not horrible nor great

A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

A Brilliant Conflict

Blistering performances.

I know it's easy to sit behind a computer, in my living room and critique the hard work of a writer, producer, director and a bunch of actors. I know it's not fair to comment as though my opinion is the only one that counts.....but having said that, this film is amazingly, spectacularly, brilliantly bad. Being Australian I have to respond to those who have commented that they "saw potential in" the actor who played Ian and those who suggested his accent was "passable" - clearly you've never heard an Australian accent. I'm not defending the Australian accent, it can be horrendous, but this guy didn't get it right for a single word. I was born here, I know Australian accents....this is nothing like one. Aside from this, the acting was appalling. I know there was no budget, that's great, but the DVD is still being flogged for $25 bucks, so if people still have to pay for it they should expect a certain level of quality. As far as I could tell the storyline was made-up as they filmed, like the actors were slotting-in implausible plot deviations as a dare to see if their fellow actors (and I use the term loosely) could run with it - the case in point was randomly selling a woman to white slavery by trapping her in a cage at a sex club, woeful - movies do not get worse than this. Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, don't. I can not be clearer than this, do not watch this movie.

I went on the IMDb to look up this movie and see if a little bit of web searching could have spared me the waste of 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back... Then I came across the other comment for this movie... "The acting is exceptional"?!?!?! I thought the acting was the WORST part of the movie, next comes the production, this editing is scratchy, the camera-work is lacking and the music is at times weird and randomly inappropriate. But the acting really was exceptional...And the writing, oh where can I start with the writing?! Lets start with the fact that one of the characters is sold to a white slavery by a co-worker for doing her job ring and instead of her being distraught she brags about being approached for a book deal and how she gave her phone number to one of the police who rescued her...Also, two of the random prop characters (Two stereotypical "hood" women) tells one of the main characters that she loved the Dalai Lama in the TV show Falcon Crest... her friend then says "Girl, you so stoopid, that was Lorenzo Lama. Dalai Lama his grandfather." That is the quality of this movie.The whole thing sucked. I just wanted to cry after watching it and I still do...BTW - I am gay, so don't start with the anti-gay movie review comments.

Director Richard LeMay admits on his DVD commentary that he changed his mind halfway through writing 200 American about what story he wanted to tell. But it doesn't take LeMay's commentary for us to realize that this film's major problem is lack of focus. The title alone should indicate that the central figure must be Ian, the Aussie rent boy searching for a way to stay in America without a legit green card. But LeMay instead opens his film from the POV of Conrad, an ad exec on the rebound from his ex, looking to get off with a renter instead of risking the emotional perils of dating. Never mind the fact that Conrad is a hunk that anyone would gladly bed gratis. Doesn't anonymous sex (for free) also imply 'no strings'? One would think so. The ad game must be going pretty well for Conrad, because he eagerly shells out a thousand clams for his hourly Boy from Oz to stay the night. But mid-vid LeMay ditches the inigmatic saga of Conrad and Ian for a more conventional romantic soap opera between Ian and Conrad's white bread co-worker Michael. To compensate, LeMay quickly resurrects Conrad's ex and proceeds with one of the most predictable pairings in queer cinema: Ian and Michael. Add to this lack of dramatic structure the fact that there's something a little lethargic about the whole affair and you've got a ho-hum gay indie.The dialogue tends toward the trite and the editing and cinematography are very hit and miss. The script's single funniest moment (although it tries for many more) involves confusion between the Dalai Lama and Lorenzo Lamas. A fed-up fashion model also provides a much-needed cathartic blast. Oddly, there's an unfortunate subplot about white slavery that should have hit the cutting room floor.LeMay's greatest asset is his cast, all of whom reportedly worked for free. They manage to make even the most illogical of plot points bearable. If it weren't for the quality of the performances, 200 American might well be totally unwatchable. If LeMay had spent some of his 200 on a script doctor, this film might have been something worth owning. As it is, it's just a 'renter'.

I just finished the movie and honestly can't begin to say how disappointed I am. The initial pain comes from the horrible music that they used. After that you've got a relatively bad script... after that you've got some minor league talent.I mean-- I could go on listing the horrible aspects of this movie, but I will say that I respect the passion these people had for the project. Passion can't do enough to make the film okay. I think the worst part of this is that reading the info for this movie on Netflix made it sound so interesting. I put this on my list with some decent excitement thinking I was going to get a low budget good indy film and after the first shot of Conrad playing mood to show how lonely he was in front of the TV-- well I knew it was going to end in pain... for me. Please avoid this at all cost. I know saying this might actually make someone else go and rent it (I'm usually one of those people... don't want to be a sheep), but trust me on this one.