Too much of everything

It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

This movie fails on all accounts.The script is pathetic. The story is weak and the characters shallow. You couldn't set out to write a B-movie script this bad. The plot is so weak that the framework seems like it's designed for pornography.The cinematography is juvenile. The camera angles are contrived, close-ups are used without good purpose and the lighting always seems artificial. It feels like one never leaves the same simple set.The acting, save Josh Hammond as Dan, is really bad. The actors' deliveries are monotonous. The range of emotions is zero.The men are all beautiful, each one an Adonis, but to what end? Adolescent girls and adolescent gay boys will surely revel in these images but beyond that, there is no artful purpose served by the physiques.I hate to pan someone's work so badly but this movies is truly horrible.

The idea that this movie isn't homo-erotic is hilarious. Anyone on the local planet who's seen this dud would never think that the director did not expressly want to illustrate the intimacy (of many different types)demonstrated between all the male characters of this film, especially since he spends *so* much film time doing just that. This film is so slow its speed could be measured with a Confucian calendar. The dialogue takes about three times longer than it should, and what we found most disturbing is the _very_ clear homo-eroticism demonstrated in every scene. No straight woman who watched this felt that it was geared towards her entertainment in the slightest. This film is strictly by men for men. The supernatural underpinnings, clumsy and badly-F/X'd as they are, run a distant second.Don't rent this unless you're prepared to feel distinctly uncomfortable and painfully bored, or you're entertained by C-budget mini-horror.

THE BROTHERHOOD (2000)(UK: I've Been Watching You) Aspect ratio: 2.39:1 (Lomoscope)Sound format: StereoA high school jock (Nathan Watkins) is targeted by the leader of a vampire cult (Bradley Stryker) who needs to transfer his soul into Watkins' body to survive...Following the unexpected success of his gloriously homoerotic horror-thriller VOODOO ACADEMY (2000) - particularly the unrated DVD version - veteran director David DeCoteau (CURSE OF THE PUPPET MASTER, PRISON OF THE DEAD, etc.) Took a commercial gamble and formed his own company - Rapid Heart Pictures - dedicated to the production of low-budget teen movies with a beefcake twist. Unfortunately, their maiden venture is a bust, for several reasons. Firstly, it was shot in less than a week (!), which precludes a certain degree of cinematic flair (despite DeCoteau's wasted use of the 35mm scope format), and the plot is driven by dialogue rather than action - too much dialogue, in fact. Secondly, whereas "Voodoo" overcame numerous plot deficiencies by stripping its hunky cast down to their designer underwear at every given opportunity, THE BROTHERHOOD is a great deal less forthcoming in this regard. Indeed, DeCoteau claims the film's blatant gay undertow is 'accidental', despite the unsubtle narrative device of a monstrous entity which takes the shape of a beautiful young man in order to seduce (figuratively speaking) another equally beautiful young man. Furthermore, the movie contains an eye-popping set-piece in which the two male leads shed their clothes and ravish a young girl who's been hypnotized into submission, though the coverage is focused almost exclusively on the guys themselves...DeCoteau's insistence that his movies cater primarily for teenage girls (contrary to remarks made on the US DVD release of LEATHER JACKET LOVE STORY, where he specifically encourages gay viewers to check out the Rapid Heart catalog) suggests a reluctance to challenge established mainstream parameters. In other words, he's trying to have his cake and eat it by indulging a commercial preoccupation with beautiful young men whilst refusing to pursue the concept to its logical narrative conclusion. In his own defence, DeCoteau argues that many actors - particularly those most suited to this kind of movie - are unwilling to perform nude scenes, though this argument seems particularly bogus. Refusal to do a full-frontal is one thing, but if his actors won't even allow rear-view nude shots, then the likelihood of a daring, sexually unambiguous horror film from this particular stable seems remote, to say the least. Here, for instance, very little attention is lavished on Bradley Stryker's ultra-buff torso, except for a couple of sequences during the latter half of the film, and the equally hunky Donnie Eichar (playing an axe-wielding doorman) remains fully clothed throughout! The movie lacks audacity and courage, in spades.All this would be immaterial, of course, if the production schedule had allowed for a stronger storyline, less reliant on prolonged stretches of mundane dialogue. For all that, however, THE BROTHERHOOD is assembled with a fair amount of professional skill, and most of the acting is fine (Josh Hammond steals everyone's thunder as Watkins' not-so-nerdy sidekick). Teens may enjoy the simplistic storyline and sumptuous young actors, but there's little here to engage a wider audience. Followed by THE BROTHERHOOD 2: YOUNG WARLOCKS (2001).

It is nonsense to say this is a "gay" horror film. We see these same shots of women in conventional horror films and don't think about the director's sexual orientation. Would this be considered gay if the director was a woman? I think not. This film is meant to be a beefcake horror film for the ladies. And while it delivers some handsome faces and a few fleeting shots of boys in theirunderwear, it's strictly G-rated stuff. Indeed, I've seen more nudity in G-rated films from the 1960s where bare butt shots of men and boys can be seen in"Planet of the Apes" or "Maya" where 15-year-old Jay North appears nude from the back side. The "Brotherhood" series films are surprisingly bloodless and nudity-free, which bucks the trend for horror films and teen sex comedies and may be why so many people feel a bit "cheated." One wonders why on direct- to-video releases David can't push the envelope a bit and show more explicit nudity of either sex. Probably because the video rental chain which finances these films through pre-production distribution agreements would decline to participate. Or it may be that the young actors who appear in these films draw the line at showing their gear or bare butts. But if you're going to have a scene where nudity is the logical costume, as in a shower scene, it doesn't make much sense to show guys showering in their underwear -- something we have seen in more recent DeCoteau films. There is a similar problem in "The Brotherhood," with the frat initiation ("make- out") scene being more logical as a nude scene. On another point, since so many have commented on why the protagonist wears black boxer briefs, this is an obvious nod to Alfred Hitchock's use of a black bra on Janet Leigh in "Psycho" after she turns "bad." (Before she turns bad she is seen in a white bra). Or more classically, the boy in the black briefs is akin to the outlaw in the black hat.