to contemplate incest. (Whew!!!!) To make everything even more complicated, Jed is seduced by a lesbian.
From the moment this film begins you know it is going to be different—first the actors are listed only by first name and secondly, the first scene is a bunch of young guys lying entwined and naked. So, is this a teen flick? In many ways it is but it also has a great deal to say about the nature of relationships. There is a good share of “camp” and several of the mysterious subplots seem to bring the film down from what could have been a really good movie. Yet the more I watched the more I enjoyed it and the youthful exuberance of the cast makes it a lot of fun.
Jackson is the central character, he is cute as can be but he has his problems. His superior, record store mogul may be remembered as the gay guy on “Sex and the City”, Stanford. He is supposedly straight but he does enjoy being beaten. The other characters give the whole mish mash a soap opera tone. Jackson could have had his character developed a bit more but somehow that did not happen.
This is a fun movie and doesn’t demand a great deal of thought or concentration. You may not remember much about it after you finish it but you will have a good time watching it while it is on the screen. Sit back, enjoy and move on. There is also a great deal of frontal nudity so that is a definite plus.

JANORM wrote on 10/09/2009:

This is a story line that tries to portray a lifestyle that best can be described as lies, drugs, sex, alcohol, and violence. Unless you have lived and experience these conditions, and survived, your appreciation of what is protrayed is very minimal. This is so accurate at times, that I had to turn off the viewing and walk away, MY GOD! It was DEJA VUE, all over again. I have seen and lived with a lot of what is portrayed in this movie. Most of it was in the West coast, some in the East coast and some in Chi-town. I never thought that this could ever be portrayed accurately, but the film is the perfect example. The jaggedness of the story line only refects the lifestyle of this sub-culture completely. You need to watch this film as an insight to a way of life and will probably have to watch it more than once. This is a classic of all classics and should be reseved to that singular category of descriptive life-styles. A definite addition to your classic collection. LOVE IN ALL OF ITS FORMS, IS LIKE A MULTI-FACETTED GEM-STONE!! NJMJr!

Luis Rolando (ManticoreL7@msn.com) wrote on 03/30/2005:

Sure, a blue-haired protagonist will catch anyone's attention whether the movie is gay-themed or not, but that's about the only thing Luster's got going for it. A flimsy excuse for a plot laced with a creepy S&M ambience mixed with poor acting and characters who throw the word "love" around way too much and engage in incest equal an unbalanced, mess of a film. Just when you think the movie can muster up a redeeming ending -- nope. Find yourself another gem, there's no luster here.

q wrote on 07/28/2004:

I ordered this dvd after reading the editorial comments as well as customer reviews. Also, it was recommended to me by Amazon.com as well. What a huge disappointment. The film is completely self-aware and self-conscious in trying to be hip and cool and cutting edge. For a film released in 2000, it is none of the above. It took me a while to realize I wasn't watching a film set in an 80's punk-lite scene. The acting was mediocre, the script was purposely vague (was that trying to be atmospheric, moody, or avante garde?), the cinematography was trying too hard to be gritty. And poor Willie Garson. How embarassing for him in a cliched role he walked through. I can't recommend enough that you avoid this movie. I watched the whole thing looking for signs of "fun" "refreshing" "sexy". It was really kind of sad and pathetic, with characters who were so full of themselves, I couldn't care less about the bad things that happened to them. It was just plain dirty, and not in the good way. I felt like I needed a shower afterwards. It's not that I didn't understand the film. I understood it too well. Maybe if it really was organic and earthy and real instead of trying hard to be those things, it might have worked. As it is, it may seem cool to people with limited perspectives. But if you're looking for something new or with an edge, this isn't it. In its attempt to be something original, it just became a bad version of more of the same, with bad haircuts.

Len_1 wrote on 03/12/2004:

Often times I ask myself the question of "love" and end up going through my checklist of requirments/reciprocity. Watching this moving graphically portrayed the events I play out in everyday life concerning "love" This an Awesome movie in that the characters are Realistic/Idealistic. A MUST see and MUST buy. Thank you