The Seminarian

Watching this movie was like Watching a hamster run around on a wheel going nowhere.... I kid you not....from beginning to end...

Full disclaimer; I actually started watching this believing it was another movie with the same title, yet within seconds of the opening sequence and hearing that whiny "gay voice", I knew exactly what this film would be about; a self-indulgent, boring gay-themed movie where type-cast Mark Cirillo proves (yet again) that full frontal nudity in a gay indie does wonders for any actor's career (he keeps his towel on for a full 50 seconds this time). If anyone really had the writing skills to explore this theme (i.e. a gay evangelical Christian in seminary) there would be ample fodder for entertainment, but of course the writer/director relied on Mark's willingness to essentially do anything in front of the camera, hoping that someone would find it titillating enough to forget the script and acting is complete crap. Too many cases of long pauses, contrived dialogue and meaningless scenes to count. Surprisingly, out of a cast of horribly bad actors, Javier Montoya stood out as being exceptionally bad; I didn't believe he had a pulse, let alone that he was gay seminarian. In fact, other than some theological quotes and questions thrown in here and there, this is just another low-budget, badly made film about gay angst. I would not recommend this movie to anyone.

This film lacks the luster to captivate it's audience right from the start. The story line of a gay closeted seminarian student Ryan (Mark Cirillo), working on a master's thesis based on love, relationships and hypocrisy, in order to get into a post graduate Ivy League school makes very little sense in the evolution of this film. The story makes an attempt at character development, but falls short in its execution. Ryan's character is bland and unexciting with extended close up scenes that's are without dialogue or expression which makes you want to press the "fast forward" button. The cinematography and editing was sloppy and unimaginative, and does nothing to enhance the film's objective which is to allow the audience to identify with Ryan's struggle on theologies and personal experiences.

The gratuitously long nude scene with Mark Cirillo and Matthew Hannond seemed awkwardly out of place at the end of the movie and had no purpose other than to sensationalize Cirillo's well endowed member and to provide a hook for potential future audiences. There is nothing in this film with substance or character identification; making this film very difficult to watch in its entirety. This is perhaps due to the shortcomings and lack of vision that Joshua Lim has for movie making.

I found this to be a refreshing film and very satisfying. I watch many gay movies and find many to be mindless. I am forgiving of many flaws, but not poor writing. This film delivers excellent writing. I wondered for a while whether this was originally a play. Material starting life in another medium has usually been well thought out. I read one of the other reviewers who found the action too slow. Perhaps like many people, that reviewer is too impatient. They cannot wait around for character development and their impatience is their loss. I did not find this slow-moving at all.

I found the relationship between Ryan and his mother believable. There was one scene where Ryan is ending his visit with his mother that I wished the camera had lingered just a little longer on his mother's face as she watches Ryan leave. We could have read in our own thoughts. No doubt some would have complained, though. Perhaps some were put off by the fact that the majority of characters were Evangelical Christians who were not easy cardboard targets.

This film does not pretend to be anything but what it is and I found it to be immensely satisfying. This is one for repeat viewing.

The trailer portrayed the film very promising but as I sat at its premiere I could not wait to get out of the theater. The audience agrees as you can hear and see their reaction to its slow paced development that lead to nothing and/or the awkward script.

I am not sure why a lot of people are raving about this film. Perhaps it's production quality is slightly better than other homosexual-base films, or maybe just certain viewers only enjoyed its male frontal scenes?

PRODUCTION: Above-average, simple sets.

ACTING: Unimpressive and most of the actors did not commit to their characters. Therefore, it's harder for the audience to connect

DIRECTING: See all above. Enough said.