Touches You

An Exercise In Nonsense

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

Execution: 3/10 As we see George and Ben get married we as the audience are not given enough set up to know how exactly the two ARE together and how important their union us, so when they are separate it doesn't really matter. We are not "thinking about the other when watching George or Ben be alone" because there's no previous reference by which to do that at all. Once they're separate it's only 30 minutes away but we don't see enough of them looking for housing or anything else.Extra nonsense that could have been replaced with better conflict, George and Ben trying to be normal again with each other despite their situation, something other than stolen French literature and Kate complaining about being home all the time. Leave and do something elsewhere! I didn't know NY cops were so apt to party like frat boys every night. Why does Ben have a pension from an undisclosed source but not have SS or any type of insurance? Seems these old guys have making rookie mistakes they're too old to make.Romance: 3/10 They kiss four times and cuddle once and that's it. It's a good amount of affection but not enough to where I would call romantic. And the end is quite ridiculous and nowhere near the note it should have been. I've never seen a film that ends on the wrong people; people the narrative was NOT ABOUT!

A lovely and touching film with some frustrations. The script is echt New York, right down to the reference to the Department of the Aging, the disdain for Poughkeepsie and the invocation of rent control. Never mind that the latter is regulated by the state not the city as the script states, or that you can't pass on a controlled apartment willy-nilly to a guy you met at a party. It's still pretty authentic, including the ugly interiors of the Brooklyn apartment and the stunning final scene in the West Village. True New Yorkers discern from the script that the elderly couple bought as renters when it converted to co-op 5 years earlier, presumably at an insider's price, so their net from the recent sale in 2013 is bound to be much greater than the 17,000-odd the script gives them. The longueurs on themes of Chopin add to the atmosphere. The acting is good if somewhat forced because this little film was probably shot over 2 weeks when Lithgow and Molina had the time. The political statement comes early, that a religious institution is exempt from civil-rights laws and can discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation, which is otherwise forbidden in New York city and state; and that's why the church can fire George because the archbishop doesn't like him being gay. It seems gratuitous that George out of the blue writes to the parents of the school to affirm his faith despite having been wronged: that seems like an afterthought inserted to make the movie extend to 94 minutes. The black screen between Ben and George's discussion of Ben's art and the scene of Joey visiting George sans Ben in his new apartment is jarring, and the viewer is obliged to fill in the missing pieces unaided. Uncle Ben is not a particularly likable character, mostly insensitive to the dynamics of the relatives who have taken him in. Is his asking Joey late at night whether he's ever been in love another filler? Why in 2013 would a couple of high-school kids steal books from the library and what is the point in the story? Why George's reference to Ben's "pension" but none to Social Security, which he would have at age 71? Am I the only one who wondered if Joey's emotional reaction in the stairwell in the penultimate scene is regret at having given George the painting of Vlad, the guy he really loved? That would give the film more poignancy and impact. The film is well worth watching, with a solid message of devotion.

For a moment I thought I might be crazy, that I was the only one who thought "Love Is Strange" was problematic, to put it mildly. Indeed, the professional reviews nearly all saw the film through the prism of DOMA and forgave any flaws in plot or narrative structure as minor details compared to the "important message" being conveyed. Fortunately some reviewers here restored my faith in my own sanity by pointing out that unless a movie makes some sense, has some internal logic, it's unlikely to convey much of a message at all.But first, let me say that Alfred Molina is terrific as the music teacher whose firing sets the wheels in motion for the rest of the picture. He is witty, charming, and utterly believable in his role. John Lithgow, while a very good actor, simply chews the scenery, often in an annoying an boorish fashion. Marisa Tomei makes the most of her screen time, and even though her relationship with her husband is obviously strained the audience is left to guess why.We are left to guess at many things about this film. Why do Ben and George feel the need to tie the knot after so many years together? Why is George so obtuse as to fail to see the consequences? He is clearly an intelligent and sensitive fellow, but in this, the most decisive act he is clueless? Makes no sense to me.It's telling that Ben and George could live together -- happily one presumes -- with their relative in Poughkeepsie. But they would rather impose on their friends/relatives in the city. Okay, there's no movie if they move to Poughkeepsie, but there's an unspoken snobbery here too. Better to sleep on couches and bunk beds apart in the city than together in #&$@-ing Poughkeepsie!

(1) The two leads were amazing. Beautiful subtle performances with depth to the characters. Two actors in their prime (Lithgow and Molina)(2) The dialogue was well written.(3) The story itself was far too choppy with leads drifting off to nowhere (a)the kid and Vlad his friend (b) the marriage of the nephew and the wife was troubled but unexplored (c)) the stolen books, what was that about? (d) the lightening speed with which a rent controlled apartment was found.(4)Interesting characters were dropped without a second thought.(5)The juvenile atmosphere in the cops' apartment - more like a frat house.(6) Loved the music throughout.(7) the kid crying for what, two minutes?, at the end made absolutely no sense at all.(8) Got the feeling the film was chopped from a running time far, far longer where those nagging plot holes would have been filled.(9) Loved the scene of them singing at their wedding.So a 6/10 for the leads. And Marisa Tomei. Brilliant.