All the Rage (1998)

All The Rage takes a humorous and poignant look at one gay man's obsessive pursuit of physical, sexual, and romantic perfection.

not that bad - clever in a lot of respects

I'm surprised by all the poor reviews. I saw this film when it was first released in Boston, and it still resonates for me, especially in the "remember me" final sequence. Why are reviewers complaining about this scene and wanting the 2 leads to get back together and have a happy ending? The whole point of the film is that the body fascism in the community has a sadistic rage burning beneath it that is beautifully self-destructive. In the final sequence, when Christopher turns the tables on his trick and reminds him that "I (expletive deleted) you" the viewer gets to see that what really matters to these characters is who is on top - who is the most buff, the most beautiful, the most wealthy, the most well hung.
The title is pure genius because it reminds us that while it is "all the rage" in the idiomatic sense to be an adonis, the obsession with beauty is often masking all the rage that boils beneath this beautiful skin, and everybody is ugly on the inside.
The acting is amateur, especially the female friend who was obviously cast as a favor or something. Everytime she spoke, the audience cracked up for all the wrong reasons, so wooden that I remember her almost a decade later. The script is so clever though. It doesn't really read as a parody so much as an exploratory expose, because although the film purports to critigue Christopher, the viewer still envies him and in the end, falls into the very trap that the film ostensibly wants us to question.
If the film asks us whether it is more important to be happy, well-adjusted and in love or to be beautiful, desired and envied, I would say it leans towards the latter. Men who look like Christopher will always be on top, and as much as we can pretend to find their behavior abhorrent, physical beauty always trumps personal uglyness in cinema and in life. June 4, 2008

If only I could give zero..

I've been burned so I've learned: don't buy indie gay movies - rent them.

This movie, aside from being the reason I lost 2 hours of my life, is a mess. The characters are tired cliches and are poorly portrayed by an amateur cast. As one other review noted, the only 'attractive' guy in the whole cast was the one who was supposed to be the ugly guy the 'hot' one settled for .. add in a truly messy ending that comes from nowhere and adds nothing and you've got a total waste of 104 minutes.

Have the directors never SEEN a romantic comedy? Regurgitating tired stereotypes and cliches on a low budget is something we can all do at any given gay bar on any night of the week.. save the celluloid for things worth seeing more than once. June 3, 2006

Lots of Promise, But No Delivery

I wanted to like this movie. I ordered the DVD hoping it was a controversial satire on the superficiality of the gay ghetto, as promised. What I got was a mildly amusing comedy, with nowhere near as much punch as I expected from the premise.

There were problems immediately. Although he has a perfect body, John-Michael Lander as Christopher portrays a character so unlikable, it's not possible to warm to him at all, let alone develop an interest in what happens to him as the plot progresses. Some may find him irresistibly attractive, but frankly I wouldn't have given him a second glance no matter how much he masked what a creep he is - perfect abs and all. A bigger problem to me was the character played by David Vincent. The film's premise - the brunt of the "hard-hitting satire" - is the fact that Christopher's boyfriend is supposed to be the opposite of what we've been "conditioned" to find attractive because (gasp!) he doesn't work out in a gym and actually has love handles (horrors!). He also doesn't have a glamorous job (I mean, really, who knows any gay men like that?) and - now here's the most shocking thing I could imagine in a satire on gay values - he sleeps in PAJAMAS! Now I know a few guys in Chelsea who might find this impossible to believe, but despite the love handles and the pajamas, the "out-of-shape, chunky, under-employed geek" turns out to be the most attractive man in the whole film. Somehow I think that some of the people this film was intended for won't quite get that.

I liked what this picture was trying to say - Christopher is shallow, superficial, vain and annoying, and more or less gets what he deserves in the end. It's not his promiscuity that bothers us, but the way he treats his conquests, refusing to ever have a second date, and finding the most ridiculous faults imaginable in each potential suitor. But the telling of the tale just isn't very interesting, or very funny, and if they really wanted to make it a satire, it should have been far more merciless to maintain my interest.

Maybe I'm just old enough to remember when gay men didn't spend all their time in a gym, staring at the mirror to confirm their own beauty. I seem to recall that when I first came out in the early 70's, gym bunnies were few and far between in the gay male community. In those days, you were either skinny, fat or average, and if people judged you by your looks, it was solely on the basis of whether or not you had a pretty face. The main things we used back then to attract people were wit, charm, personality and intelligence, along with keeping ourselves reasonably well groomed. Now all I hear and see everywhere is stats, stats and more stats - numbers for waists, chests, arms, and thighs, together with demands that everyone have a perfect body, perfect clothes and a perfect career, or forget it. I was hoping that this film might raise some serious objections to such values, but when the final credits were rolling I felt I hadn't really seen or heard very much to either provoke meaningful discussion or challenge these attitudes, which is what I expect a good satire to do. Some may find it quite enjoyable, and feel it delivers on its promises, but I was less than satisfied when it was over.
January 2, 2006

Stereotypical Gay Characters

This movie reminded me of the series QAF, with characters that you love to hate. Some of the things they have in common:
Stereotypical gay characters, lead egocentric characters, over the top drama, and typical bar behavior.
In addition this movie adds overbearing gawd-awful music and unrealistic camp in almost every scene.
Why did I give it 2 stars? Even though I thought the confrontational ending was a bit over the top, I liked it. The message got through to the audience. I did ask myself, however, why the confronting person felt that he was morally superior when he himself was still lurking in the bar's dark corners.
Denial of reality all around here but still worth 2 stars for providing us with *some* hope. November 14, 2005

Not the worst I have seen

I am sure that lots of people will never like this movie becouse of cheap acting and cheap budjet. Charectors very boring I think this movie had lack of the good director and better screen-writer. Don't waste your money and time on this one. August 24, 2005

More reviews at Amazon.com ...