Shiner (2004) User Reviews

Odd uneven movie with standout performance and quasi-gay themes

[boinnng · 5/10 · 25 July 2005]

I recently saw SHINER and as interesting and different as it was, I found that it just wasn't very good. The three story lines involve some sort of pain / sex aspect. There is a heterosexual couple, 2 gay bashing buddies, and a washed-up 3rd rate boxer with a timid male admirer.

Made on an obvious low budget, and shot on video, the movie really seems to try to be good, but, like its characters, gets wounded and falls apart as it unspools.

The heterosexual couple are never really developed and they ultimately disappear. Despite they're fleeting attempts at some pain/pleasure play, nothing much happens and they are utterly forgettable.

The gay bashing buddies are more interesting. The leader of the two has their gay victim service him before he beats the guy up. Eventually, the lead basher discovers a rare sexual thrill in getting beat up, and the two "straight" pals become almost gay partners in their bizarre quest for sexual fulfillment through beating each other up (more often than not in the nude). Their victim turns up later on to turn the tables on them...but they reverse the situation and take their warped sex games to a new level. All of this may sound titillating, but it's not. It's rather creepy and shocking (the intent?) but also rather ludicrous and silly at the same time.

The boxer (Tim) and his stalker (Bob) are much more interesting. Bob is a mouse of a man, who lives at home and idolizes Tim, frequently showing up at the gym where he works out--usually when Tim is about to shower. Tim is understandably bothered by Bob's attentions, and this makes for the most compelling of the three story lines in the film. Bob wants Tim, but doesn't know why he wants him or what to do with him. Tim doesn't want anything to do with Bob, yet is drawn to him because he has nothing else. There's friction in Tim about all of this, and their encounters always equal interesting scenes, the best one being one set in a parking lot stairway late at night. It is uncomfortable and drawn out. Tim gets right in Bob's face. An amazing scene that was brought to life by the guy playing Bob (Nicholas T. King) but MOSTLY by a young actor named David Zelina who I found very engaging and the standout performance in the movie. The final scene between Bob and Tim happens in Bob's mother's kitchen late at night when Tim strips himself bare (literally and figuratively) in front of Bob.

The Tim/Bob story line, with the films odd narrative make the writer/director (Christian Calson) someone to watch in the future, despite this movies sort of failed outcome. David Zelina is the actor to watch out for, though. (I've since picked up his movie SASQUATCH HUNTERS, which was actually made in 2002--BEFORE SHINER--even though it was only released this year. Despite a rather stereotypical throw away role, I felt he gave the part a solid-as-possible presence in a not-so-great film). Odd--but interesting...

Hmmmmmm . . .

[gpadillo · 4/10 · 11 May 2005]

What an unfortunate mess is "Shiner." I wanted to like this over-the-top, anti-film aspirant, and in fact found a number of moments with powerful resonance. Sadly, those moments are few and far between. While I appreciate some of what Calson was attempting, any advantage aspired to by bare bones, no budget cinematography was destroyed with some truly atrocious editing that benefited the movie not at all.

While bad acting abounds in low budget (and big budget) cinema, Shiner has some remarkably bad performances that are nearly painful to watch. In particular the "straight" couple Linda and Young Guy. These are the two most poorly written characters offering almost nothing to the story. The acting is so abysmal and neither actor seems capable of resisting smirking or cracking up as they drearily drop their lines with an appalling lack of skill. The choppy editing almost lends the feeling that these roles were entirely gratuitous and dropped in to avoid the films being stereotypically cast as an oddball gay film. It would have been better off as such.

With all that is going wrong for it, there are several performances that seem to capture what Calson was hoping to get. In particular the story centering on Bob and Tim. These are the two most richly drawn characters and offer the most rewards with genuinely captivating performances by Nicholas T. King (Bob) and David Zelinas (Tim). Tim is a boxer with some serious issues. Remarkably low self esteem is disguised by an almost cartoon like arrogance that he wears like armour plating. Obsessed with Tim, the seemingly harmless yet ultimately creepy Bob, stalks the boxer in classic cat-and-mouse fashion. When the tables are turned and hunter becomes the hunted, the resulting in the film's only genuine emotional catharsis. In a film so artificially hard-edged (that's a compliment) one character MUST have that revelatory break through (or breakdown, as the case proves here) and the final confrontation between Bob and Tim provide Zelinas and King opportunity to display some real acting chops.

As played by Scott Stepp and Derris Nile, Tony and Danny seem to be the focus of the movie, and despite some bravado moments of their own (including one truly disturbing scene revealing the sex/violence obsession), but they can't seem to escape a cartoon-like artifice and it's difficult to look at - or beyond their seeming one note symphony and find anything other than the obvious.

Ultimately this same raw material could (and should) be used to tell this story in better fashion. Alas, there really isn't much to recommend this yet, the performances by Messrs. King and Zelinas, really do offer something special and a glimpse of what might have been and are ultimately worth seeing.

Fight Club without any of the nuance or significance

[ApolloBoy109 · 4/10 · 29 August 2006]

I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.

Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.

There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.

The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?"

The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.

Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.

There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.

Fight Club minus irony

[aefenspraec · 25 June 2004]

I saw it at the 2004 SF gay & lesbian film festival and the audience was distinctly unnerved, which was obviously the goal. You follow two lowlife-types vaguely connected with a gym torment various people in their lives for amusement. It is an extended trip through a world where friendship and attraction end in humiliation and violence. Sound unpleasant? It is; but there is an obsessiveness that keeps it from being merely sordid. It's serious and disturbing. It doesn't glamorize violence--quite the opposite. Though there are several moments of bizarre humor, especially a scene where a man and a woman exchange absurd small talk while getting steamed up in bed.

Sincere Attempt

[kasserine · 2/10 · 15 April 2005]

Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.

The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.

The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.

The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.

I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.

He seems to have something to say.

This film is not to be enjoyed.

[gazebo · 1/10 · 30 January 2005]

If you want to watch a film that is oddly shot, oddly lit, weird stories of these men (and one woman) who enjoy beating the crap out of each other, if you want to enjoy a story that goes nowhere of these two guys, one a boxer and the other a gay man, then you should watch this film.

After watching this film, I almost felt as badly bruised up and cut up, like the director (of the film) himself beat the hell out of me.

This is a movie where one is not meant to watch for plot or for great acting, this is a film to gawk at in horror and wonder. A lot like watching an airplane crash or a train wreck.

If you want to watch a great movie, a good movie, a "B" movie, or even a mediocre movie, this movie is not it.

A warning to all who watch this film, please don't eat beforehand. You might want to puke by the end of the film.

A cinematic mess masquerading as erotica

[teeveedub · 1/10 · 12 November 2004]

OK. So it's a low-budget "film" (I used the quotes because it was shot in Hi-8 video). The acting is universally horrid, the makeup is laughable (the blood looks like it came from Sherwin-Williams and I've seen more convincing bruises made from halloween ghoul kits), and the lighting generally looks like they used someone's borrowed Toyota pickup to shine headlights on the actors.

I might be able to forgive these low-budget traits if there were some actual content, if a movie made an attempt to tell a story. But this collection of video footage can boast of no plot, no real characters, and no momentum. It's a self-indulgent mess.

And don't worry -- no spoilers here, 'cause there's absolutely nothing to spoil.

why?

[paulcreeden · 1/10 · 20 July 2008]

I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.

The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.

The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.

Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.

Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.

The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.

Strange, but significant to film and queer cinema nonetheless.

[Media_queer · 7/10 · 20 March 2005]

A friend of mine had rented "Shiner" only because the clerks at his local video store were talking about "how much of a bigot the director is," implying that homophobia was at the root of the film (apparently these folks never watched the special features on the DVD, which totally negates that opinion). My friend took the video home and reported to me his fascination with the film; at the same time, he felt aroused, repulsed, intrigued and frightened during and after the flick. He told me about the premise of the film, and felt somewhat ashamed for finding some of its darker content erotic.

A few weeks later, I picked up the film and had a similar experience. I was confused; in the queer movement were taught so much about power dynamics and organize ourselves to fight violence, but here was a dramatically different take on the subject. What ended my confusion was the interview with writer/director Christian Calson on the DVD. The line of his that grabbed me the most: "I didn't want to make another gay romantic comedy." Things suddenly made sense to me. So many queer, I mean, gay films (ahem) are merely homo-remakes of mainstream romantic comedies. As queers, our message got lost as we sought inclusion in a particular medium. So, in what might be the most post-modern move of a writer/director in film history, Christian Calson sought to queer gay cinema. (Yes, I'm using queer as a verb.) He later supports this argument by talking about a form of "post-gay liberation" in which gay leaders shouted "We're doctors! We're lawyers! We're teachers!" to the point our difference and diversity became invisible. "We're just like you" led to us becoming nothing, in a sense.

While the movie is disturbing at times, it's thoroughly engaging. The audience member feels like a voyeur, peeping into the lives of these three "couples." And through that voyeurism, we come to a closer understanding of the elements of violence and how it relates to queerness. From self-loathing to internalized homophobia, from bitter rage to being just plain f'ed up, "Shiner" takes us through a mini-gamut of how violence affects us all, in ways no PSA or "the More You Know" segment could ever hope to address.

I highly suggest that you pick up the DVD of the film and watch the special features, including the Calson interview and the commentary, which is a noteworthy production in its own right.

That's entertainment!

[JOBrother · 10/10 · 23 November 2004]

I've seen "Shiner" about 8 times, including on the big screen in NYC. I was absolutely thrilled to be presented with a work that did not seek to condescend to merely "entertain" me. I was exposed to a unique world that lived by rules I did not understand & (thank God) the film did not waste time feeding me small, easy-to-swallow narrative that neatly explained what I should be feeling and why I should be feeling it. IF ALL YOU WANT FROM A FILM IS TO ESCAPE YOUR DULL LIFE FOR TWO HOURS, BEST STAY AWAY. If you need a clear-cut hero's journey to take you by the hand and lead you down a much-traveled road with special effects, a good guy & bad guys & funny moments that indicate they are funny by mad-cap gesticulation, you will not "get" this. If you need a film that makes you feel "good", there's plenty of other stuff for you at the video store.

As for me and those of you who appreciate a work where you truly have no idea what will happen next, that stimulates you without seeking to manipulate you with some political agenda, or that dares to exist, true-to-itself without apology & without catering to mainstream tastes (i.e. ART), then you're in luck. "Shiner" falls into this category.

It is proof that in quiet, dark ways, true, artistic cinema, long overshadowed by the business of sure-fire hits & their copycats, exists.

Posers need to shut up!

[travisxlp · 9/10 · 20 September 2007]

I liked this screwed up little movie. This movie is like those movies that you don't get but you kind of want to watch. Female Trouble is the one that comes to mind. It's messed up and the people aren't always good actors and the plot is all over the place but you like it for some reason. I saw the other film by this guy, it's called Flirting with Anthony, and I really liked that one more. Shiner is kind of a movie that you want to watch when you're a little drunk or messed up. It's hard to follow at time because the sound is iffy but I actually thought the picture was great. The commentary is great and I don't know why there's no commentary on Flirting With Anthony. I think the guys on here being really critical are probably themselves bad directors. I was in a film class and these guys would slam all these awesome films and then I checked out some of their dvds and their movies sucked. Those guys would totally talk about how bad the camera-work was or whatnot. Shut up is all I have to say. No one cares what you have to say anyway. I'd say if you're the kind of person who likes to see two guys going at it in white wifebeaters and rough each other up, man are you in for a good movie.

Peepshow for Sex Freaks

[craigwizzer · 10/10 · 20 September 2007]

If you get into guys getting into hitting on each other. If you like seeing chicks beating up guys. If you got a soft spot for bisexual thugs. If you like chicks in granny bras cursing all foul mouthed. If you kind of get off on stalkers stealing underwear. If you want to see a guy shake his jellybeans in a sports shoe. If you sport wood seeing a guy cough up blood. If this doesn't make any sense, then see this movie. Tons of nudity and amazing lines throughout. Perverted stuff like this never gets made anymore. What happened to the 70s, man? Derris Nile and Nicholas King are gods for making this movie. Christian Colson should get recognized in this lifetime for making this movie. A real peepshow for sex freaks like me.

Fantastically Raunchy

[FilmConcept · 10/10 · 20 September 2007]

I don't know what all the fuss is about, either. You'd think this film was a lot more important that it is with all the hating going on here. I thought it was smart and funny in all the wrong ways but that's what I like. There's a moment with an old lady eating cookies and milk and a guy wanking away 10 feet away. The guy wanking is the old lady's son. The old lady comes up on here as some old Hollywood starlet. The film's full of surprises like that. Honestly, I watched half of it and was going to return it to the video store and then I gave it another try and really was charmed by it. There's a lot there if you get past your expectation that it's going to be a gay soap like Latter Day. Give a go even though it looks totally divided on this site.

Rather Erotic and Funny

[torontofilmfriends · 9/10 · 26 September 2007]

I quite enjoyed it. I came by the screener doing some volunteer work for a film festival and then saw it again on amazon. I was curious what all the fuss was about.

I have to say it was quite funny and very erotic in some parts. I can see why there are such strong feelings about the film. The picture is stark and the soundtrack is fine. The dialog script comes as a surprise at times. The film dares to mix a rather morbid story with some childish jokes. The surprise is that it all works nicely.

David Zelina and Nicholas T. King deliver a real punch with their roles. Forgive the pun.

In praise of Seth Harrington

[iheartkm · 9/10 · 3 April 2005]

I saw this film last year and would like to comment on the plot and the acting. Although the subject matter was extensively grim, I enjoyed the depiction of raw emotion, both in terms of the graphic physical and sexual imagery as well as in terms of emotion. As a highly successful director I would especially like to note Seth Harrington (Reg's) performance as exceptional. His performance was raw and powerful as well as profound. Unfortunately, I don't believe Harrington received adequate recognition for his performance. I hope he continues to pursue his interest in the performing arts and film, as I think he shows great potential. Good luck Seth Harrington, I am sure you will eventually obtain the praise you rightly deserve.

So different it hurts

[jm10701 · 7 July 2011]

I liked this movie a lot more than other reviews led me to expect to. I think many of the defects others saw were done intentionally by the director in order to shake the audience out of the complacency we all tend to enter into automatically when we watch a movie.

We have seen so many movies that we cannot help expecting certain conventions of plot, characterization and style; when we do not find those conventions, we think we have seen a bad movie. While Shiner is no great masterpiece, it is far from the garbage many others said it is.

It is disorienting, often disturbing, sometimes disarmingly erotic, and certainly very much unlike any other movie any of us have EVER seen. The acting is consistently strong, surprisingly strong, very much better than the deceptively amateurish production would seem to inspire.

The many unfavorable reviews show that the director has succeeded in one of his goals: to shake up his audience. Some people hate being shaken like that, but I love it.

A rare look at a homosexual male fetish fantasy

[einigmia · 8/10 · 16 July 2018]

The acting and cinematography are nothing I'd write home about and easy barriers, at first. But, the perspective and subject matter were a fun watch once I started to get into it by the end of the first act. I'd recommend giving this a chance for anyone interested in a voyeuristic look at violent sexual play.