Watch A Four Letter Word For Free

good back-story, and good acting

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

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 ****

The first five minutes of this film had my friend and me squirming in our seats, convinced we were about to see another tired gay comedy with stereotypical characters and an all-too-obvious plot line.But looking back, I think we were purposely, and perhaps masterfully duped by the director to trigger our own stereotypes and preconceived ideas about what it means to be young, gay and living in New York. He flipped the stereotype switch gently, providing everything from drunk boys in bars, to gratuitous and seemingly premature skin shots. It was a useful tool that invited us to confirm the unspoken notions of our gay identities in order to bring about a more genuine deconstruction.The art of the film lies not in the acting, which sometimes stumbles; save of course, for Cory Grant who delivers a consistent and unique authenticity. Instead, the film's soul is truly in the scripted storyline and in the very digestible way we are taken on one character's drunken and stumbling path to the first spark of his own electric and glittery evolution.

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.