larapha I came twice to watch this film in a lapse of more than ten years. What motivated to write a review was the recall I had from it, when the character David (Troy Huptash) the painter, curses his best friend Kryla (Lynda Boyd) Faghag. That shocked me, coming from a gay man. And that was one of the few memoirs I had from the film. Seeing it a second time just showed I was right: it has nothing remarkable. In particular, I still have the feeling that Huptash acting has nothing profound – he seemed to read his lines. I would say that Matt (Vincent Corazza) character is deeper. He really shows he's torn between this wife and his new found lover David. Besides, Corazza is a piece of a man, well build developed and a good actor. Overall, it's a film to be watched, perhaps even twice as I did. Another predicate is to say it aged well. The conflicts shown are undying and worth reflection from the viewer.

kmcfadden I guess we are all VERY different-at least when it comes to our opinion of the acting. I think the premise was good, very real (my partner and I were both straight-married when we met), the location is unique, the supporting cast interesting, the acting.... terrible! The main actor's skill may be fine for stage where melodrama is a good thing, here, I couldn't stop wondering who slept with whom to get this part. The wife was a bad actress most of the time, the rest of the cast were fine however. Just way to much drama and too little script development.I don't think we need happy endings and this movie lacked meat, but if you can get over the acting, which I couldn't, it is a fair movie to watch, then to forget.

M_INC_KW What a great line. I had never heard of the stage play, "Poor Superman," but, I wasn't one bit surprised to find at the ending credits that this was a film based on a play, and that the original playwright had penned the screenplay.I haven't read the other comments on here, and really don't have to--but, I am shocked at the user rating. I thought this was a wonderful movie that I picked up out of the "GAY" section of our local video rental chain. I "try" gay films. In essence, I watch for about 20 minutes, and if the acting is horrible and the plot is inconceivable, I generally stop it and move on. I thought this movie was wonderful--plain and simple. The script wasn't far fetched, the situations weren't forced, and even though I tried like hell to predict where it was going, I couldn't. I kept waiting for it to disappoint me, and it didn't. The natural flow of the film is unlike any other "indy gay flick" you've ever seen. I found all the characters believable, with some of the best dialogue I've heard in a while. As a playwright, I was totally engaged, and would recommend it to anyone who asked me for my opinion.

RitchCS This comment contains a huge spoiler which actually is the reason I'm writing it. More times than most when a writer hands his book, screenplay, story, etc. over to a studio where a new screen adaptation is required, plus a new director, the film is usually unrecognizable from the author's original intent. This movie is one of those rare times when a new script and definitely a new director was needed. When a playwright/stage director/moviemaker goes to put his work on screen, he quite often cannot look at the finished product objectively.Listening to Brad Fraser's commentary on the DVD, he explains so many things that he thought the viewer should've known, but in his concept they were never made clear. For example, he tells us that when the husband enters the bus station, that folded piece of paper under his arm is his acceptance letter from a school for cartooning. That would be great if only the viewer had been told that or even a close up of the paper. But in Fraser's mind, we should have figured that out and where the husband was going. Duh... Fraser keeps telling us 'hidden' things to look for. In his mind he filmed it, so why were we so stupid NOT to notice? I realize that Brad Fraser was the god of this film. Everything in it is his own creation and he and only he should have the right to control each and every destiny. Whether Fraser would like to call this a gay movie or not is up to him.To me it's in the vein of a lot of gay movies which are oxymorons."GAY" movie without a happy ending. What's gay about it? Why do gay writers or producers of gay films insist on unhappy endings. Gays are either depicted as stereotype sissy faggots...or dying Camille's.Can't someone, some time, write a serious drama about gays with good acting and let the two heroes ride off into the sunset? The acting in "Leaving Metropolis" is some of the best I've ever seen, especially Vince Corazza and Cherilee Taylor. They play so well together it makes you wonder why a straight masculine husband would leave his wife for a guy who is so fey? Look at the way Troy smokes a cigarette...it's one step above Bette Davis. Brad keeps talking about his low budget of one and a quarter million dollars. Damn! I've seen better movies with half the budget. Sorry Brad, but the movie you THOUGHT you made and the movie that the viewer sees are worlds apart. After all that the husband and artist went through, not to mention us the audience, the least you could do would be to have the heroes wind up together. Great ideas but sloppy executions!