Best movie of this year hands down!

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

A Four Letter Word is not a ground-breaking piece of cinema by any stretch. But for all its failings, there is enough substance to enjoy.The plot leans on the weak side and the main character (Luke) extremely unlikeable. I found myself, at times, feeling very disengaged with his experiences in the film.But pushing past this, there are laughs along the way and some of the minor characters actually steal the limelight.The problem with this film is that it throws together all the major gay clichés, and for this reason it stumbles constantly. The director surely must have had more vision than to peddle worn-out and tired gay stereotypes.Successful gay cinema celebrates diversity and breaks free of the constraints and expectations society imposes on homosexuality.If anything, A Four Letter Word is a major disappointment in this regard. I expected a lot more.It's easy to pick holes in this film but there is enough to keep watching until the end.I have given it a solid 5 for a pass and the power of the support cast saves me from a harsher judgment.

Jesse Archer co-wrote and stars in this low-budget, low-brow gay comedy-drama about a New York City queen who works at a sex shop by day and spends his evenings bed-hopping; a perceptive co-worker informs him that he may just be a sexual obsessive, which leads the kid to a therapy group and a smidgen of self-enlightenment. Director Casper Andreas, who also had a hand in the script, hopes to titillate and shock his target audience with bitchy, outré dialogue and flashes of naked behinds; unfortunately, this isn't anything any filmmaker treading in queer-cinema waters hasn't tried before. The acting is so wooden, with casting choices apparently made on who had the best pecs, that one can only scoff at these smarmy returns. This is just the thing to kill off the gay comedy-drama. It shows no imagination, no sensitivity, no subtext, no sense of satire or self-parody. When a gay couple squabbles and breaks up for the night, it's merely for the most basic and childish reasons. Are all gay New Yorkers this immature and selfish? And if so, who needs to see it? NO STARS from ****

I saw this at the Cleveland International Film Festival this week.Luke is a promiscuous gay male who spends his time cruising bars and working in a sex toy shop. He is surrounded by a small group of friends, whose stories we learn more about as the film progresses. While out one night, Luke stumbles upon Stephen, a "straight acting" (as the characters define the behavior) hottie who makes a few comments about just how Luke fits the gay stereotype so well. This bothers Luke and begins his journey to self discovery, although it's not exactly rocket science.I would recommend this to anyone who enjoys the silly gay comedies. "Another Gay Movie," "Adam and Steve," "Noah's Arc (TV Series)," etc. etc... If you've seen and enjoyed these mentioned movies and shows, I have no doubt you will love "A Four Letter Word." The film is a bit silly and you and your friends may squirm at some of the lines, but there is a heartfelt message and you will walk away from the film feeling pretty good about yourself (although you may feel like hitting the gym right away and puking up that movie theater popcorn after staring at the gorgeous actors for 90 minutes)

This is a vast improvement from the director's first film in that he didn't cast himself in it, since he was not a particularly strong actor or wasn't able, as a director, to entice a good performance with self-direction. The production values are also vastly improved, particularly the sound and picture quality, composition of shots and the overall acting by the cast. Particularly good was Cory Grant as Zeke, who gives what is perhaps the best rounded and most complete performance in the film, and Charlie David as Stephen (with a PH) who appears to make the most with his part as written and sells his line, rather than sleepwalking through the role to 'collect a paycheck' (no matter how small it might have been). The biggest flaws in this movies are the number of sub-plots and threads, including the lengthy marriage drama with the character also carried over from the director's first film, and the performance pieces in the film as well as the alcoholic's anonymous meetings. Otherwise, it acts as a probably decent slice of life representation for SOME gay men in the 20s to early 30s in New York City, but it's neither original nor genuinely engaging. The plots, including the numerous sub-plots, were all fairly predictable and were telegraphed by the first third of the film (from the hooker with the secrets to the friends possibly falling in love, etc.). It's nothing you haven't seen before if you've seen any Rock Hudson/ Doris Day movies, not even the fact that it's about same sex couples, since that horse has been put before the cart far too many times to make this new or fresh.It's probably not a waste of time as a rental but not worth a full price admission at a theater.