Green Plaid Shirt (1996) User Reviews

The movie connects well on a real emotional level.

[bs-26 · 6/10 · 15 November 2004]

As one who did many risky things during the last 25 years of my life, the movie is emotionally very close to my life. As the one who is still HIV- and lived though a time when my friends and acquaintances were dropping like flies, the movie really resonates emotionally with me.With all of the movie's faults, I connected with the the characters and the story on an emotional level.

I stopped counting the dead of AIDS of the people I knew when I exhausted counting with all my fingers and toes many multiple times. Though the chronology of the movie seemed hard to follow, I find that there was a reason for all of the transitions, just not the most usual and rational ones rather what seemed to be emotional ones. The background noise was very distracting. At the beach I could understand it, but it also occurred in the scenes which should have had a quiet background.

A gay-themed film well worth my time.

[fordraff · 10 May 2000]

This is a perfectly satisfying film, the equal of many other gay-themed films that have received national release, though this one did not.

The film's plot covers 1978 through the mid-80s and tells of Philip and Guy's relationship, until Guy's death from AIDS.

Writer-director Richard Natale tries to touch most of the bases of gay life during those years, and that does lead to a certain thinness in character development and some forced plot events. When I write "most of the bases," I mean: open relationships; Guy & Philip breaking up and getting back together; Guy & Philip starting a business, purchasing their first home; physical abuse between gay partners; strained relations btwn gay son and father; Guy's discovery of his AIDS, the discovery by their friends that they, too, have AIDS, various responses to AIDS, including suicide (not usually treated in film); and so on.

Philip met Guy at a garage sale when he bought the green plaid shirt that Guy also wanted. The shirt is worn by Philip and Guy in various scenes of the film, though later disappears, and probably the film could have had a better (i.e., more commercial) title.

The film does have some soap-opera aspects. For instance, Philip decides to open a copy shop. Then he and Guy also purchase a home. We're never told where these guys get the money to launch Philip into business and to buy such an attractive home and decorate it so well. In reality, Guy and Philip would be scratching to make ends meet and pay the rent on an apartment while the copy shop struggled to break even.

The two stars, Gregory Phelan and Kevin Spirtas, are very attractive sexy guys, both gym-toned, studly model types. Even Richard Israel, who plays Jerry, the closest this film comes to the bitchy queen, snapping out comic one-liners, is gym-toned. This may put some viewers off, tho I found it part of the soap-opera aspects of the plot. But, remember, the gym was central to gay life even in the 80s.

One good, very complex scene: Just after Devon, Jerry's friend, commits suicide, Guy, Philip, Jerry and his lover Todd are talking to each other at the kitchen table in Jerry and Devon's house. Todd actually comes on to Philip, running his hand along Philip's thigh under the table, although Jerry and Guy are also at the table, all of them discussing the suicide. I found it a realistic moment, something that spoke to the complexity of sex and death; that the desire for sex at this moment of death and grief shows the strength of the life force.

The film was worth my time. It had good production values and was an earnest attempt to portray the events of gay life during the years when an AIDS diagnosis usually meant one had about 24 months to live.

Really, really, really, really bad.

[ninetyninedegrees · 1/10 · 24 January 2005]

I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.

You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".

Beauty and Meaning visit Stupidland

[curthicks · 2/10 · 4 November 2007]

Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS "orbits" in time around their "perfect day." The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.

The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out "You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, "The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, "What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?" and "You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet."

The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.

The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.

Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey.

typical low budget film

[talon_80 · 2/10 · 11 September 2007]

This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen.

Simple and Tough

[bellhollow · 10/10 · 25 March 2005]

I have known three people with AIDS in my life. One was a guy who was a class ahead of me in Keokuk, Iowa, and became a model. He died in California long before the drugs were developed that could have prolonged his life. Another is my husband's best friend. He says he stopped going to funerals after the first twenty. He got to a point where he just couldn't stand another death. The last is my younger brother, who was in the wasting stages, but was reversed after receiving competent medical care. Maybe someday it will be a memory of people dying with AIDS, like the few people who remember the TB quarantine camps of America, of which my great-uncle lived in for two years before the treatment was found.

This movie works because it is so real and so sad. The ending tore me up, "and then he was gone." Now that I am watching more movies, I really like a simplistic amount of characters and the development of a few lives. This is "a" story about a man who has dealt with AIDS. Everybody has a different story to tell. This is not my story, but a real tear jerker that could have easily been any gay man's story.

This gets four stars only for the hunky guys

[preppy-3 · 4/10 · 4 January 2012]

Philip (Gregory Phelan) and Guy (Kevin Spirtas) are lovers in an open relationship. Philip is monogamous but Guy can't seem to stop having sex with as many guys as possible. Philip doesn't like it but lives with it. Then Guy gets AIDS and this all moves to a predictable conclusion.

Pretty bad. The film is grainy and the sound is frequently inaudible. I can forgive that (this is a VERY low-budget film) but I can't forgive the cardboard characters and woefully predictable plot. Even in 1996 (when I saw it) this was considered old hat and had been done many times before. I saw it at a gay film festival in Boston. There was scattered applause when it ended and people walked out complaining about how it was just another AIDS film. I agree! AIDS WAS (and is) a serious subject but (back in the late 1990s) every gay film seemed to be about that and nothing else. This was just one of many...and not a very good one. Phelan and Spirtas (who is openly gay) are as good as they could be and they're both handsome, hunky guys but that's not enough for a 90 minute film. See "Longtime Companion" if you want to see a good film about AIDS and avoid this one.

Often a nice fit, but a little too frayed

[redoubtable · 16 August 2002]

After a slow start, "Green Plaid Shirt" picks up steam and ultimately becomes one of the better fictional films I've seen about the AIDS epidemic and its impact on the gay community. I found it much more convincing and satisfying than, for instance, the more widely publicized and viewed "Longtime Companion," thanks to greater character development, most particularly the character of Philip; Gregory Phelan really carries the movie, in a fine performance.

That said, I wish the copy I saw had had better sound production values -- too often the dialogue was hard to understand, an unnecessary distraction. And there is a certain New-Age-y, California sloppiness (sorry!) to the narrative that creates needless confusion. The chronology seems screwy, and seldom to good effect. Guy's collapse in the kitchen looks more like an epileptic seizure than anything AIDS-related, and it seems to come well before the breakup and reunion. Guy's father comes to visit when he is sick and in an apartment with Philip; so I guess Guy goes into remission before he and Philip buy the house, break up and get back together, but really, who can tell? All this is unfortunate in view of the film's strengths, especially the acting.

As for the garment of the title, its employment frequently seems a contrivance (more "Yellow Rolls-Royce" than "Red Violin" ... hmm, why is there always a color involved?). But it looks good on everyone who wears it, notably Phelan.

Mixed up, yet touching

[showtrmp · 8/10 · 12 March 2012]

I am still figuring out what to make of this film. It is not a great movie, or a successful one, but there are certain passages I still can't get out of my mind, several days after seeing it.

As several have pointed out, this film begins with a note from first-time director Richard Natale asking indulgence for the challenges facing low-budget, inexperienced filmmakers--and we brace, expecting the worst. The film begins at a yard sale where two gay men try to purchase the titular green plaid shirt--the kind of Meet-Cute setup beloved by 1930s movies. Yet nothing that follows feels phony or sentimental (as a character points out, there's a difference between being sentimental and having sentiment). The scenes detailing the two men's initial encounters feel as if they were written from observation and are naturally and charmingly played by Gregory Phelan and Kevin Spirtas (who has one of those irresistible, hopeful half-smiles that would make you forgive any number of bad decisions, plenty of which are to come.) And the intimate scenes are sensual, yet awkward, in a way they often are in life. (The first is interrupted by a playful argument over choice of background music.) We can believe in their affair, because of the private, slightly icky lover's vocabulary they develop (that irritates their friends, but not us) and the protective way they wrap themselves in each other's arms.

Of course, life intervenes, and the movie gets in trouble. The actors have built up so much good will that we don't hate them when their characters make bad decisions and get into horrible messes. But the back-and-forth chronology becomes very difficult to follow, and several plot revelations seem to come from nowhere (like a sudden suicide.) And the badly recorded sound is a definite hindrance. Yet I was held until the poetic, perfect finish, and I resent those who casually dismiss this as "another AIDS film". This movie treats AIDS as a fact, not in the exploitative style of Lifetime TV.

What a splendid love story between two guys!

[guil12 · 29 October 2001]

This film just got better and better for me. The personalities, and by certain, the good looks of the two leads, Gregory Phelan and that Greek God, Kevin Spirtas, were enough for the price of admission. Add to this a great story, terrific acting and excellent direction by Richard Natale, who also scripted the film, and you have a gay movie that not only touches you but teaches you about partners. The honesty of the movie is what got to me. So many scenes that spoke out in a simple and yet moving way reached me. I liked the scenes when the two guys were going through the hardships of living together. Even the daily getting up in the morning, eating each other's breakfast and going to work. The scene when Phelan gets a message on the machine from Spirtas that he's left him for another man was only too real. Phelan just stood there as he listened to the message. What went on with his face told the story. I remember the same feelings when it was done to me. You could see the shock and pain. Bravo, Gregory. And the scene when Spiritas comes back having had a bad relationship with the guy he left for, almost begging for fogiveness. Seems that partner was into abusing him and probably gave him the AIDS he later is diagnosed with. Watching them both go through the agony and touching moments of living one day to another was all too real. They never overplayed this situation. The final scenes were too heartbreaking to watch. Yet you wanted to reach out and say stop, it's okay, things will get better. But they don't. You get so involved with them, you forget the underlying tragedy that is unfolding. That last scene they have together, on the beach, is a testament to that. Thinking all would get better as they walk off into the sunset, the final line just whallops such a punch. I just sobbed my heart out. Thanks, for this film to producers, actors, directors and all. I also meant to say another performance by Richard Israel, looking much like a younger Richard Kind, was well played. On the campy side, yet quite believable, he more or less tells the story of our two lovers. I am purchasing this movie as I must be able to get my hands on it anytime I want. It's that beautiful.

Flawless love story made challenging by poor sound.

[jm10701 · 5 July 2009]

Green Plaid Shirt is a flawlessly conceived and executed gay love story made challenging by poor sound quality. It takes a lot of attention, audio adjustments, and frequent rewinds to understand everything that's said, but it is WELL worth the trouble. People who aren't willing to invest such time and energy will understandably hate this movie, but those who are willing to will be greatly rewarded.

It's probably the most beautifully moving and believable love story I have ever seen anywhere. Besides the sound, everything about this movie—writing, direction, acting, editing, photography—is absolutely perfect and astonishing. The story line is not chronologically linear, but it's perfectly fitted to the development of this particular story and makes it easier to follow than if it WERE chronological.

This is no fairy tale romance. There are failures, betrayals, stupidity, selfishness and much sadness along the way, but that's how life is. Learning to love another person THROUGH troubles like that is the greatest good available to us as human beings, and that is exactly what this movie is about.

Two of the supporting characters (Jerry and Devon) are so self-centered and obnoxious I was relieved any time they were out of the story, but even they are entirely realistic, believable and very well-acted. Everybody else—including Phil's mother, who's on for only a couple of minutes—is simply perfect. Others have rightly commended Gregory Phelan and Kevin Spirtas in the leads; I'll add Jonathan Klein as Todd, one of the most original, appealing, and fascinating characters who ever appeared in any movie.

I have never recommended a movie as highly as I recommend Green Plaid Shirt, to anybody who is willing to invest some of him(or her)self in watching it.

Awful Awful Awful

[jmorrissey · 16 December 2002]

I could barely sit through this awful movie. It was so bad and it makes me wonder why so many gay movies are so hideously awful. Why do they have so many flashbacks? Why do they have to have slow plots with bad artsy directing undertones? I'm sick of bad gay movies where people try way too hard to make it "arty". This was a HUGE waste of time and if I could I would give it a negative 10.