Search - The M.O. of M.I. (The Modus Operandi of Male Intimacy) on DVD

Complex, subtle, pleasing, and satisfying movie

CWC | Long Beach, CA | 04/04/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"Gay movie genre takes a much needed next step in film-making with "The M.O. of M.I." While most gay movies start with the romantic entanglements/intentions of the main characters and build a story around that idea, "M.O." turns this idea around. This movie starts with a first-rate storyline and infuses gay characters into it. The characters' personal motivations and aspirations play "first chair" to their romantic entanglements, past and present. WORD OF WARNING: the less you know about the plot, the more you will enjoy the flick, so I will not outline it in this review. Your opinion of the three main characters will change constantly throughout the movie as the plot unfolds. I cannot think of another movie that "played with me" that way as well as "M.O." The character I thought I liked the most throughout most of the film turns out to be the one I liked the least at the end of the film. The character that surprised and disappointed me the most- who I felt the most dislike for- turned out to be the one I liked the most and had the most empathy for in the finale."M.O." has a great ensemble of actors with a nice chemistry. David Christopher gives a consistent performance as the focused, cold, calculating Jonathon, constantly fixated on his game plans. David Stokey (Michael) play the traditional, conservative, caring, stable partner and gives the audience the most affecting scene when he and his partner, Tom, are "breaking up." The quibbles and dynamics in Tom and Michael's partnership seemed realistic in many ways. My only criticsm would be that Tom (Cory Schneider) is labeled to be the "younger, immature" partner. I immensely enjoyed Mr. Schneider's portrayal; his face lights up the screen when he smiles, which, unfortunately, he does not do enough in the movie. However, Tom doesn't look that much "younger" than Michael or Jonathon to me- or come off as being immature. I came to understand Tom's reactions as his personality and perceptions went through the greatest amount of changes and growth. He was simply defending the decisions and feelings he was coming to terms with. I left the movie's ending thinking Tom's character had an "old soul"- showing more maturity and accepting accountability for his actions more than any of the others. The "young/immature" angle of Tom's character could have been dropped and the movie would not have suffered in the least.Aaron Brown has given his audience an entertaining screenplay and storyline with the palette he created. Also, be sure to watch the movie through the ending credits as you will see some "filler scenes" that will answer some questions as to how some of the events unfolded- and still toy with your feelings and perceptions of the these characters up to the very end! It is a shame that the film did not get bigger distribution, especially on the festival circut. The unfounded, short-sighted criticsm was that a movie should not be seen or made that puts "gays in a bad light." Rubbish! Gay people are not a group of apostles. This decision kept the movie from gaining the larger viewing audience and exposure it deserves for both the quality film it is and kudos to the talented actors and director who brought it to life.The sound quality of the DVD could have been a bit better and a subtitle option would have been nice, but don't let that stop you from seeing this movie! Add it up! Great cast + great plot + great photography= a great movie that will not disappoint. "M.O." definitely has my friends and I in "water cooler" conversations and seems to bring up more questions than answers each time we watch it. This movie deserves the word of mouth to gain the recognition it deserves. I look forward to Mr. Brown's next cinema effort."

Variety Magazine

CWC | 06/02/2004

(3 out of 5 stars)

"By RONNIE SCHEIBA convoluted story of gay sexual intrigue with more twists than a designer
pretzel, this low-budget first-time-out effort by scripter Aaron Brown and
helmer Susan Turley may be a bit too clever for its own good. Like the
Argentinean "9 Queens" or Mamet's "The Heist," "M.O." flaunts its generally
nifty con-within-con-within-con structure, where everyone is ultimately
revealed to be blackmailing, cheating or cheating-on everyone else, and
hopes it will somehow constitute a worldview. The surprise-twist mechanism
works surprisingly well, taking on a life of its own that threatens to
continue ad infinitem (indeed, the rug-pullers persist well into the end
credits), but elements never truly come together. Pic should do well on the
festival and gay circuit, but wider distribution, outside possible cable
play, seems iffy.Uneven thesping results in players registering as different than advertised.
The central couple, a 35-year-old established businessman (David Stokey)
and, we're told, his much younger "husband" (Cory Schneider), look to be
roughly the same age. Thus the sexual cachet of youth constantly referred to
in the script is signally absent from the screen, unless one considers whiny
emotional immaturity a turn-on in itself.On the other hand, the dark spoiler to this idyllic couple, a
poet/drifter/drug dealer (David Christopher), who apparently latches onto
them for his own sinister purposes, has enough sexual charisma for all
three. But nothing is as it seems and who loves who, and who is using whom,
undergoes countless permutations before the final curtain.Originally a three-character stage play, the triangulated action unfolds as
a series of talky, often shrill confrontations intercut with each other and
with a derivative subplot involving dope peddlers and a stolen suitcase. Pic
is so concerned with setting up its smoke-and-mirrors illusions and priming
its set piece traps, that it never quite settles on any point of view or,
more essentially, any focal point, relying on a succession of dazzling
quick-changes to substitute for orchestration."

Don't be fooled!!

W. B. Kidwell | Cincinnati, OH | 04/21/2005

(1 out of 5 stars)

"I bought this movie based on glowing reviews on another web-site and I was terribly disappointed. While the basic story was a good concept, it was executed horribly. There was literally nothing good about this movie. I wanted to turn it off but I kept watching, hoping it would get better. It didn't! Bad acting, bad writing, bad movie. Don't waste your money."

THIS WAS AMAZING

CWC | 05/20/2004

(5 out of 5 stars)

"Okay, I've seen thousands of films at gay and lesbian film festivals. I've watched made for TV movies, and I've eagerly awaited movies like this. When I read some of the other reviews listed here, I can only be struck by the fact that age must play a factor in a person's perspective. Younger guys aren't really gonna get this one...but for an older, mature crowd, this movie is really gonna be a favorite. It doesn't have drag queens. It doesn't have anyone coming to terms with their sexuality. It doesn't have unrequited love, or anyone dying of an incurable disease. It has characters. Real, three dimensional characters. On first watch of this movie, much doesn't make sense. Watch it a second time...and a third time...then the art of what these great film makers were doing really becomes apparent. If you are looking for gyrating bodies on a loud dance floor with a disco ball and a threadbare plot, this movie isn't your thing. But if you are looking for characters whose landscape changes before you, and whose motivations and schemes unfold in a hitchcockian way, then you want to get this film. It exceeded my expectations a thousand fold, and I will be sharing it with all of my friends who are educated enough to "get it". There are so many pieces to this work that come together, and there are so many true elements of gay life woven within the fabric of this movie that some younger gays may not even realize the truths...until they are older. Are they seedy? Undesireable? Ruthless? Genuine? Yep...and thats new! If you pass this by, you are doing yourself a disservice!"