Visions of Sugarplums (2001) User Reviews

It Figures!

[RicanRic · 2/10 · 18 March 2003]

Well Folks, this is another stereotypic portrayla of Gay life however, the additional downside includes poor acting, horrible script, no budget, terrible sound and let us not forget the impossible storyline.

It is Christmas in New York City and our story immediatly "focuses" on two male individuals, apparently lovers for some time. One of them has not let his parents (the right wing, religious zealot types) know that he is gay (adding to the impluasability of the story 'cause this guy is as efeminant as gay guys come these days) and his parents are coming to viusit him. They will stay in his New York apartment where he and his lover have just decorated for Christmas.

The story continues to develop around the arrival of the parents, who noone will like anyway and - how through only obvious and predictable ways - they come to learn there son is gay. Tears are shed as was my interest in this movie.

The cast of charecters, seemed like an intro acting course at the local community theatre. The lovers in this film are mismatched, and there does not appear to be any cohesion to their union.

The landlord is flat and her attempt to be humanistic in the situation are undercooked and certainly didnt help move the plot any further.

The dragqueen friend who steps to the aid of one of the lovers in his "time of need" is stereotypic and gives a bad name to the unique art of drag.

Although some guys night find one of the lovers to have a nice body (again, stereotypic imagery) it does not help this story.

Stay away from this film, especially if you are considering a purchase. You'll shoot yourself if you do!

Just awful

[Kevin-94 · 4 June 2002]

Don't let the fancy packaging fool you. This is an amateurish home movie masquerading as a film. Don't rent it. This `film' is so bad even Mystery Science Theatre 3000 wouldn't touch it. (The DVD does not include any special features, not even a chapter select.) The film runs barely over an hour.

It's a badly written, badly acted story filmed on digital cameras on a zero budget. The sound is awful, but perhaps that is a blessing, since then you won't have to hear them speak the dialogue. The scenes are awkwardly staged, like a police lineup.

The story apparently concerns a conservative couple who don't realize their son is gay. This is despite the fact that he is very effeminate, lives in the village and has arrived at his late twenties having never had a girlfriend. We haven't seen a father this unaware of his son's homosexuality since `Swamp Castle' Prince Herbert and his dad in Python's `Holy Grail.'

This is the worst film ever to get a video release. You've been warned.

Possibly the worst gay movie I have ever seen.

[davidmaus · 1/10 · 6 March 2002]

The best part of this DVD is the cover. It goes down hill from there. There was no chemistry between the leads, the kisses looked like something I traded with my grandmother.

The sound was so bad that at least I was spared some of the dialoge.

Yuk!

[robbo5656 · 1/10 · 17 January 2003]

his has to surely be one of the worst gay-themed films of all time. Who told any of the so-called actors that they can act. Bad sound - bad script - gestures so overboard that they defy reality. A nightclub scene with only one actor and dubbed crowd scenes.

After seeing other low budget films similarly made I was prepared for something innovative - but not plain pathetic.

Parents and friends really should not encourage anyone to make such tripe.

And the DVD - No menu access; its worse than a VHS tape. Once you start you have to watch the whole thing through - luckily the fast forward button works - with this film and DVD nothing else does.

Is This A Joke?

[NJMoon · 1/10 · 15 December 2005]

This is a joke, right? This can't be a real film? It's not even a real video? Give any Harvey Milk High School kid a video cam and they could make a better movie than this. The film maker's can't be serious... right? Is this satire? Comedy? Drama gone horribly wrong? The script is about as single-minded and dull as is conceivable. Ten monkeys locked in a room with a laptop could come up with a better screenplay. The dialogue isn't clichéd. Clichéd dialogue might elevate this holiday mess to something akin to camp fun - but it doesn't and it isn't. Worst of the worst - a landlady wanders into a dramatic scene in a private apartment dressed a bathrobe carrying a frying pan like something out of a "Honeymooners" episode. Whaaa??? I have seen better acting from middle school drama clubs. One of the leads is an attractive lunk, the other is not. Both can't even manage a convincing kiss. So much for romance. The supporting players are jaw-droppingly over-the-top.

Everything is underscored by a nauseating soundtrack and the sound seems to have been recorded in a back room toilet. Most of the dialogue is (mercifully) unintelligible.

This stale cinematic fruitcake isn't even worthy of being the next ROCKY HORROR or a gay holiday installment of MYSTERY SCIENCE THEATRE 3000. It's just plain bad. In every way. VISIONS OF SUGARPLUMS will not dance in your head - they will trample your every expectation. Have an eggnog and stare at mindlessly at the neighbor's holiday lights - it will be time better spent.

Just plain awful

[tstover · 1/10 · 7 August 2003]

The horrific production doesn't qualify as a "film." It was obviously shot on video tape, and very poorly at that! There is a constant screaching sound for the audio(sounds like a bad microphone), which is so annoying that you sometimes cannot understand what the characters are saying. Badly dubbed-in music will suddenly appear in a scene, and the entire editing of this thing rates about a ZERO!

The plot is contrived and ridiculous. A late 20's gay man trying to hide his live-in lover from parents visiting? PLEASE! And the reaction the mother has when she finds a picture of her son kissing his boyfrioend is beyond melodramatic and rolls right into stupid. Talk about a stereotypical view of gay life! The acting is worse than a porno movie, and the direction is very poor!

As far as "production" goes, there isn't any!

This title is simply a lame videotaped attempt to call itself a "Film." There is no heart and soul to give it even the smallest bit of praise.

It's just a stupid waste of time, so avoid it at all costs! BAD ACTING! BAD WRITING! BAD DIRECTING , and the title of "producer" is vanity as this trash probably costed them the price of the videotape they shot it on.

This ametuer garbage has no business getting released onto a dvd as it's deceptive to the cunsomer. I cannot stress how horrible this "SUGARPLUM" crap is!

One Star is Generous

[stangres · 1/10 · 29 December 2017]

I love finding cheap cheesie gay films on Netflix and Amazon, but I cannot understand how Visions Of Sugarplums made it that far. Absolutely the worst gay film I have seen. Were they really actors, or just friends??

An Indie Film With Feeling

[uneverknow123 · 8/10 · 2 December 2002]

Yes, it's an independent film, but something worth watching -- especially around the holiday season. It doesn't have the best film quality, the best actors or even the best script, but I can definitely see that this is a cute film with a warm feeling -- something both those in front and behind the camera are trying sincerely to convey. It was obviously made on a shoestring budget, but I must give credit where credit is due. Others reviewing this film have been extremely hard on the production. Making a film is a very difficult, expensive and time consuming task. Kudos to the cast and crew of "Visions of Sugarplums" for giving a great effort!

a dog of a movie

[Philipc385 · 28 March 2002]

This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen, gay theme or otherwise. The story was weak, yet predictable. The camera work was amateurish. The sound was so bad most of it was unintelligible. It was a complete waste of time.

Sometimes a great effort is not enough.

[pv61 · 25 December 2010]

Specially when you cash in with the project. If you make something like this to giveaway as a Christmas souvenir for your friends I wouldn't mind the quality, but if you invest whatever amount and then make a profit, some people will feel cheated. Considering that you made something really poor and you can trick people (see the cover) into buying this for the rest of your life. I am not going to complain about everything other people already has. But the double briefs and the hair of the director/actor couldn't make me focus on his six pack abs. I would go back to the seventies and get NORMAN, IS THAT YOU instead... Sorry!