Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Sorry, this movie sucks

An Exercise In Nonsense

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

This film is awful. The writing is tolerable but the acting is atrocious. The director was so in love with his own infantile pathos that he includes long long shots of guys looking tragic. If this film had a competent editor, it might have achieved mediocre status. As we saw with the Da Vinci Code, when the main actor is flat or bad, no matter what you do the rest of the movie will fail. And the main actor is not just bad, he is utterly inept. Think of the pathetic attempts at dialog in the 12 seconds of every porn film prior to getting down to business--our main actor is as bad if not worse than that. The only reason I am even bothering to write this review is to talk about the love interest in the film, David Vincent. So far as I can tell, this is his only credit. That's a shame. His performance was subtle and nuanced. If this was his only acting credit, he could have quit his day job and made it as an actor. In the extras on the DVD you can see him reading for another part, the part of the hook up at the very end of the film. That scene in the film is particularly pathetic and tonally wrong; but from the screen test, you can see that if David Vincent had played that part, he could have carried it off with aplomb. Wherever you are, David Vincent, there is no doubt that you could have had a career in film.As for the rest of the folks, including the director, don't quit your day jobs.

First, I disagree with the commenter's who say this is such a bad movie with bad acting. Maybe these people never knew a screw around guy, a good time charlie, or a sorry roommate. This movie works until the ending. This screw around guy is confronted by one of his tricks who thought he was more than a trick, but he was just another lay that didn't matter. Then the screw around guy punches the trick and suddenly becomes introspective and is sorry for what he has done. What a load of bull. He was one of these jerks who wants a relationship to fill in between the gaps of tricks. The ending should have been the black girl with her new white boyfriend eating with the other gay couple and the screw around guy by himself. Or maybe the screw around guy just saw Stu talking to someone at the grocery store. Then maybe he could just think about what he threw away, instead of suddenly thinking he was a jerk because screw arounds are in for the short haul. Their regrets are few and far between and even if they felt they messed someone over, they just keep on hitting that bar scene every night. It could have ended with him just going to the bar over and over. But the black girl could have easily ended this movie with a good tone, she could have given him something to think about just by resolving her own relationship issues. I don't believe the screw around guy could ever care about the boys he kept bringing home. He just wants his cake - and eat it too!

I was extremely bewildered by the purpose of this film, but even more bewildered by the positive reviews a few people have left for it. It truly holds almost no value as a movie or social commentary at all. The acting is static and makes you feel like you are watching the first performance of several understudys. The subplot involving Merle Perkins' character Susan is unrelated and incomplete. The random black and white vignettes featuring the main character "Christopher Bedford" are intrusive and uninformative and I didn't care for a single one of the shallow, archetypical characters we were supposed to relate to.The fact that people found some scathing commentary on the emptiness of the pretty boy "gym-bunny" gay lifestyle within this contrived film astounds me. Did I miss something? I saw a story about one man who sleeps around, cheats, and ends up lonely...Was that not an obvious conclusion? The emotionally charged ending seems out of place and adds 5 minutes of drama to a film that was an hour and a half of blah blah blah....YAWN

Here's a film that holds a mirror up to the sometimes shallow, narcissistic, gay male urban world. But why did it take so long for a movie like this to be made? Instead, the "gay" films that do receive distribution tend to be either light comedies about queens or depressing dramas about AIDS. So along comes "All The Rage" like a breath of fresh air--multi-dimensional characters, gay and straight people as friends, and, yes, a fair amount of humor, both light and dark. For a low-budget movie that was adapted from a stage play, the film is very cinematic, with beautiful colors and fluid camerawork. The acting is uniformly strong, with Jeff Miller's quick appearance at the end an especially powerful performance. Although the film has been a hit at festivals around the world, it's no surprise that it hasn't received wide release from a major distributor. It takes a hard look at a certain subculture and resists stereotypes. And everyone knows Hollywood operates out of fear and rehashing what worked before (sequels). Since "All the Rage" breaks new ground, it's deemed too "difficult" for mainstream audiences. What a shame. Writer/director/composer Roland Tec should be applauded not only for having the guts to take on this subject matter, but for pulling it off with such finesse. This first-time feature director is already head and shoulders above many veteran directors who keep churning out trite, recycled, safe "entertainment". Bravo!