It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

Original Love(s) Story To a Tee, first attempt of Matthew Riddlehoover into direction (and writing, editing, staring, etc) has many flaws, but some original attempts. The most original (and economical) is to make his obsession for a kind of man being interpreted by the SAME actor. David (Matthew) rolls through the film in search of an ideal subject to love, and always chooses the wrong person, usually to his own disappointment and making a mess on his own goals. It's a concise film, where you has to be very attentive not to confound the characters. But the message is clear. We keep searching for the charming prince at the wrong persons. That's the most valuable thing in the film, which shows that Matthew has something to bring to the cinema. With a very limited budget he can tell an original story, asking us to think, if we want, about out obsessions. The plot in itself I very simple, but revealing of what most attract us in people. It's worthwhile an attentive look.

"To a Tee"Keep Your Eyes on Matt RiddlehooverAmos LassenLast night I was privileged to watch two movies by a new and young moviemaker, Matt Riddlehoover—"To a Tee" and "Bookends". I had actually already seen on Riddlehoover film without realizing it was the same guy. In Watch out", he plays the lead, a man so in love with himself that he is victim to himself. Now I have seen two films that Riddlehoover stars in, directs and writes and I predict that he is a force to be reckoned with in gay cinema. "To a Tee" is a seriously comic film about a gay playwright who finds himself constantly attracted to the wrong kind of guys. He manages to gain the attention of a newspaper reporter (Lindsay Hancock, a quite beautiful and talented young actress) and she favors his work. He feels that he is on his way to fame but then he meets her boyfriend (Jonas Brandon) and things happen as we watch both relationships sink and fail. Riddlehoover opens the film with a monologue that shows his self-absorption and we see right away that there is something not quite right with him; he has a tragic flaw (interestingly enough he also plays the understudy of Hamlet, the character with the greatest flaw of all). The film has some interesting aspects. All of the men that Riddlehoover meets and falls for are played by Brandon and this is as if to say that the playwright is doomed relationship wise. It took me a bit to get into the film but after listening to the monologue, I thought to myself that this film will be something special. It is not our usual movie fare and it certainly made me think about some of the people I have been involved in. When the film was over, I really felt like I needed a drink as I seemed to have used my gamut of emotions while watching it. It is realistic for sure and by watching it you get to get a new look at rising talent. This is one that you do not want to miss.

(( I started this Comment after only one viewing of the film----but realized that was hardly fair where a negative rating is concerned. So, a couple of nights later I sat in front of the screen, again. Unfortunately, opinions were not changed, with another less than positive note added. ))As lightweight and insubstantial a work as the simple, hand drawn dessert shown on film's title page and DVD cover. Again, a short-ish film----with over one-half its running time devoted to main character's (Riddlehoover) interaction with various fag-hags (a term the filmmaker uses) (I reached the point of fast-forwarding through all that blather, which was spoken on R's. part in a sometimes "monotony," sometimes "singsong-ish" manner). For those seeking M/M romantic action, don't expect to see much beyond some quick (and tame) kisses and hugs. Oh, and make sure you don't show any nipple (although Riddlehoover does like to run around in his "tighty-grayies).So-so production values are nothing to write home about----but I've certainly seen worse. Many long / static scenes (such as two characters lying in bed, yacking and yacking to no great end) which, presumably, makes for a cheaper production (there's one shot of a couple in the far distance, walking away from the camera; they move even farther as we hear them talking; my guess: zoom lenses are expensive). Instead of churning out all these "quickies," how about concentrating on just one that's well done (e.g., "Shelter").Riddlehoover "could" (subjective) be more exciting looking if he'd put on a little toned weight. Oh, and there's (subjective) something just a little prissy at times going on there. Overall performance-wise, I'd give it to Jonas Brandon----though there's not a world of depth there.Really not worth the money you'd spend on it........I'll be tossing it in the trash rather than take up shelf or storage case space.PS--For better or worse, I had also ordered Riddlehoover's later work, "Bookends," when buying this film on DVD. So, I've got that second one still to view. My only hope is that there is way less time devoted to "girlfriend" interaction (is that really what these gay writer/directors think we really want?!).****