Redwoods (2009) User Reviews

Lighthearted Bridges Remake

[thesar-2 · 5/10 · 23 February 2010]

For the record, I am tired of calling movies I review predictable. I'm beginning to think all the movies I watch are. So, with that in mind, I cleared my mind to watch a "light-hearted" independent gay-themed, romance film called Redwoods. Heck, I had a feeling, five-minutes in, that this would be, yet another (incredibly) low-budget forced gay tearjerker. So, I shut off the "critic" side of my brain and watched the movie with an open mind.

It was cute (as was the lead star, Bradley!) and if you really let yourself go, like I did, you'll fall for this pair of lost souls, Chase (Montgomery) and Everett (Bradley.) And if you loved The Bridges of Madison County, like I did, you're sure to love this. (By the way, it's hard not to compare this to that Clint Eastwood/Meryl Streep classic – it was virtually word-for-word that movie.) Obvious unhappy couple Everett and Miles (Coughenour) begin the movie when Miles takes their autistic son up to Seattle for a week, leaving Everett alone to meet wandering, free-spirit/novelist Chase within minutes. Again, here comes the predictability to their eventual budding romance and Everett questioning on whether he should remain with his unhappy life or take a risk with the drifter.

As I wrote, I turned off my analyzing brain and just allowed myself to watch and enjoy the movie. It was really sweet, it had a lot of soft romantic moments and somewhat good cinematography.

Once the movie was over, I had mixed feelings (so, I guess the critic inside was awakened.) On the one hand it did have the aforementioned good qualities, but on the other hand, a lot of it felt so, well, forced. The secondary characters were pushing so hard – without barely an ounce of true acting, to enforce "good morals" or "feel-good" spots, that I felt I was watching an after-school special, albeit a nicely gay-packaged, after-school special. The "somewhat good cinematography" for the most part looked like it was filmed as an afterthought and inserted/edited in to the feature. Also, the ending was, indeed, out of left-field, though not 100% surprising. And finally, as much as I admire the filmmakers, writer/director and actors taking on a small independent film with a great backdrop, all I could think of was how many much better-made films I could rewatch.

Such as Brokeback Mountain and Big Eden – movies that both contained true romance and real actors playing real (good) supporting roles to further both the story and drama along, and the already mentioned The Bridges of Madison County. Yet, I would still recommend this harmless little picture. Not really as the tearjerker it wants to be, but as a gay themed light entertainment with some good eye-candy. (I am human, after all.)

Low-budget, unsophisticated romance film with heart

[Havan_IronOak · 7/10 · 4 March 2010]

I've seen all four of the movies that this writer/director has written and they are all strangely compelling. So much so that I'll continue to follow his work and hope that he continues to improve.

When I was much younger I would cross a set of taconite dotted railroad tracks on the way to school. Taconite is a rough form of iron ore that contains valuable iron ore but in quantities so small that it was once deemed uneconomical to mine.

Thinking of this writer/director's work reminded me of that ore. There is good stuff here but with the abundance of other, more readily appreciated, options available today, most will fail to see the value in this.

This time around there were a number of adorable characters that had really sweet moments and some wonderful plot points surfaced that had great potential. But there were also a number of flaws that might have been fixed if the writer and director had been two separate people with individual perspectives.

It might be stretching things to call this a "diamond in the rough" but there were definitely brilliant, touching moments in this film. Enough so that I enjoyed it when I wasn't considering the "might have beens."

Personally, I've always been a bit fascinated by the taconite and I'll continue to follow this guy's work. Hopefully as his work becomes more refined, I'll find it even more compelling.

Save the Redwoods

[tony-carson-429-142082 · 6/10 · 22 July 2012]

I watched this movie on my Android phone while waiting on a plane. So, I'll give you it was likely not the most flattering environment. That being said, I have always enjoyed TLA movies and have come to expect a high quality product from them. Redwoods started out looking to be consistent with that expectation. However, not too far into the movie, I realized that this was going to be an exception as this was a gay setting of "The Horse Whisperer" Evidently, TLA has a requirement that includes showing some frontal male nudity (I don't mind), but in this flick, it seemed to be so show "D-word" for the sake of "D-word". Neither of the actors who showed all were that inspiring naked. The love scene between the two main characters was built up nicely and some gratuitous frontal nudity would have been perfect, but alas we weren't so treated.

There were a few scenes that left one wondering "WTF". An example was the father/son moment in the antique store. I can only assume that the scene's cliché dialogue was inspired by the antique store itself. Mercifully, however, the editors did spare us the moments of possible redundancy by cutting into scenes where other characters are being let in on the story. Through most of the movie, we were led to believe that Evrett was caught up in a bad relationship where he and his partner stayed together "for the children". By the end of the movie an amazing and unbelievable transformation seemed to occur.

I realize that these movies are low budget and in this case, the score (which was nice) featured solo piano and synthesized instrumental tracks that sounded like they were taped on a 1980's K-mart Casio keyboard. I think they could have put out money for a bit better quality of instrument, if not a real orchestra.

Lastly, the story (a gay version of "Horse Whisperer") was a nice love story. It was a bit slow, but held my attention and I honestly was interested to see how it all ended up. The ending was sweet and pleasantly unexpected. The only thing I would changed would be to invest in some footage showing the changing of seasons to help the audience understand that years were passing.

All in all, this was a nice movie and worth a watch.

Tony Carson

Good but not great. Far from awful.

[Delius80 · 7/10 · 27 January 2010]

WARNING: This review contains major SPOILERS!! I just finished watching this movie and I have to say overall I liked it. I think Shelter is a better gay/romance movie though. The scenery in Redwoods is very beautiful, and I really really like Brendan Bradley. Matthew Montgomery grew on me as the film went on. My complaints are the following: The music is totally hokey. There were some scenes that were supposed to be kinda light-hearted moments and the music was really cartoonish during these scenes and I found it to be really distracting. There was a lot of times where I thought the character's actions and dialog seemed a bit unnatural. Some of the things that the characters said and did didn't seem realistic to me. Especially the scene where the mother tells the son about her own long ago extra-marital indiscretions. I don't believe that conversation would ever have really happened. I think she should have offered advice to the son and then maybe we could have seen her looking at the man's hidden picture and reading a secret love letter from long ago to show that she understands what the son is going through. After she tells him about the affair he asks, "Do you still think of him?" and I couldn't help but roll my eyes and say back "Obviously she does or she wouldn't be talking about him now years later." Everett and Chase have an argument that seems to come out of nowhere and then they suddenly decide they are so angry and frustrated with each other and the situation that they just have to go lay down right that moment and take a nap. Everett's brother strips completely naked in the middle of a conversation after the family dinner I guess he is some kind of exhibitionist but what importance was it to the story?? And would someone just strip down while talking to their brother like that? It is never explained why Everett returns to Miles after packing his bag and leaving to find Chase. He finds Chase and the viewer is lead to believe they will run off together but the next scene (5 years later) and Everett is still with cold as ice and uptight Miles. (What the hell?) I can only guess he stays for the little boy but have these people never heard of shared custody? There are two scenes of completely gratuitous full frontal male nudity such as the one mentioned above, the other when Miles throws his robe off and then stands naked while he nags Everett about clipping his toenails over the carpet and griping over mold in the shower. The scene does show how uptight and trite Miles is but he didn't need to be naked. I felt the two nude scenes only succeeded in cheapening the film as a whole. I'm no prude, and I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy some nice male eye candy, but it just didn't seem to fit in here. It was kinda random. I was actually disappointed that it was even shown. The writer/director , David Lewis, obviously didn't believe in his own film enough, it was like he felt he had to throw in the nudity to get attention. I know it sounds like I didn't like this movie, but I did. The characters Everett and Chase are both very likable and the actors have good chemistry. I fault the writer/director for any of things I didn't like. I look forward to seeing Brendan Bradley in other films. =)

The Bridges of Madison County gone gay and wrong

[axolos · 2/10 · 12 February 2010]

I am sorry, I was really thinking hard about an other summary for this article, however there is nothing else I can say but that this film is just one of the worst movies I have ever seen...

Maybe it is just the sugar-sweetness of it. The looks the characters exchange, the way they are dressed, combed, the way the camera moves... it just gives me the creeps of surreality! The writing is mediocre and I wanted to stop watching it however kind of hoped it is going to get better during the movie... it did not. It just got more and more honey-romantic... without any substance. I cannot say that the characters were interesting or engaging. Brendan Bradley is just looking really weird with his puppy eyes and holding his elbow - which I suppose should be a character tick of some significance (maybe his insecurity and innocence) but it just makes me wanna shake that man to his senses! I kind of liked the way the writers put loopholes into the screenplay making it not all to laid out for us... oh, that was not intentional... ups... and there were like two or three moments of a light shining through the darkness of these dialogs but other than that - I had my vomit bucket prepared.

One amazing peace: the harmonica! OMG! If you please introduce an element within the writing, make sure there is a significance to it. Also, make your actors practice it, so at least the one character bringing it in, has an attachment to it!

Also, why the supporting cast was even there... no clue. This could have just been even cheaper movie without them. The mother and the B&B owner or even the brother (was he just signed up because he could get naked in front of the camera?). Oh, speaking of sex - I kind of surprisingly liked the undressing scene - it was kind of all what this movie was not - realistic.

I am not saying there only has to be realistic movies but this movie was so off the charts for me I could not give it more than 2 stars out of 10: one for the undressing and the other one for the nature.

If you like gay romance, then this is for you

[mcj600 · 7/10 · 31 May 2013]

I liked this movie, even with its flaws.

I've read the other user reviews, and I agree with those who see the problems of the movie but acknowledge there is something here, something worth watching.

The flaws. There are some unexplained scenes, due to editing I guess. Some scenes seem a bit stilted. The two male nude scenes were gratuitous, seemed like they were just put in there. I didn't understand the relationship between the lead & his (mostly absent) partner, who seemed reconciled towards the end.

But there is something good in the film. There is some sparking chemistry between Bradley and Montgomery - and while their relationship develops fast, there is a real connection.

So, on the whole, if you like gay romance and you are willing to overlook the flaws, it's worth a look.

Insultingly shallow

[tlerner · 1/10 · 25 January 2010]

After seeing this flick and reading the reviews I wonder if we saw the same movie. It is obvious that the director tried to shamelessly fashion this garbage after the masterpiece 'Brokeback Mountain' by using nature as backdrop to the story but has failed miserably. This film is so superficially shallow, loaded with cheap sentimental clichés, and unbelievable holes in the script. It is just another one in a long list of American gay cinema failures. Have any of these directors seen any French gay themed movies like 'It is only a question of love', or 'A love to hide' or any Asian gay movie which has a plausible and well told story? The characters are not well developed (same goes for the plot) and so unbelievable that at no point did I sympathize with them or cared about their fate. The dialog is predictable, boring, and too pedestrian for my taste. The relationships are not fully explained nor do they seem realistic; two gay men have a son in a rural America (and everybody seems fine with it?!), the son stops speaking for some never truly explained reason, the main protagonists' love affair happens (and deepens) within a matter of few days only, their dialog could have been lifted from any cheap hetero romance novels, etc… There is a legitimate reason why these actors have not made into mainstream movies: they have neither charisma nor talent.

Lush production values & sincere sentiment make a great story.

[r0der1ck · 9/10 · 16 August 2009]

This is a well-made and sincere film that avoids pat answers or schmaltzy sentiment in favor of asking interesting questions everyone faces in life - what makes happiness and what is its price - without relying on melodrama or exploitation. The story is very simple and the presentation very low-key with subtle, convincing performances and great chemistry between the leads.

One of the things I realized after seeing it is that the story could very easily be about heterosexuals. It in no way looks to the gay community to provide some unique positive or negative trait. Lots of films make the festival rounds relying on stereotypes to carry them along but this is simply about people and love and I think anyone can connect with the themes it presents. Highly recommended to anyone interested in a touching story regardless of orientation.

Burning "Bridges"

[MuMu2525 · 3/10 · 15 July 2010]

The problem with most gay indie films is that they tend to be low-budget amateur productions. Amateur writing, amateur directing, amateur actors....they often come across as extended student films, but it is sadly the only way that most of these films would ever get made because the big Hollywood studios are still hesitant about "doing gay". Once in a blue moon we'll get a big studio release like Brokeback Mountain, but such films are few and far between.

Redwoods is very much a typical gay indie film in that it comes across as an amateur production made for a margin audience that still doesn't have much product in their niche marketplace to choose from. Perhaps "semi-professional" is a more polite term than "amateur", and given its obvious limitations it is by no means a terrible film, but it isn't a good film either. The script could have stood another rewrite or three (particularly to cut down on the number of times where the characters say each others names in their conversations, which sounds painfully false). The director could have rehearsed his actors more thoroughly (though better casting would have been preferable), and also gotten a bit more coverage from his cinematographer for a wider variety of shots to cut to, not to mention looking over his editor's shoulder and insisting on a few more cuts here and there to avoid the often dreary static effect that ruins many scenes. And I am certainly not a prude, but the full frontal nudity in the film was both out of place and completely unnecessary. Whether this was an attempt to titillate or to try to make the film more of an "arthouse" piece remains a mystery, but it was a desperate move regardless - and it shows. Of course, the writer and the director of this production are one and the same person, and so he must take the biggest share of the blame for the film's failings. As all artists should, hopefully he will learn from his mistakes and go on to make something better.

However, the biggest problem with the film is that, from beginning to end, it is a shameless rip-off of The Bridges of Madison County. Unfortunately, Brendan Bradley is no Meryl Streep, and making the story between two men rather than a man and a woman does not give this film enough of a distinction by itself. Had the film just loosely borrowed from "Bridges" rather than directly copying it, I might have been more forgiving, but a rip-off is a rip-off. In the film's favour, it at least gave the audience some decent photography of the redwood forests of northern California, though sadly this doesn't save the film from mediocrity. Perhaps it is unfair to be so critical of small independent films such as these due to their low budgets and often inexperienced personnel, although 2007's Shelter managed to rise above its humble indie beginnings and became a minor classic due to the sheer talent of its cast and crew. With better care, forethought and finesse from all involved, Redwoods could well have reached similar heights, but unfortunately it just doesn't make the grade.

Maturing of a film genre! Romanic and confrontational.

[n-b-international2010 · 9/10 · 14 April 2014]

This is a brilliant film for its budget limitations. It shows the growing up of this genre of film which focuses on same sex male relationships. But it is just a film, not a "gay film" because it is just about people dealing with life and possibilities and the unexpected. This could be a film with women or man and woman. It is not about coming out or the struggles to come to terms with sexuality and trying to find acceptance. It is just a good story.

I am sorry about one element of the end. Would have preferred if they had found a more constructive and intelligent way to deal with the conflicts of a relationship in trouble and a powerful new love plus the autistic child. Maybe too much in one story but then again it is life. Many things went unexplained and unexplored which would have needed a longer film. But as stated it needed a bigger budget.

However, I hail this film as a big step up. There are none of the usual clichés related to gay life. Bars, booze, drugs, smoking, hysteria, neuroses, prejudice, rejection, hatred, bigotry, drama queens. There is never the question or feeling that these people are anything but "normal" and accepted and supported by everyone. Possibly unrealistic for the present times but a better message.

It gives me hope for the future. I spent my life watching films about men and women, good films, some brilliant films but always a struggle and conflict because of identification models. In this type of film I feel in a world I fully know and am comfortable in. All the characters are kind, supportive and reasonable. Would have loved to have a brother like Shane.

I gave it a 9, maybe high but I think such a film needs support. Not a 10 due to its limitations. It could have been a 10 with a bigger budget and more complete and detailed script. The acting was competent and the emotions believable.

Bad poetry is sincere

[sandover · 2/10 · 26 January 2010]

I wish I could go to Redwoods and engrave on the trees Oscar Wilde's aphorism so that everybody could marvel on the splendor of the insight.

For at least one more thousand years, oh Oscar, stay with us, for I go Wilde with this, this thing, for this is a symptom of our current predicament, not a film:

Suffocating cheap chords of piano and wind mark our downfall to letting cheap soundtracks describe our intimacy; no I do not want any more bad music describe my, or anybody's intimate moments. They make their own f***ing music.

Mediocre writers-cum-directors feeding primly on previous films, not as films, but as hits, and they miserably miss, dragging us with them.

(The actors in their two bed scenes were somehow let to be, and these are the only almost redeeming moments in the film - along with Brendan Bradley's bland expression playing the harmonica towards the close, that achieves something of pathos - , but, oh, so bereft when then one remembers the pap surrounding them.)

No I do not want any badly informed directors turning the unlived life into one more self-indulgence!

(And why is it that Matthew Montgomery is involved with creepily mediocre gay films ("Socket", "Gone but not forgotten")?)

But let's start at the beginning: Dear trees, fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in - did you get the headache spin;

No, cut it to the middle: slow mo so oh slow mo cut with mom and dad pensive so; slow mo and tears aboard this is really worstward ho; scenes with me and my lover so, wait, no, this is mom and dad again, this editing is so -

FIVE YEARS LATER

Now this what can it mean?...Are we to marvel that the protagonist has not aged a day, that the film comes five years after "Brokeback", or that five years from now that we are going to have more of this kind of film?

One starts to get the feeling we need more of the punk sensibility that informed Derek Jarman's films; one yearns for films with spunk.

Story overpowered by Redwoods

[bruno_lambess · 1/10 · 6 March 2010]

Once again I feel somewhat cheated by a story with so much potential - like a baby in saddling clothes this team of actors with the complicity of the director slowly drowned whatever genuine motivation and progression in the story on a number of fronts: dialogue, camera shots, pregnant moments of stillness turned in to thundering lead weights that smothered. There was a belief stated by Montgomery that his partner in the story had immediate chemistry - I would suggest that this was perhaps misplaced - and in fact there was a little but they were such good actors they managed to act it out of every scene. Everyone in the film seemed to be 'straight acting'- even the father and brother...they all seemed to be closeted in their roles - I would suggest that the two brothers had the best chemistry and one of them was miscast - they both would have done a better job as the two lovers. Montgomery is an appalling shallow actor of limited ability - unable to display emotion or sensuality - and when he does it has a sleazy whiff about it. Brendan Bradley has a great camera presence and if given stronger direction would produce great work - sadly the potential he shows is patchy and uneven - further thrown into horrible relief by the other supporting 'actors' - the most notable of all was the son - who I thought might be the best of a bad bunch. All in all I am sad to see the American Gay Film tradition is being flooded by this type of low level production, poor scripting and equally incompetent directing - it denigrates our stories and apes historical cinema graphic archetypes too Closely - whilst our stories have common threads and motivations of 'The others' there is a dire need to ensure that they are performed and directed by skilled technicians who know when they are not up to par and all the main actors making a real effort to fill in the space with real depth of charaterisation that sits around and beyond the words on the paper rather than just 'acting'and sleep walking through their parts. There was a real story here - when did they make the decision not to give it a real voice? It all seemed rather rushed, unrehearsed and worst: cheap - do better next time. When I see another effort by this director I hope I can be bothered to watch.

Cheesy acting and schmaltzy ending

[dan1406 · 3/10 · 3 January 2012]

I'm not Jewish, but I'll use a Yiddish term here. Does anyone know the meaning of "schmaltz"? The definition is "excessive sentimentality, esp. in music or movies", and there was plenty of excessive sentimentality going around in Redwoods.

The story revolves around two gay characters, one being a stuck-in-a-rut type guy (Bradley) whose relationship is going nowhere, and the other being a "lost soul" (Montgomery) trying to find himself. Montgomery's character Chase tries to find the nearest B&B to finish his book and gets lost on the wrong street. He asks for directions from Everett and while giving directions, there is a spark and the two eventually fall in love. This is so wrong, because a) it happens too quickly, and b) Everett is already in a relationship.

While Everett's partner and son are away, Chase and Everett spend a lot of time together and then Everett's partner calls and says he's coming back early. The relationship between Chase and Everett has to end abruptly but they make a point to meet at the same place at the same time, 5 years from now. Unfortnately Chase doesn't make it back (he has a good reason) and then we get the schmaltzy ending.

Redwoods is nice, scenery wise, but is full of cheesy acting and moments where there is too much silence or not enough movement to keep the viewer interested. Parts of it are slow and poorly acted. With a better cast and supporting characters, this could have been a really good gay tear-jerker but it falls short of that due to characters who don't put their heart and soul into their roles.

I've seen lots of gay-themed movies, and this one falls way down the list near the bottom, right above "And Then Came Summer". If you want to get all verklempt, skip this one and watch "Prayers for Bobby", then you'll know what good acting is.

Emotional Exploration

[paulrdietz · 10/10 · 9 February 2010]

This is well written, constructed and delivered. The actors outshine themselves with brilliant performance across the board. Beautiful shot of the wilderness frame the poignant story about to unfold. Brendan Bradley and Matthew Montgomery have chemistry in this film. If I were in Bradley's position I would gladly be swept away by the charming yet haunted Matthew. Being an up and hopefully coming writer it was easy to identify with Montgomery's plight. Simon Burzynski is just the kind of brother you would want to have to go through this with, and the mother was very realistic in her advice and concern. Just flow with the film and **********spoiler***********Have some Klenexx Tissue at had, maybe even two!

As said before I had a strange feeling I had seen this movie before

[bgoodsale · 1/10 · 4 April 2010]

5 minutes into the movie I could not help but notice striking similarities to "Brokeback Mountain". Just replace all the women in the movie with Gay males and you have it. You could drive a bus through the holes in the story. At least in Brokeback Mountain you somewhat understood why he cheated, this made no sense at all. Still I'm in shock someone hasn't been Sued for Plagerism. After watching this movie while my partner napped, I played it in fast forward to show him quickly what he missed, I found this the best way to watch this movie. Even the theme song from the movie has similarities to Brokeback. Gay cinema is so hit and miss, this is definitely a miss. If you are looking for a great gay love story I recommend "Broken Hearts Club". If you are looking for a little bit of action then I would recommend one we just saw called "Shank".

One of the best gay movies ever

[walterhpdx · 8/10 · 26 April 2012]

I watched this when I was flying home on a plane, and was so caught up in it, I couldn't leave my seat. It is indeed one of the greatest gay movies because of the juxtaposition of Everett's dull but stable life in which he's living for his kid, and Chase, who seems to be everything Everett could ever want.

The only reason I'm giving it an 8 of 10 has to do with the almost cliché ending, where Chase has died. I know it's integral to the story because to do otherwise would jeopardize Everett's home and family, but it still bugs me.

I've followed both Matthew Montgomery and Brendan Bradley separately, and have really enjoyed them. They had such chemistry in this movie, that I was really happy they worked together. This movie wouldn't have been the same without either one of them.

Not worth the watch

[danieljmcewen · 2/10 · 18 April 2022]

The acting, the background music that sometimes overpowered the dialogue. I have no idea what was going on with Billy the son/stepson (don't know which he is). I liked Chase and I liked Shane. The rest were just weird. It's like the writer wanted you to think about that the characters should have said but without having anyone say it.

The ending was good and not because it ended. The visit was powerful but that was not about Chase than anything else. He was the kind of guy who could make an impact on those around him. Despite the ending, it was a boring movie DVD I can't recommend anyone take the time to watch it.

Claptrap

[BlindMan-11 · 3/10 · 5 November 2012]

I tried, I really tried to get some feel as to who these people were and why they were doing what they were doing.

1. So they live in rural Oregon and of course everyone there totally thinks that a gay couple with a son is just fine! And where did the father get this son and how does he have custody? 2. Why did the son stop speaking? 3. So he is in an 'unfulfilled' relationship. So he is now a martyr because he really does need to stay for the young boy - whom is not his son? 4. Chase, whom comes to continue writing his book, falls in love yet he is to come across as a reinvented virgin? He has lived this long and now he falls in love in less than one week? And to top it off he will keep a torch burning for 5 years to come back and see him? 5. So the boyfriend comes home and Everett packs his bag and leaves him? So what is with him 'finding' Chase and then what? 6. So now we are to 'believe' that Miles, his boyfriend 'knows' all about the 'romp' week and that there is great feelings for Chase and that Chase is coming back so he is going to take a powder and go with this son to visit his parents. And he is as unemotional as a dead stick, with more feelings for some baked goods? All in all this whole movie reads more like a cheap dime store hetro romance novel for 14 year old girls.

All that was needed was more 'cheezy' dialogue..."He took me in his arms and my life was fulfilled with **sound of waves crashing...(OMG they are in the mountains but I am sure that they could have figured out how to have crashing waves)...

7. Who was the brother and why did he have to do his little naked hot tub scene? That made no sense. And when he asked....'Do you love him?' WHO is he talking about?

Love under the Redwoods... you either love it or hate it... you decide...

[Toadinthehole · 5/10 · 6 April 2010]

Writer and director David Lewis takes us through an extramarital affair under the Redwood trees gay style. Romantic and probably too slushy for most peoples taste we follow the drama through the eyes of the main two protagonists played by Brendan Look-into-My-Eyes Bradley as Everett and the more familiar face of the wiry sexy Mr Mathew Closeshave Montgomery as Chase.

While Chase unlocks Everett's heart we like Everett's family just look on and wonder what he's up to knowing full well he is about to rock his domestic boat which includes his young son. The idea was great.

If you are in the mood for slush mixed with a good idea that doesn't quite get there and are prepared to enjoy polite characters in Lalaland who seem to live on another planet under the Redwoods then this is the film for you. I enjoyed it in part, but won't be moving there.

Woken up out of his unhappy or dull 'marital' slumber by Mr Wannabeewriter Chase, Everett soon becomes as confused as we become and still remain. His confusion miraculously resolves itself, yours will not 100%.

This confusion comes to a head at the end of course and if you haven't seen it and manage to get that far into it you're in for a surprise pleasant or otherwise depending on your take of course, but what I will say is that the ending did come as a surprise to me and it was of course the old Romantic novelist's ploy and a copout surprise surprise.

What I will say to the director is you obviously had a story to tell but please please ease up on the sound track for your next movie. Silence would have been a lot more effective in this film. After all the stillness of the Redwoods has all the sound and music you needed.

Must see gay cinema

[blacknbluish · 10/10 · 27 April 2011]

I have seen a lot of gay movies. Redwoods definitely beats most of them. It is a must see film about two men who fall in love. It is a beautiful love story and when I watched it I simply fell in love with it. All the characters are so convincing! Sometimes you feel that Everett is lost.. but he is lost because of what happens in the end... loved that scene.. Chase (Matthew) - he is so convincing! The chemistry between the men is so instant and the story just grabs u.. so cool!! I've already watched it 3 times and may watch it again soon. Movie is outstanding and writing + cinematography are superb! Only wish, that the ending was happier...

Phew. The Schmaltz.

[BILLYBOY-10 · 2/10 · 19 December 2017]

What happens when you take two unattractive gay men and stick them in the redwoods with plunky music and flowing rivers? Why they fall in lust of course but then they have to part BUT they promise to reunite in one special spot in 5 years. And we all know those promises. Anyway, back to reality. 5 years later the cousin shows up with a box of memories and bad news about lung cancer. Well they had to kill one of them off eventually to make the silly story and laughable script end with more goo. Honestly, this was pure corn.

Why they named it Redwoods

[Hackintosh · 19 December 2012]

The dialogue is wooden, the ligneous plot is all bark and no bite, the sylvan setting only highlights the hopelessly timbered characters, and the beams of a promising story can't penetrate the dead growth that riddles the entire movie. Like the giant Redwood in a copse of trees, it stands out as quite possibly the worst film of its genre, or any genre, I've seen in very long time.

If you do watch it, do so with people who have a sense of humor, and you have to take a shot of your favorite liquor every time there is an unneeded pause in dialogue longer than two seconds or a character says "um."

Surprisingly touching

[jaiofchi · 8/10 · 5 April 2017]

Wow - some of the reviews of this movie are pretty harsh. I agree that it's by no means a masterpiece. The situations that arise in the film are a bit hard to believe and the acting isn't Oscar worthy. BUT - I still liked it. I found the end to be very poignant and worthy of a few tears. I thought about it for a few days afterwards. If you're looking for a cheesy, sappy, nice movie and you're not an armchair critic - give this one a go.

Such out of standard & cheesy"gay" movie

[rizkiseptian · 2/10 · 29 July 2017]

well, actually i had big hope for this movie. but, unfortunately this movie out of my standard of "gay themed movie". as far as i watch this movie was really sucks. I can't even imagine why the director (and the writer) makes this movie being cheaper than should be. So many "minus thing" in this movie. but one thing that make me annoyed is the story. the story was made me felt uncomfortable. perhaps because this movie portrayed about betrayal. and i don't like that story.if you compare this movie with "Brokeback Mountain" i thought that would be BIG MISTAKE. This movie is really out of standard. so i just give 3 out of 10

Beautifil

[bruno_black-09569 · 10/10 · 20 February 2022]

One of the best gay movies I have ever. Had the pleasure to watch. I am glad I stumbled upon it and hadn't read any of the reviews. A must watch. Go in with an open mind. I am more than happy to give it a ten out of ten.