Redundant and unnecessary.

Excellent but underrated film

Blistering performances.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Not totally awful since there are a few hot guys scattered throughout the film. But a weak script with even weaker acting and very sluggish direction do not make much of a film. Yes, In know it is an indie, but let us stop making excuses for indie films. The film revolves around the Tyler character and his coming out in the bear scene. Everyone in the film is so crazy over this Tyler guy but he just is not all that. Highpoint of he film, if that is what you want to call it, is a hilariously bad scene of Tyler learning how to bowl. The marketing department promotes this film as channeling the Sex in the City series. Not even close. Another subplot has to to with a character who wants to get his stomach stapled. And yet another subplot is about a bear couple trying to decide if they want to "open up their relationship." All in all, the is movie that goes nowhere and is deadly boring along the way. My advice: go rent anything but this film

This movie is a fine example of a project, made for a specific subgroup. Considering how much fun everybody's having and how unbelievably relaxed all the actors are, it could easily be a project among friends. And a well-done one.The story is simple: young Tyler finally comes out of the closet for the second time when he admits he likes bears, and starts exploring the bear scene with all its positive and negative sides. And, of course, falls in love on the way.The movie is full of inside jokes (by not being on the bear scene, I probably missed quite a few), but that's great, considering it was made for that specific group and not so much for the general public. It's a movie for bears and bear lovers to feel better in their own skin (and for open-minded others).My only negative remark would be about the script (the text) - it often tends to be really forced, it doesn't flow and seems unnatural. However, this doesn't go for the role of Brent. According to IMDb, the actor Stephen Guarino is a professional comedian and this is really obvious from the movie. It seems like the writers didn't write the words for him because they assumed he will be much better improvising everything on the spot anyway. He is definitely the most hilarious character in the movie.Conclusion: a really really funny movie. Apparently #2 is coming out this year and I'm hoping it will be at least as funny as the first part.

Cute with the typical amateurish qualities that make gay films of this nature either charming or painful, depending upon your sensibilities. The acting is earnest but decidedly nonprofessional. The only standout is Gregory Gunter, whose character (Michael) is utterly compelling and which Gunter plays with pathos and humor but not self-pity. Gerald McCulloch as Roger is large unwatchable, though it's hard to tell whether it's because his character is such a d***head or because the actor's own ego kept popping through. (If you watch his endless interview after in the DVD highlights, you'll see what I mean.) It's tough to make a film centered around bar culture without making it seem petty, vulgar, soul-crushing, and at least occasionally self-destructive; and it's an open question whether the directors nudged a bit to highlight those aspects or whether they were simply recording cinéma vérité. With all the sweetness that comes through in the struggles of the film's couples (complete with serious and often over-the-top drama), the film's central mystery remains what Tyler (Joe Conti) could possibly see in Roger, a smarmy, shallow, ego-bloated scene queen who not once but half a dozen times snubs Tyler to his face because Tyler isn't bear enough or muscley enough (or something enough) for the superficial, middle-class-white-boys-with-gym-memberships crowd by which Roger judges himself and his actions. Or, to put it another way, you may never understand why Tyler falls for and pursues Roger (to the extent of giving himself a makeover –a move that likely guarantees the doom of any relationship) and you'll certainly find yourself asking whether he has a shred of self-esteem in his body. The fact that Roger isn't what anyone could reasonably call a bear only adds to the confusion. Personally, I'd have gone for a little less Jennifer Anniston-esque comedy and paid a little more attention to the serious and genuinely dramatic (as opposed to simply flamboyant) issues that the film skates over like thin ice before turning safely back to shore: self-esteem issues among big men and the difficulty of cultivating and maintaining a positive body image in a gay "culture" ruled by gym Nazis and diet maniacs; the painful issue that's raised in the Michael-Carlos couple when Michael considers getting lap-band surgery (is he going to wind up so thin that Carlos won't be attracted to him anymore?); the double "coming out" required of non-bears who are attracted to men who are hairy and/or fat and/or older than they are and who face ridicule for their desires; and the uneasy co-existence of working-class bears and their middle- to upper-class counterparts who wear similar drag and occupy the same physical spaces in which "bear culture" is practiced but who, arguably, are essentially antagonists. _Bear City_ seems to intend to be a coup against the slavish cultural propaganda promulgated by so many "gay" indie films, but it's more of a bitch slap than the good hard sock in the jaw that's needed. Still, the film deserves credit for its beau geste and for starting a conversation within a medium that tends to pretend it doesn't understand the question.

I honestly wish I could say that "Bear City" is not your typical indie gay comedy—and indeed some elements of the film differentiate it from most of the other gay indie comedies that seem to sprout up like toadstools these days. But those very elements that distinguish this film—the focus on bear culture, the bashful twink who "comes out" as a bear-lover, and the depiction of love and sex among gay men who do not resemble Abercrombie & Fitch models—are so thoroughly transformed into standardized gay tropes that the movie is ultimately stripped of its originality and settles into a formulaic, plot-less pattern of mildly amusing vignettes with no real focus or story structure. We are ultimately left with vapid platitudes assuring us that bears don't need to conform to queer norms of beauty in order to find love and happiness. And it takes them only 90 minutes to deliver this profound and provocative message (YAWN).