The Velocity of Gary (1998) User Reviews

I liked the premise, just wish it had played a little differently.

[triple8 · 6/10 · 15 July 2007]

SPOILERS:

I sure didn't expect so many negative comments on this movie. Although I didn't love it myself, I wouldn't call it the worst movie ever made. I'd actually give it about a 6 which basically means I neither loved it nor hated it. I really liked the premise and I sure felt the poignancy but did not really love how the movie played out in general.

In case someone is reading this who has no idea what it is about and does not mind major spoilers, I will say only that it concerns three individuals in the sex industry, Valentino, Mary Carmen and Gary. Valentino is bi sexual and having a relationship with both characters and they become a sort of little family, particularly when one of the characters becomes very ill(with something that appears to be Aids though the word is never really used). Anyway..this is their story-theirs and a few supporting characters along the way and a dog....Anyway....

First the good. The performances ranged from good to outstanding with Salma Hayak being the scene stealer. Although the main characters are in the sex industry this movie's major focus is not sex, although some of that is certainly present. It is more about how the characters' relate to each other and the interaction between Mary Carmen and Gary is pretty interesting and for people who like to analyze human behavior in movies, there will be a lot to analyze here.

And then there's the poignancy itself. I was very moved by the story. It was very sad and the performers do a very good job in portraying the range of emotions their characters are feeling. I really felt a lot was well done and really don't think this film deserves a below average rating.

Now the negatives. I felt the way the movie played was just to arty in tone. It didn't need to be because the story was there. It took away from the story though. There was a lot from the imagery to the individual scenes themselves that just reeked of an arty experimental quality that was distracting and took away from the movie.

I also felt that there was just to much squabbling between Gary and Mary Carmen and frankly, the movie just wasn't very enjoyable to watch as a whole. The whole subplot with the dog disappearing(and his journey and re appearance) I didn't feel added much. I felt the strength of the film was the human element to the characters, the clear feelings of both love and anger that were so apparent-not much difference from many real life relationships..and the ability of the movie to immerse one in it's plot, even if it isn't much fun to watch overall. But I think I would have liked it more, if it had toned down some of the arty aspects and some of the previous stuff mentioned.

I would neither recommend this movie or not recommend it. I liked the premise and appreciated the movie even if it isn't one of my favorites. My rating's a perfect 6.

To be seen more than twice

[marcosaguado · 6/10 · 17 March 2004]

A writer/director that I admire very much, suggested that I should see Dan Ireland's movies. I first saw "Passionada" and I must confess I didn't get it. I thought that it was half cooked. Then I saw "The Whole Wide World" and I loved it! A true character study drawn with so much love that I felt compelled to see it again almost immediately. Now "The Velocity Of Gary" I saw it three times and on the third viewing I understood what lies beneath. Dan Ireland is a truly intriguing director, daring and unapologetic. Thomas Jane plays the sort of character we've never seen before on the screen. A character that goes through life without any protection, not just physical but emotional. On the third viewing, I wept. Now I'm going to see "Passionada" again. I'm sure I lost something on my first viewing. Dan Ireland, a director to be revisited.

forget the flaws, go for Thomas Jane

[bayoutom · 4/10 · 5 August 1999]

While the film is good-hearted and trying very hard, it ultimately came out flawed and a little too obvious for my taste. However, it's nice to see Hayek get a chance to play a new kind of character -- a character that's seriously hard to like. D'Onofrio is great, as usual.

But Thomas Jane is the real draw here. This guy is fabulous. I'm ashamed I didn't notice him sooner.

A story with subtle poignancy, as charming as its weaknesses

[PiranianRose · 16 May 2007]

What a pleasure it is to discover a little film which presents little pieces of your own life story. This is a film that I imagine many will question what the hell is the point. It feels like an exploratory independent film that doesn't try to be very clever or cool, just an ordinary story with plenty of room for randomness. As it fits in neither the energetic class of cinema characterized by Tarantino and Fellini, nor the understated class a la Hou Hsiao-Hsien and Gus Van Sant, it won't impress the entertainment seekers and may not work for the purists. That said, I personally liked it more than not.

The great Michelangelo Antonioni said that films are not to be understood; they are to be experienced. As a film VELOCITY may not score high, but viewing it was an experience which I will not forget soon. The scenes with the deaf boy in drag were simply poignant and memorable. I'll never forget the priceless look on his face when his wig was pulled away by the rascals. It was a look which captured a thousand unspoken words that few, if any, Hollywood star would be capable of replicating. His pursuit of Gary brings back traces of my own memory. For me, this character was the primary saving grace of the film; his "acting" was superb, so heart-felt that I'm not sure if it's acting or reality--probably a hybrid of both.

In summary, VELOCITY is a film where some fragments are better than the whole package. Whether or not you can enjoy the film probably depends on how much your life experience draws you to the characters.

Can someone explain the title?

[shrine-2 · 3/10 · 1 January 2000]

It's painful to watch competent actors slumming in this movie. You know they are reaching for something "cool" and knowing, when what they ultimately grab at is something infantile and delusional. This is probably the writer James Still's point: that these people need to look death in the face and grow up. But it's such a mundane point.

If death is all around you, if the people you know are dropping like flies, and you figure the remedy is to get along with the people who are left (because they may be gone tomorrow) and have children of your own (so you feel death has not defeated you), why stay among people whose habits issue in death? Why impose the specter of sexual caution and responsibility, when what makes the people in this movie who they are flies in the face of this appeal? I don't think the main characters Valentino, Mary Carmen, and Gary form a bisexual triangle, because they want to lead wary, conventional lives. The thought presented here that bisexuality can be the common ground on which homosexuals and heterosexuals can come together is sly pontificating, and when you consider the way the camera languishes over the liplock Vincent D'Onofrio is made to plant on Thomas Jane, you get the feeling that the heterosexual side is taking a back seat to the flip side of the triangle.

This really seems like Gary's story anyway; Selma Hayek is trying much too hard to garner some respect and dignity for Mary Carmen for it to be hers. Director Dan Ireland should have pulled her in more; it might have done wonders for her big moment, when she lip-syncs to Diana Ross' "Ain't No Mountain High Enough." It's supposed to suggest the strength of her attachment to her lover, but Hayek hasn't been asked to play it deeply. She declaims everything, so what she emotes spreads out too thinly.

It's Thomas Jane's reticence that convinces us of whom the story favors. When his body surrenders to Valentino on the dance floor, or his eyes roll back with Valentino's teeth in his neck, or he broods quietly when Valentino and Mary Carmen are sharing intimacies, the sexual undercurrent he creates pulls you under with great impetus. This must be what Still means by Gary's velocity. At least that is what I figure. But if I happen to be wrong, what in blazes does that pretentious title mean?

Painfully Boring

[vivesi-1 · 1/10 · 19 March 2003]

"The Velocity of Gary' is like our worst visit to the dentist, dragged out for what seems like centuries. The performances are overwrought, characters underdeveloped. The most wrenching and distasteful part is that, on paper, this was probably an interesting story. Hayek is undergoing some visible pain in that subway over socks. Socks? I can't even laugh my way out of this movie because it wants to be taken so seriously. And that is the fatal flaw that no movie can overcome.

Was, perhaps, a good play, but not a good film.

[ctimberl · 2/10 · 25 November 2000]

The film has an interesting beginning and introduces promising characters and a promising theme. Alas, very quickly things start to fall apart. Characters are introduced and dispensed with, having served no real purpose. One character who, unfortunately, is present throughout the film serves mostly to irritate us and the film's other characters. One wonders why anyone would put up with her for an extended period of weeks, months, or years when we don't want to see her for 2 hours. What was the man dressed like an accountant doing in this film? Why was an illness introduced clumsily? I wish I had seen the play so that I could see what went wrong in the translation to film (assuming that the play was good enough to warrant film treatment). I did watch the entire film, but I wish I hadn't. I do think the film should be seen by all college and university film majors as a lesson in what not to do. This one is a real mess.

I kept thinking I didn't like it... I kept checking it out again

[profsportster · 7/10 · 30 March 2008]

What am I to write about this film? Vincent D'Onofrio is one of the most bizarre actors to cross the screen, for my money. He plays a role that garners no sympathy at all, but builds a character to whom I can't help but relate. Thomas Jane and Selma Hayek are the most undeveloped, hard-edged characters in the film and seem hardly correct in the triune that includes the likes of Valentino (Vincent D'Onofrio).

This is a seedy, unwashed film and I kept seeing things I hated in the first, second, and third times I watched it. And for some reason I keep watching it. The mixed sexual interactions are nauseating to me, and the shallow values of the principals presents them as flotsam, barely above hobo status and the sorts of souls to be found in any big city anywhere. But, they still "live," and ultimately force my attention to their pathetic and at once selfish and self destructive lives.

NOOOOOOOOooooooo......

[laxman · 1/10 · 2 July 2000]

The only character that showed any hope of developing into someone cool lasts about a half-hour, Salma Hayek is rarely off-screen for more than a few minutes, but it is STILL the most unwatchable movie ever made. It looks like an American attempt to imitate a bad foreign movie, only its about as successful as an American attempt to re-make Akira or something on that level.

Competitors in a bisexual triangle ultimately find common ground in their need to honor a deceased love.

[robo-12 · 7/10 · 17 May 1999]

This propulsive, raw, ultimately moving film is based on that strongest of artistic constructions: the triangle. Mary Carmen (Hayek) and Gary (Jane) are both in love with the charismatic bisexual Valentino (D'Onofrio), consequently detest each other. Val's energy and spirit, then his fatal illness, binds the unlikely threesome together.

Critics have treated the film unfairly, whining about the lack of explicit character motivation. My advice: don't be afraid to supply a few details; you don't have to know the whole back story. The festival audience I saw it with loved it as I did.

One of the worst films of 1999

[Freedom-7 · 1/10 · 23 July 1999]

The only thing keeping me in the theatre during this movie was the $8 I paid to see it. The plot is completely obscure. The acting is less than tolerable. Vampire/Porno/Love Triangle with AIDS...can't really think of a worse combo. The only good thing about this film was the opening five minutes.

Original story with genuine feeling for its characters

[Boyo-2 · 8/10 · 15 November 1999]

I found the movie to be great at times and despite a couple of awkward scenes, enjoyed it very much. The actors are all terrific, especially Thomas Jane. I also enjoyed the drag queen lip-synching along to Patsy Cline and the Halloween parade scenes. I have thought about this movie fondly ever since seeing it - its not like any other movie I've seen lately so I appreciate it for that, too.

bad

[kaps-2 · 3/10 · 5 April 2000]

I tried watching this movie twice and could not get through it either time. Maybe if I gave it another chance I would enjoy it more, but right now I think it's horrible. So bad, disgusting characters, Ethan was the only thing that drew my attention to the film, too bad he only had a tiny tiny role. Sorry if you actually enjoyed this film.

A Poor Job on a Good Idea

[stand1950 · 29 January 2000]

I found this movie to be utterly unsatisfying because of its excursions away from the story, (which was unfocused to begin with) and the poor editing job. Some of the acting was passable, but I did not believe any of the characters were "real", with the exception of the black drag queens. This was a script that could have gone somewhere and instead lay on the floor like the egg the movie turned out to be.

The terminal velocity of Gary* (*not a good film)

[majikstl · 2/10 · 21 May 2005]

How could a person who is supposedly totally deaf, with any degree of accuracy, lip sync to a record playing on a juke box? Why on earth would a person running a dance school feature a porn star as a guest performer in a recital featuring pre-teen children, especially since he is playing Prince Charming, the character he had played in one of his X-rated movies? Why would a porn film aimed at a straight male audience have a poster that features a huge close up of the male star and not a revealing picture of the leading lady? Why does any of this matter? Well, thinking about such things helps to relieve the monotony of watching THE VELOCITY OF GARY* (*not his real name), a film that manages to be both pointless and pretentious at the same time. Though a more amusing way to past the time would be trying to figure out which of the characters and/or actors is the most annoying. THE VELOCITY OF GARY has the feel of one of those usually awful experimental films from the sixties or seventies where everybody seems to be improvising their dialogue, ranting and raving and generally overacting in hope of stumbling over a plot along the way.

Gary of the title (Thomas Jane) is an inarticulate bumpkin from the Midwest whose new life in New York has reduced him to selling his blood. He meets Valentino (Vincent D'Onofrio), a semi-famous, now apparently retired, bisexual porn actor, who molests him on the street after having known Gary for maybe two minutes. He immediately gets Gary a job on a phone sex line and is rewarded with some deep tongue kissing between the two (which proves to be the only sex that happens in the film, despite a video box that features XXX in great big graphics). Gary has to share Valentino with Mary Carmen (a way-over-the-top Salma Hayek), who is almost pathologically jealous. The three form sort of a REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE love triangle, set against a MIDNIGHT COWBOY aura of faux grittiness defined by suggested sexuality, destructive behavior and the mandatory battle with AIDS.

Just why both Gary and Mary Carmen are so insanely possessive of Valentino remains unclear. But it must have something to do with his skills as a porn star, because otherwise Valentino comes off as an exceedingly shallow, rather stupid, self-absorbed and self-destructive jerk. D'Onofrio, who has made a career of playing oddball, often repulsive, and usually aloof (though usually interesting) characters, brings no charm to Valentino whatsoever. He is not just a loser, he is probably even a bigger loser than Gary or Mary Carmen.

Despite the title, the film never gains any momentum and succeeds in going nowhere fast. Velocity is meaningless if not combined with a direction, something sorely missing here.

Completely terrible

[jseger9000 · 1/10 · 11 September 2010]

Awful movie. Wishes it was art, but is really just poorly done crap. the characters are a bunch of self centered a*holes who aren't as interesting as they think they are. After finishing a copy of Dracula (that he borrowed from the hospital!) Gary is so deeply moved he pulls a Dominique Francon and throws the book out a window. Hey, someone else might have wanted to read that copy of Dracula, Gary! Did you really need to throw it out the window when you were done with it? They act bizarrely and randomly spout philosophical dialog like "Things will never be like they used to be!" or "Be dumb enough to fall in love and smart enough to know better." Vincent D'Onofrio is a characterless shell of a loser with really bad looking braided hair that everyone is inexplicably in love with. Thomas Jane camps it up and alternately leaps like a ballerina (check him out after the taxi crash!) or flies into rages. Selma Hayek is a constant irritant that you just wish somebody would punch. Ethan Hawke comes out the best, probably because he has the least amount of screen time. The only one I had any emotion for was the dog.

A complete and total waste of time that is nowhere near as deep as it thinks it is.

This Could Have Been So Good, But......

[martymartymarty · 4/10 · 27 August 2006]

This movie was for me a bit like riding a carousel -- ups and downs and a dizzying sense of sticking with it a bit too long. So many excellent performances but as it progressed it just felt like a shaken up jigsaw puzzle that didn't have all the pieces in its box. Thomas Jane showed good range, and Vincent D'Onofrio was convincing despite his *hideous* shoulder-length wig (though I assume that was intentional). Thomas and Vincent had excellent chemistry, their make-out scenes were surprisingly passionate -- I saw this in edited form on TV so I don't know what might have been edited out. Salma Hayek was also quite good, though I have not seen enough of her work to know if she was portraying a character that was annoying and histrionic or if that's just how she is on screen... Also, I really wish that the drag queen character in the start of the film had been kept in play for the whole thing (despite the cliché-ridden violent greeting to The Big City his character received). This movie should be shown to film students so they can take a look at a movie that falls apart and theorize just exactly why. Incidentally, some of the most minor characters -- receptionist at the clinic, the angry glazed donut guy, the crossing guard woman -- gave the most interesting performances. *shrug* Alright for watching in the midst of a Night Owl overnight, but not a film to pursue seeing.

Truly awful.

[Briny_Marlin · 1/10 · 26 April 2011]

Filmed in the neighborhood, using real neighbors as supporting cast. The dialog is an endless string of "Things I Wish In Hindsight That I Had Said." The acting is so terrible; not in a good John Waters way, but in a bad, "let's make a movie with my parents' Handi-cam" way. The story is incredibly stupid, but since it is merely a vehicle for "Things I Wish In Hindsight That I Had Said" it hardly mattered. I am not even sure what the story was, but whatever it was, I hated it. I hated the characters. I hated the editing. I hated every disjointed cliché that was shoe-horned into this monstrosity. I am certain I would have hated the ending, too. I often enjoy bad movies, if they are in good faith. This was just painful.

Not Quite the Worst Film Ever Made

[B24 · 2/10 · 3 August 2006]

But it's a close call. There is, of course, no plot to contend with, and very little continuity in the development of character. The most interesting aspect is that character exposition -- as opposed to development -- is established quickly and maintained throughout. In other words, one annoyingly and mind-numbingly two-dimensional character after another. Sketches rather than full figures.

New York City once again becomes more important than any story taking place there. Each new face is no more than a caricature. Each scene repeats the previous one, or extends it ad nauseam. The death of Valentino takes longer on film than it would in real life, or so it seems. Just when the unsuspecting viewer thinks this dull shadow of an object of desire has breathed his last, the film editor cuts to a putative later scene in which Valentino is painted a bit whiter and hooked up to another tube. Surely the longest and least edifying death throes ever, rather like those parodies of final moments conjured up by Hollywood comedians of an earlier age.

But don't take my word for it. Watch this thing from beginning to end if you can bear it, and try to think of something generous to say about it. There's just got to be something -- anything.

very moving film

[JRich · 8/10 · 4 November 1999]

Not a main stream movie by any means. This movie is funny, exciting, sad, and uplifting. See this film for Thomas Jane, Salma Hayek, the funny drag queens and the cool photography. I liked the music too. The film was a little slow in some parts but well worth

No Velocity - No Veracity

[NJMoon · 6 November 1999]

"THE VELOCITY OF GARY" starts out promising and quite cinematic with hunky Thomas Jane as daylight cowboy Gary (not his real name) showering in one of New York's open hydrants. Montage of Gary (n.h.r.n) in every cinematographer's NY tribute from Bowery to Brooklyn, which makes Gary (nhrn) one busy cruiser.

Next up, Gary (nhrn) reluctantly comes to the aid of a young drag queen whose straight off the bus from one of the square states (swinging her suitcase and grinning as if she's just landed in the Greenwich Village of the musical "Wonderful Town" not the real-life scaresville of today) and is promptly set upon by gay bashers. Suffice it to say, the kid learns that interesting people do indeed live on Christopher Street.

Unfortunately, this collection of downtown losers is of far more interest to themselves than us. Under-developed and preening constantly, they speak in bad poetic jargon (the film's stage roots showing terribly) and manage to grate on our nerves in a New York minute. Selma Hayek (real name) and Jane (real name) are both oddly drawn to super-loser bisexual idiot played by Vincent D'Onofrio (who should change his name after helping produce this mess). All need a haircut in the worst way, making their adventure look like a 60's flashback when it's anything but. Everything goes downhill after the first flash forward and never recovers.

"The Velocity of Gary" is lacks both velocity and veracity. You're better off not having known their real names.

This Film Is Fantastic!!!!!

[craze21-ad · 10/10 · 8 October 2005]

This film is one of the best I have seen in a very long time Vincent D'Onofrio is as gorgeous and as a fantastic actor as he is always is as the completely sexy Valantino! He is the true star of the film, Gary is a very complex character and Salma Hayek is on the verge of been obsessed with Valantino. I believe it shows a beautiful love story between three people no matter what gender or sexual orientation. The two best scenes have to be the second kissing scene between Vincent D'Onofrio and Thomas Jane as it looks seriously as two people in love rather than the director trying to force them to be together and the second best scene has to be the Halloween drag singing one that had me in stitches just for the fact that Vincent D'Onofrio is about 2 foot taller than all the extras!!!! I would seriously recommend this film to everyone especially those who already rate Vincent D'Onofrios fantastic talent as an actor

A sweet movie about the up and downs in people's life

[bsch · 18 January 2000]

I just watched the movie. And I can't understand the bad critics, because it is a sweet and interesting movie. The Actors doing a pretty good job. Especially Thomas Jane. He was part of the reason why I rented it in the first place. His performance was stunning.

Lovely, chaotic slice of real life and naive fantasy

[CastleRockCutie · 9/10 · 14 June 2006]

First: To [e-mail]: "Why was an illness introduced so clumsily...?" Why, indeed? I'm sure the gay community asked that same question in the early eighties... Look, this is not a personal attack. It's just a reminder that "Gay Cancer"//GRID//HIV/AIDS did the same thing to the whole downtown scene in real life as it did in the movie. It introduced an ugly, horrific plague into what I call with sheerly complimentary intent, a magical fairyland. Now, fairyland is not without trolls, ogres, and nixies, not even without persistent, incurable poxes; or sores cured by sage, potion-wielding wizards and witches with long, white coats.

But when a plague like the ones that touch humans touches Fairyland, well, that's just about as scary as can be....

Threeway goes No where

[ApolloBoy109 · 3 January 2000]

Why does Gary love the loser Bi porno star with AIDS? Why does loser ex-waitres who is pregnant with the loser Bi porno star with AIDS love him? And why does she put up with Gary? What does the Velocity of Gary mean anyway? A slice of life? Perhaps. More likely you will find this trite film a seedy half-baked poetic play of a threeway without a background, cause or reason for us to care about these characters instead we are force fed fancy playwright words written solely for a pat ending we've seen a million times. And better.