movie review

Groundbreaking gay rom com Bros puts successful new spin on classic genre

Luke Macfarlane and Billy Eichner in Bros

Photo by Nicole Revelli/Universal Pictures

Romantic comedies are a genre that don’t get a lot of play in the movie industry these days. Yes, they occasionally still get made, but they mostly exist in the slapdash world of straight-to-streaming movies, with the quality of the films varying wildly. So if a romantic comedy were to succeed as an in-theater experience in modern times, it only makes sense that it offers something completely new.

Bros definitely fits that bill as the first mainstream rom-com released in theaters to feature two gay men as its leads. Bobby Lieber (Billy Eichner) is a perpetually single New Yorker who fills his days as a podcaster and heading up the effort to open the first national LGBTQ+ history museum. His “romantic” life mostly consists of the occasional unsatisfying hook-up via the app Grindr.

Bobby is actually okay with his lack of a dating life until he meets Aaron Shepard (Luke Macfarlane) at a club. The two kinda-sorta hit it off, but Bobby’s standoffishness, Aaron’s social shyness, and their joint commitment problems keep them from going full-bore. Slowly but surely, they break down each other’s boundaries, although they still have to contend with a culture that seems to view monogamy as something to be avoided at all costs.

Directed by Nicholas Stoller and written by Eichner and Stoller, the film is packed full of jokes from the gay perspective, something that has been all-but-absent in mainstream movie history. Unless you happen to be homophobic, the jokes are fantastic from beginning to end, offering up ideas that wouldn’t work coming from a straight character, but are extremely hilarious coming from gay characters.

Billy Eichner in Bros Photo by Nicole Revelli/Universal Pictures

The slyness of much of the humor is what makes it truly stand out. The norm of straight people playing gay people in movies is brought up on multiple occasions, and there’s a great joke in the final minutes of the film that addresses it head on. Movies made by the “Hallheart” channel are a running joke in the film, something that is extra funny since Macfarlane has starred in multiple Hallmark romances as a straight character, including another one coming out this holiday season.

It’s clear that Eichner, the driving force behind the film, has a lot of love for the classic New York rom-coms, as there are multiple references to movies like When Harry Met Sally, You’ve Got Mail, and others. Music and iconic locations from those films are featured throughout, although in ways that gently send them up or give a twist unique to this story.

The most revolutionary aspect of the R-rated film is how unafraid the filmmakers are of showing intimacy and sex between men. Most previous films with gay characters would only allow them a chaste kiss or intimation of sex. Bros treats gay sex as the normal thing it is, with the scenes between Bobby and Aaron (and, yes, sometimes other men) as hot and heavy as any heterosexual coupling you’ve seen before.

Billy Eichner and Luke Macfarlane in Bros Photo by Nicole Revelli/Universal Pictures

Eichner, as anyone who’s watched his Billy on the Street YouTube videos can tell, is a force to be reckoned with comedically. He’s not your typical leading man (something he brings up multiple times in the film), but that’s a big part of what makes him so funny. It’s no accident they cast Macfarlane as Bobby’s romantic interest, as he checks all the boxes in the looks department. His acting skills aren’t always on the level of Eichner, but they don’t hurt the film in any measurable way.

Bros is one of the best romantic comedies – and comedies, period – to come out in a long time. It’s taken much too long for a film like this to be presented to the general public, and now that it’s happened, many more are sure to follow.

---

Bros opens in theaters on September 30.

movies

Movie Review

Andrew Garfield leads peasant rebellion in medieval film The Uprising

Photo by Betina La Plante/Focus Features

Andrew Garfield in The Uprising.

Writer/director Paul Greengrass made his name with a cinéma vérité style of filmmaking that brought immediacy and depth to three Jason Bourne films, United 93, Captain Phillips, and more. In The Uprising, he uses those skills to tell the story of the so-called Peasants’ Revolt in 14th century England.

Greengrass wastes no time starting the main plot as Ploughman (Andrew Garfield) and his fellow villagers object to onerous taxes put on them by the country’s nobility, led by the young King Richard II (Woody Norman), to fund an ongoing war. Ploughman initiates a violent response over the tone-deaf — and unseemly — way the king’s guard go about their business, and the rebellion soon starts to spread across the countryside, with the citizens looking for a degree of autonomy.

The ever-expanding group makes their way toward London to try to make their case to the king himself. Meanwhile, the king’s top advisors, including Archbishop Sudbury (Stephen Dillane) and Treasurer Hales (Tom Hollander), try to usurp power from the inexperienced monarch even as the king’s mother (Katherine Waterston) tries to get him to be more assertive.

The history of the English monarchy is long and lurid, as Shakespeare detailed in multiple plays, including Richard II. Though the events in the film took place almost 650 years ago, it’s easy to see parallels between what the peasants were fighting for and modern-day politics. Greengrass’ storytelling intent is solid, and the righteous anger the citizens feel is initially relatable and palpable.

But the populism theme of the story soon gets bogged down in drudgery and minutiae that is difficult to understand, especially when the details are lost in the thick regional English accents. The leaders of the rebels — including John Ball (Jamie Bell), Wat Tyler (Cosmo Jarvis), and Alyce (Thomasin McKenzie) — are shown doing a lot of planning, but the strong feelings they have about their quest don’t come across well, leaving the audience as passive observers.

When there is action, Greengrass and his team employ a frenetic style that is not great for comprehension. While the gist of what is happening and what side is winning is legible, individual moments go by so quickly so as to be nearly meaningless. Save for Ploughman, any connection that has been made with various characters proves futile, as Greengrass doesn’t seem to have any time for emotion. Scenes that should feel thrilling or heartbreaking instead come off as empty.

Garfield is a two-time Oscar nominee who has done great work across multiple genres. He’s fine in this role, but whether it’s the story, the filmmaking, or something else, he’s not as captivating as usual. The same goes for other strong actors like Bell, McKenzie, Dillane, Hollander, and Waterston, who each seem to be giving their all to their performances but are somehow muted in the process.

Done right, The Uprising could have been a rip-roaring account of people standing up against their oppressors. What Greengrass has made, though, is a film that can’t translate its medieval story for a modern audience and concentrates too much on unexciting elements and too little on thrilling ones.

---

The Uprising is now playing in theaters.

movies film reviews