michaeldasilvapearce This is a very disappointing film but it is difficult to pinpoint exactly why. I viewed this film in 2015 in the UK where we have enjoyed Civil Partnerships for 10 years and equal marriage has just recently been made law so I am willing to concede that my perspective might be a bit skewed. However, for me, the issues raised in Role/Play suddenly seemed very out of touch. I am not even sure if an actor's sex tape would make the news nowadays. That said, I know aspects of American life can be conservative in their outlook so perhaps the themes here still have some relevance.I think the film tries to say too much in one forum. There are simply too may themes jostling for dominance set alongside the notion of true love always wins through. It is very predictable and there is no depth to any of the ideas presented. For me, the acting was generally poor – more akin to that in a gay porn movie – but equally the script did not give the actors the opportunity to really develop their characters.Overall, for me, this was a very lightweight film that was out of touch of what it means to be gay in the 21st Century.

Franco-LA As others point out, this is a movie that has was too much dialogue (the comparison to My Dinner With Andre with Speedos is apt) - and the director is definitely in love with his words; unfortunately, it's an excessively narcissistic obsession that no one else will be able to share, much less enjoy.What passes for wit is that even though the soap opera actor lead is 12 years older than the gay activist role, the mid-30s man living in West Hollywood and active in the gay community would not know some random pop culture references such as Dynasty and Dallas (for which the other actor would have been a teenager during their height).As with a number of recent low budget films aimed in this market, there is a minimum of technical proficiency in some respects, but given that this level is hit by so many others films, it needs to do MORE than merely be lit or in focus - the camera work should have some vigor and move a story, capture nuances in performances, etc. Likewise, a script should not just plod from Point A to Point B, as the trope states, you could put a thousand monkeys in a room with typewriters and they might turn out Hamlet; in this case, apparently, one writer-director couldn't do much than turn out a vanity project of sorts.

scootmandutoo I have seen lower budget films than "Role/Play." I have seen worse scripts and worse acting. However, when it comes to superficiality and pretentiousness, this film hits a whole new level.I caught Steve Callahan before, including his roles in "East Side Story" and "Pornography," but in "Role/Play" he was virtually unwatchable. His speech was stilted and artificial and everything felt like it was being read for film class. Not a thing out of his mouth came off as believable. His partner, Matthew Montgomery was stronger as an actor, though I often felt bad for what he had to spout in this film.I will say that it was nice to see David Pevsner in this (though I am sure he regrets one certain scene this film-maker idiotically had him do). Pevsner deserves better. Anyone who saw him in "When Pigs Fly," off-Broadway, knows this guy has talent to spare.The real awfulness of this movie lies in the exceptionally bad script from director Rob Wilson.This script screams...'I am an insider,' 'I know about gay Hollywood,' 'I will expose glbt politics.' It was written by a person who seems to have spent his whole life locked in the fabulousness of a glbt community that only seems to know Chelsea, Palm Springs, The Pines and Santa Monica Boulevard. All you need to know about this film is the way that the couple that were not 2 pretty party twins were portrayed.Oh sorry, that was supposed to reveal that the main, 'important,' characters learned a little more about love because they realized that 2 partners were able to love each other without both being physically perfect.This film doesn't shut up, it is talky to the point of preaching. Plus, it then throws in occasional butt shots...well, just because they decided to show some nudity. Hey, you need good publicity stills to get somebody to watch this.Sorry, but this film's central characters were so self-indulgent, stereotypical and obnoxious that why would anyone care how it ended? It was beyond obvious how it would play out. In fact, my partner and I were joking about it as the story neared its end, and we hooted with laughter when it played out as predictably as it promised to.They don't get much shallower than this.

cmanni I had the opportunity to see this film on the last night of a Gay Film Festival, and I am sure that having seen 10+ films before this one has influenced some of my opinions of what audiences can expect in a 'good gay film' these days.Positive things about the film: The film's storyline is rather predictable, and it doesn't try to drop any plot bombshells, (this is NOT The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo!) allowing the viewer to focus on the characters and the dialog instead of plot points. Think of My Dinner with Andre around a pool with and without speedos. The Director was obviously comfortable in this genre, along with the actors. On the Less Positive side: this comfort seemed to mean that neither the director or the actors felt the need to push for strong performances. With the exception of the David Pevsner as Alex the Innkeeper, the performances seemed phoned in, and as predictable as the plot. In several scenes, I thought they were doing a sendup of a soap opera scene as an inside joke for the lead character, an ex-soap star, because of the staid dialog, blocking and camera shots. Areas for improvement: Following up on my previous comment --- Move the darned camera! For 20 years Law & Order found a way to float the camera and bring some visual energy to a dialog-heavy scene, and audiences have come to like/want that. I can only remember 10 shots in this film that had any significant movement in them. The rest were all locked off shots. There are options between locked-off sticks shots and swish pans.The score was well done, and not overpowering overall, except in areas where it was too loud for the dialog. Some test screenings should even out these areas. Additional screenings will also help the editor learn where he needs to allow for laugh time, so dialog isn't missed by the audience, and where to tighten up the dialog when the laughs don't come.There were no technical notes given, but assuming it was shot with a Red, the DP did a credible job, especially given that he had 8 days to shoot everything. I wish he had taken more time to establish mood rather than just softly lighting the scenes. There was very little texture in the lighting. And I really wish he had taken time to collaborate with the MakeUp artist and the color correction guys in post - because the actors ALL looked like cadavers! Too much pale makeup, not enough color, not enough filtering! Both leads (and Mr Pevsner) had nice bodies and nice butts. A few tan lines would have lent some warmth and personality to them. Likewise, facial wrinkles can create character, but I shouldn't be able to count them to get through a boring scene. Hi-def quality in the wrong hands can be a dangerous weapon.My bottom line is that this was a good effort film, with some very funny lines stuck in among some really tedious dialog. It could have been 15 minutes shorter, and have moved faster throughout. I wanted to see (or at least hear) Jim J Bullock one more time at the end to signal a return to 'the real world'. It's sad to start a subplot like JJB and then not pay it off. (Was it intentional to have him look like he was wearing all the makeup Tami Faye left him?)Finally, I hope that if there is a part 2 in the wings, they find a way to have 12 shoot days instead of 8. Let the DP make it NOT look like a documentary, and let the actor become more natural with the characters and less directed.