My first impression going in to see "Brokeback Mountain" when that one came out, was; "How boringly common gay love seem to be". And i thought of it being boringly common in a cinematic sense. Only rule broken in that movie was to make it possible for a large audience to have empathy with it characters without hiding the gayness of them. It worked. I salute that. And i still think that was the performance that earned Ledger his Oscar.But Arakki does not stay within content when making his movies great (when they are). His style is widely overlooked by his "controversial" content. Even though the two are matched as should be in good art craft.Let me just give you one example to look for. One scene, in the beginning of the movie, we see the character of Luke, who's been hustling another man, back at that mans place. Suddenly the john's wife or girlfriend appears and the acting style changes to that of badly made porn. But not only the style of acting, also the cutting. The woman and Luke never appear in the same frame and the shots of him reacting to her, could have been taken weeks apart (a common use in porn to make models appear in the same scene, although they were never on set). The woman is acting so badly, that it can only be a parody of the clichés of porn too, since, Arraki surely knows how to get good actors and know how to direct them.Lots of other good stuff could be commented on, but let me just get back to my pronouncing it the best gay LOVE story told on screen; Even thought the character of Luke can be seen as only a projection of Jon's diagnosis as HIV positive (His way of coping with it as Scottie has to invent Madelaine in "Vertigo" facing death).... it still is a love story, sick as it may seem. And a hell of a lot closer to fulfilling what we look for in love stories, than the ones with either happy or weepy ends. This one has both and rings truer.

By chance, this movie caught my attention late-night and I was lucky enough to watch from start to finish. As much of a docudrama as it is a character study from the early gay nineties, some people may find this flick utter crap, or at the very least, sophomoric. To those people, I suggest sticking to "Eight Below" or anything starring Reese Witherspoon.As the viewer, I felt transported back to 1992, having been 25 years old at the time this movie was released with no idea it even existed. The somewhat surrealistic, exploratory journey between the two main characters brings back so many memories from a time where such strange pairings and outrageous actions seemed to occur regularly. Whether you grew up in Dallas, LA, or New York makes no difference; chances are you knew any one of the characters from this film in some aspect.At times overtly philosophical, others completely abstract, the exploration of two peoples' mental struggle with HIV was at least done from an unflinching perspective. This is a case study in human nature, no matter how uncomfortable the subject matter. It also proves that the nature of the beast hasn't changed and that HIV/AIDs still isn't really a priority of the U.S. government...at least, not in any beneficial way to those afflicted. Be sure to stick around for the final message in the film credits and see if you can tell if anything has changed in the last fifteen years.As a special treat, if you've ever been a fan of industrial/electronica from the Wax Trax! label (among others), you'll recognize some great stuff, from Chris and Cosey, Coil, KMFDM, and even Psychic TV.

Let's see: Bad lighting. Ugly cinematography. Barely audible sound. Profanity laced dialogue. Amateurish performances. Protagonists whose bad behavior is supposed to represent TRUTH. Cameos by Paul Bartel and Mary Woronov. Yep, we are in the world of indie filmmaking, where the mere fact that a semi-coherent film even gets completed on a budget of a buck-ninety-two is considered an artistic achievement. THE LIVING END is a cult film and considered something a landmark of gay cinema to boot. Two guys, who are HIV+ positive, act out violently to protest ... well, to protest just about anything and everything immediately available. The "angry young gay man" syndrome is in play: We're here, we're queer, we're going to be annoying. It was pretty radical stuff for the time; pre-Ellen, pre-Will-&-Grace, pre-Queer Eye. Now, in the era of legalized gay marriage, this seems rather quaintly naive: more Hope and Crosby than Butch and Sundance, let alone Thelma and Louise. The problem is that, divorced from its historical context, THE LIVING END is just painfully mediocre at best and just plain bad much of the time. Even overlooking the fifth rate production values, you still have a contrived story, badly written, poorly directed and awkwardly acted. The tale involves Jon, who, on the day he learns he is HIV+, encounters Luke, a leather-jacketed stud on the run from freshly killing a trio of gay bashers. Jon is a nerd (he writes film reviews); Luke is a thug (he apparently has also killed a cop); and they head out on the road to who-knows-where. Luke claims he has fallen madly in love with Jon, while Jon seems gaga over Luke apparently because Luke looks hot in a leather jacket (and even hotter minus the jacket). Ultimately their road trip goes nowhere and little is done that couldn't have just as easily been done in Jon's cramped little apartment. Toss in a bothersome side story involving Jon's mother hen (read fag hag) best friend whose sex life goes south as she worries about Jon being AWOL, and the already threadbare narrative is revealed to be even flimsier. But to give it credit, THE LIVING END was something different in its time. It deals with gay rage, AIDS and gives us anti-heroes who are hardly role models, but at least aren't negative stereotypes from the straight point of view. The film is subtitled "An Irresponsible Film by Gregg Araki," and several of the scenes are provocative. Certainly director Araki is not interested in political correctness, particularly in the way he attempts to link sex and violence as a common impulse. Indeed, the film's most powerful moment comes at the end as it ties rape and suicide into one graphic image. The final scenes are jolting, especially considering the banality of the rest of the film. I want to be generous to this film because it is sincere and it is important within the subgenre of gay cinema. But it just isn't very good; there just isn't any nicer way to say it. THE LIVING END is a dead end.

I really love Araki's 'The Doom Generation' and 'Nowhere', but it's taken me some time to finally get around to watching this, his debut. Now seeing those other two first has probably ruined 'The Living End' for me, as I can't help but compare it to them, and it lacks the energy, pop culture saturation and surreal humour that appeals to me so much. 'The Living End' is more realistic and serious, and does what it does quite well for its obvious budget limitations, but I can't say I was all that impressed.Still Araki is a great talent, and went on to better things.Nice to see a cameo by the delicious Mary Woronov though!