The Fluffer (2001) Poster

(2001)

User Reviews

Review this title
41 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
6/10
Not as bad as I heard
preppy-326 June 2002
A bisexual young man (Michael Cunio) gets a job at a porno company to get close to a porn star (Scott Gurney) that he's in love with. Unfortunately, the star is straight and living with his girlfriend.

This film got some savage reviews in the gay press so I expected the worst. But it was pretty good. It starts off as a mild but very funny comedy and suddenly veers off into depressing drama at the end. It's jarring but it does end up working. Still, the ending was pretty bad and very negative. All in all, it's an OK film with a funny view of the gay porn industry.

The acting is good--especially by Gurney. He absolutely gorgeous with an incredible body...and he can act! He's VERY pleasing to the eyes. Cunio is just OK as the kid. Not bad, not good, just OK. Also Deborah Harry (Blondie) turns in a strong performance as a strip club owner.

One big problem: Despite the subject matter, there is no frontal male nudity!!!! Whose idea was that?
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The ending is a loser!
bellhollow2 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
OK, so I get to see some big time actors in a movie about low budget gay porn and I learn what the word fluffer means. I am so glad I found out about that. Okay, so now we have a straight man doing gay porn and doing his girl friend and I think the new word is called bisexual. Then we have this burned out has been porn actor kill a guy for some more take on stolen property and he walks away into the wonderful ocean scenery to enjoy a life of having lovely senoritas for snacks. I really wasn't ticked off with this film until the end which just absolutely stunk. The one character is ditched and stuck in Mexico to do what, find his worthless gay porn actor again? The worthless gay porn actor is free to the life of robbing Mexican grocery stores? Why even develop the characters for such a loser ending?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Promising beginning, then disappointing
jangu5 December 2001
The story is about some guy who is completely fascinated by this male pornstar and manage to be a crewmember (sort of) on the set at the pornstudio. It sure is an interesting beginning of a plot and made me curious. And the beginning of the movie IS interesting and the story is never predictable (in fact almost too much happens), but after a while I thought that too many things were left unexplained. People did different things and acted in certain ways, but the audience was left in the dark as to what motivated them. There is so little build-up. Let's kill the boss, let's go to Mexico, let's work in pornmovies! And all along I was asking myself `WHY?'. Scott Gurney as `Johnny Rebel' is handsome and looks the part, but he is rather one-note in his performance. Michael Cunio has more to work with, but becomes a rather uninteresting figure because he is too erratic in his behaviour. As Rebels girlfriend, Roxanne Day, is more multi-layered even though you never quite understand what she sees in her man (except a great 'bod, of course). A movie that manages to cram abortion, murder, child molestation and a run for the border into an hour and a half really should be more gripping than this one is. Disappointing!!
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tries "hard", but only makes it so far.
Poseidon-312 October 2002
This film delves into the world of gay pornography in a similar (if inferior) way that "Boogie Nights" dissected straight porn. Cunio is a classic film lover, new to L.A., who inadvertently views a gay porno movie featuring Gurney. Soon, his obsession with Gurney reaches the point where he is willing to get a job in the industry merely to catch a glimpse of him. Eventually, he finds himself closer to him than he ever dreamed possible (hence the title.) Unfortunately, Gurney is ostensibly straight and does these films merely for the money. The film touches on, but doesn't explore fully, the fascinating aspect of this. Why, if Gurney is straight, is he able to (and willing to) be 'fluffed' by a male? Wouldn't a female do this job more efficiently? Why does Gurney allow Cunio to perform fellatio on him, but won't allow him to kiss on the lips? These questions are the ones that could provide more drama, insight and discussion than the rather obvious and tired explorations of drugs, crime and losing grip on popularity. The film might have had more impact if it had focused on the relationship between the two male leads and downplayed the more familiar aspects of the setting. The film has elements that are both clichéd and clever. The thing is that clichés are clichés because they have actually happened so many times that people begin to expect them. The clichés in this film are actualities in nearly every case. It just may not be necessary to dwell on them again (even thought they are ably presented here.) One particularly clever moment occurs when Cunio finally sets a date to go out with Gurney and when the day arrives, 'FRIDAY' flashes on the screen to the sound of an alarm. This was surprising and charming. The performances are excellent all around. Cunio is wonderful. He's gorgeous and affecting and is bound to go places if he can avoid type-casting after this. Gurney is excellent as well and totally 'gets' his character. His girlfriend is played by the striking Day who is a revelation in her portrayal. She excels at nearly every aspect of her character and is able to make the stale 'dancer with a heart of gold' role interesting and sympathetic. A palette of familiar faces rounds out the cast and all performers do well. "Lou Grant" fans should be stunned to see former cast member Walden practically begging to give oral sex to various men, but he does it convincingly. The faux video titles and covers are amusing and accurate (and the DVD presents a gallery of them.) One added note: a dash of frontal nudity may have given this film a bit more ring of truth. It's avoidance of it gives the movie a sometimes coy feel which is completely at odds with the gritty subject matter.
15 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Stuck in the middle with you.....
Boggman5 October 2005
Warning: Spoilers
"The Fluffer" boasts some moments of really good acting and some quality comedic & dramatic scenes throughout it's run. However, as a heterosexual male, this movie also had plenty of moments that left me feeling uncomfortable, and some others that were pretty outlandish.

Not to familiar with movies in this genre, I thought I would give this one a go. It was worth watching, but I really wouldn't want to see it more than once.

Sean is a young inexperienced gay man whose just moved to LA and is struggling to find his place in both his professional and personal life. While renting a gay X-rated film one night, he becomes intoxicated with its leading man Johnny Rebel (Scott Gurney). So he hightails it over to the company that made the film and gets himself a job as a P.A. (production assistant).

This leads him to an encounter with none other than Johnny Rebel- who after some "difficulty" shooting a particular scene, carouses young Sean over to him and asks him for a little "help". Hence, Sean becomes a sort of personal "fluffer" for Johnny when he has this difficult moments from there on....

"Fluffing" is a term that refers to someone who coaxes and erection out of a male porn actor when they are having trouble.

So Sean becomes obsessed with Johnny- a guy who has plenty of demons of his own. Johnny is a straight, egotistical, arrogant crystal meth user who lives with his stripper girlfriend Julie (Roxanne Day).

Things began to really spiral out of control when Julie gets pregnant, wants to have the baby, and Johnny starts to decline in his status as a top porn star.

Some scenes in "The Fluffer" work very nicely. The scenes with Johnny and Julia, as well as most with Johnny and Sean are very well acted and play out nicely. Johnny is a tortured soul- and you can easily feel his despair. All three of the actors did a great job with their characters.

The movie takes a real downturn towards the end- with Johnny and Sean hightailing it down to Mexico for reasons you'll have to watch to find out. Johnny's decent downhill plays out too quick, and overall is pretty far fetched. There's also a small subplot with Sean trying to date some other guy that really wasn't needed in the movie.

Overall, this reviewer felt the stronger half of the film was it's first half. And although the subject matter and some scenes were a little too much for me personally, the performances in "The Fluffer" helped to make the movie watchable and believable for the most part.

I wouldn't want to see it again- but would say the "The Fluffer" is an average film with some above average acting.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Synthetic "Boogie Nights" wannabe -- stripped of strong story-line and, ultimately, characters.
gbrumburgh-18 October 2002
Considering the good reviews this movie received, I expected quite a bit more. A young, just-off-the-bus L.A. neophyte with "camera experience" tosses a coin to see which direction his career will go -- legit or porn. Expecting to rent "Citizen Kane" one night at the video store, he accidentally winds up with a man-on-man movie entitled "Citizen Cum" and ends up drooling obsessively over its top blue star, Johnny Rebel. Before you know it Sean, our obsessive young protagonist, says the heck with mainstream and is scouting out the Men of Janus Studio (where Johnny Rebel is an exclusive client) praying for "behind"-the-scenes work, or anything else, so he can worship his newest wet dream up close. And so it goes...

What begins promisingly as a mild spoof on the porn business goes off the deep end and into so many tangents that "The Fluffer" more-or-less limps along until the final reel, with no one tangent garnering much interest. As played by Michael Cunio, the role of Sean is a meek, wimpy, sad-sack little patsy who you know is going to pay dearly for his impulsive and unrealistic choices. It's hard to sympathesize (though I certainly can relate) with a man-child who doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of finding true love with a straight, completely self-serving "gay-for-pay" hunk. Had he settled for living out the fantasy of the title role, he could have packed it up, called it a day, and carved a big notch on his bedpost. But then we wouldn't have had much of a story, would we? Suffice it to say, Cunio doesn't have the requisite charm or charisma to shoulder the weight the film begins to take on.

Now Scott Gurney is another story. An incredible speciman to watch and watch again, Gurney is the appetizer, main course and dessert of this movie meal. The embodiment of every superficial male fantasy in his various outfits, he alone is worth the price of admission. My favorite is his Indian gear which fronts the movie title "Poke-a-Hot-Ass." He's absolutely hot. He knows it. We know it. And he plays it as such. Gurney's laconic, superficial Johnny has a laidback, mesmerizing charm and streetwise surliness that keeps us from drifting too far off. He IS the movie.

Roxanne Day as "Babylon" the stripper-girlfriend of Johnny gets the most dramatic mileage out of the movie, having a number of taut, tense scenes. But the rest of the characters are cardboard in presentation. A few familiar names add little value to the movie. Comedian Taylor Negron, singer Deborah Harry, and character actors Tim Bagley, Richard Riehle and Robert Walden are completely wasted in tacky, thankless roles.

The movie strives to be a gay version of "Boogie Nights" but is undone by indifferent, poorly motivated characters and an uninventive, often turgid script. It has neither the grit nor the daring. Mark Wahlberg's Dirk Diggler may not have quite the initial impact or animal magnetism of Gurney's Johnny Rebel, but it's a much more fleshed-out, tormented character, in pants and out, with lots of colors and shadings. Though both are afforded the familiar dramatic seductions of succumbing to the hand-in-hand pressures of porn fame and heavy drugs, the ego-driven complications of Dirk Diggler are infinitely more fascinating. Walden has the Burt Reynolds overseer role. But, again, it's predictable, flat and, though it's written to shock, comes off embarrassing.

As the title indicates, "The Fluffer" is a movie tease for gay men that shoots for more than it should. But Johnny Rebel WILL definitely keep your interest. And if Scott's legit career ever comes up a cropper...well, let's just say his BVDs could still sell DVDs.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Nice Idea But...
Filmmaker3321 November 2001
This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious "dash" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A tough job, but someone's gotta do it!
jasonshaw-331-94670731 March 2012
The Fluffer is a rather strange and provocative introduction to the world of obsession and love in the adult entertainment industry with some painful twists along the way. It all starts when a young wide-eyed innocent film student, Sean McGinnis, played by the handsome Michael Cunio, moves to Los Angeles to try and break into the movies, like so many before him. It is not as easy as it looks in the films he rents whilst trying to get that big break. One of the movies he rents from a local video store is the classic Citizen Kane, however hapless individuals at the video rental place have somehow mixed it up with hot adult flick 'Citizen Cum'. It is this accidental mix up of tapes that gives birth to a lengthy and powerful obsession Sean develops for the porn-star star of Citizen Cum, Johnny Rebel, played perfectly by Scott Gurney.

Sean finds work on the sets of gay pornography films, first doing odd jobs, then filming and takes on the mysterious and yet sometimes highly sought after position of 'fluffer'. Now for the uninitiated the 'fluffer' is the person responsible for assisting with the performer's ability to perform, making soft things hard, in the days before Viagra! Scott has to get hands on with porn-star Johnny Rebel and is instantly smitten with the hunk star that despite doing the deed in dozens of gay porn films is in fact straight and only gay for pay. Johnny lives with abrasive stripper girlfriend and seems to have pretty much everything. As Sean gets to know more about Johnny, whose real name outside the industry of gay porn is Mikey, he becomes more and more obsessed with the increasingly self-absorbed and utterly narcissistic star.

The Fluffer is an interesting film, which has surprisingly little nudity and sexy considering where the story is based. It raises many issues, such as drug abuse, corruption, obsession, self-hatred, internalised homophobia and self-discovery. It also acts as a warning against following the object of your obsession to carefully or to closely. It is not the greatest gay movie in the world, but it did perhaps open up the world of the adult entertainment industry in a slightly sanitised way that had many people talking. There were also appearances from a number of adult stars, including Chad Donovan, Thomas Lloyd, Zach Richards, Jim Steel, Chi Chi LaRue and even pop diva Debbie Harry had a small part.

Read more and find out where this film made it in the Top 50 Most Influential Gay Movies of All Time book, click this link. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B007FU7HPO or search for it on Amazon
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Blame it on the Boogie, Nights, that is...
ptb-81 September 2005
Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Timing
klayboi15 March 2006
In relation to an earlier post mentioning the time of 10.30 being focused on throughout the movie, I'd like to correct this by saying that the clocks all showed the time to be approximately 9.30!!! Unfortunately the significance of this time is vague. Onto the actual movie though, I thought the plot was rather dim and boring with a few one liners thrown in for good measure. Quite a few actors in the film are recognizable from all sources..TV, film etc. The cute boys are aplenty in the film but it's ironic that since this is a movie about the (porn) movie industry, you'd be forgiven for thinking any of them could actually ACT!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
still soft
PaulLondon9 June 2002
This comedy drama about a gay man who gets a job in a gay porn film company and falls for the self-obsessed leading man is a bit toothless. The fist third comes across like a TV movie with its blandly glossy directorial style and it is hard to get that interested even when th film begins to become more involving. The comedy element of the beginning of the film is particularly weak and makes you wonder why they bothered at all. I'm sure there are quite a few laughs to be found in the porn industry but they aren't demonstrated here. Ultimately, despite having a good film buried in it somewhere this is a bit of a limp film which neede to have a more biting sense of humour and a less TV movie style of direction.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Well Made Film
WraithX23 May 2004
I am surprised at how many people have given 'The Fluffer' a poor rating. I found the film to be very entertaining. The acting was excellent, the writing was excellent, and the sexual tension is incredibly well portrayed. I would say it is not as good as My Own Private Idaho, but it was certainly up there with it in quality.

The main character, Sean McGinnis (played by Michael Cunio) was very believable and I would like to see him in more films. The porn star was played very well by Scott Gurney who has since gone on to become the host of a reality TV program (what a shame).

This is a definite surprise film – I expected b-grade and definitely got a-grade.

See it; you will not regret it.
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Keep it up!!
nickbassett198128 April 2004
I handed in my dissertation last Friday and had been trying to get hold of this film for some of the research as it was on homosexuality in the movies..Typical that i found it today for a couple of quid in one of thos esmall video shops that you stumble upon!! So to the movie itself:

It does not have a very strong storyline, just a basic unrequited love plot but hey, that kinda does ok for most films these days. The difference here is that it is set in *shock horror* the (gay) porn industry. OK so we have had films set in the porn industry before..like boogie nights but this is a simpler tale and i don't think it attempts to be much more. The acting is not as cardboard as some people have made out and the two male leads equip themselves well. Its not the best movie around but its one of those nice little independent movies that pleasantly surprises you when you manage to track it down and i got a lot more satisfaction outta this movie than i did watching The BUtterfly Effect, just the other week!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
fluff
javirafter18 February 2002
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Trio of Tragedies: Review of 'The Fluffer'
artemis84-117 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
'The Fluffer' (2001) intertwines the lives of three very different characters: Mikey (Scott Gurney), Julie (Roxanne Day) and Sean (Michael Cunio). Mikey (a.k.a. Johnny Rebel) is a star in the gay porn industry, yet claims to be heterosexual. He is in a romantic relationship with Julie, an erotic dancer who wants to get her life straight while struggling with Mikey's infidelity, drug addiction and lack of responsibility. Sean, a self-proclaimed bisexual, is in total awe of Mikey and decides to join the porn industry because of him. He starts out as a cameraman yet soon finds himself as Mikey's personal fluffer, meaning he 'helps out' when the pornstar cannot get an erection.

What makes this movie interesting is the dynamics between these three characters, as all of them are shadowed by some form of personal tragedy. Perhaps the most obvious one is Mikey. He has a physique enviable even by Greek gods, and also has a gorgeous girlfriend with whom they truly love each other. However, he is not only unable to stay sober or loyal, he is living an outrageous lie. He finds success in acting as a gay pornstar yet openly yearns after females. He is infatuated with people being infatuated with him, no matter what their gender may be. For him having sex with men is just a job like any other. He is well aware of his bodily gifts and takes advantage of it to manipulate his environment. However, to me he did not seem entirely as a negative character. I found his fate truly sad, since he could have so easily had it all; the family, a change in life, and yet he chose to throw it all away. I could not dislike him, because to me he seemed like an eternally lonely person who got lost in a world where he is viewed as a piece of meat.

Sean is a smarter character. He is well aware of just how impossible it is to fulfill his desire to be with Mikey. He is quite literally on his knees before his idol, and lets Mikey take full advantage of him. Sean's tragedy is his inability to break free from the spell Mikey's beauty has cast upon him. He knows he is being used, yet does not do a thing against it. He lives for those occasional moments when he matters to his object of desire, which sadly enough has nothing to do with Sean. He only matters to Mikey when Mikey needs something; an erection, money or a getaway. This relationship is perfectly visualized in Sean's dream when he is watching Mikey from behind the mirror and in reality Mikey is kissing his own image when Sean leans in. Sean is nothing more than a fluffer, temporarily satisfying the ego of his idol.

Julie is a girl who also works on the surface of the sex industry, though is not as consumed by it as Mikey. She simply is fed up by Mikey's inability to be there for her, and it takes an abortion for her to literally lock him out of her life and move on, possibly towards a brighter future. She finally understands that it is not enough to have a sex god as a boyfriend. Her tragedy is the loss of her unborn child, and the loss of the man she loves… However the latter bit is not necessarily a negative issue in the long term. She is a sympathetic character who finally is strong enough to break the devil's cycle.

Directors Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland did a good job at portraying how the fates of these three characters first meet, then part. While Julie and Sean both find a painful but efficient way to drag themselves out of their constant source of unhappiness, Mikey's future looks the most bleak. He is clearly not heading towards any positive change, he is merely continuing the wrong path he decided to initially take.

Overall the movie was certainly unusual and had no lack in some explicit sex scenes. Though I will not count this among my favorites, it did a great job at showing the terrible consequences of denial and lies, as well as how easily the sex industry can lead to drug addiction and burnouts. The most memorable line for me was when Sam, the main cameraman says to Sean: "We're not talking about sex here, this is pornography." That says it all. Sex and pornography do not go hand in hand, just as well as adoration and appreciation (or love and happiness if you will) are not reciprocals of one another either. It paints a crude, raw picture of one form of reality.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
At least its not an "Entry-level" position...
Havan_IronOak22 October 2001
Sean, a young film school graduate, newly moved to LA, is working his way through the classics. When he mistakenly gets a copy of "Citizen Come" starring Johnny Rebel rather than "Citizen Kane", Sean has a new obsession. He soon exhausts the video store's collection of Johnny Rebel videos and tracks down Janus Films the distributor.

Landing a job as a cameraman Sean soon meets the object of his obsession only to find out that Johnny is `Gay for Pay' and has a stripper girlfriend named Babylon. Although Johnny claims to be straight, he needs help getting ready for the `money shot' and asks Sean to help. Sean is addicted. He helps the completely self centered Johnny to the exclusion of all else.

Will Sean ever break his addiction or will he break through Johnny's defenses? See for yourself. The film is well made and enjoyable and the scenery is not at all hard on the eyes.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Learned Something New
adamshl13 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The title was so unfamiliar I actually had to look up the term in the dictionary. When I did, I wondered why Sean was so particular about some film cast members he was asked to service. Often he claimed to have been hired as a cameraman, when obviously he was expected to double as a fluffer.

Michael Cunio's performance as Sam seemed a bit tentative, as though the actor had limited experience (or training). He was nice looking enough to fit the bill, though merely adequate in terms of his character work.

It was Scott Gurney who first seemed like just a type-casted hunk to play beefcake Johnny. He looked like someone who'd spent as much time at the gym as in the theater profession. As the film progressed, however, it became apparent that this was no ordinary body builder. A further review of his resume revealed a most accomplished artist. His list of credits included extensive work as actor, producer, director, writer, and technical crewman. He also was a football champ, Calvin Klein model and TV reality series host. Gurney deserved the star billing in this film he was afforded, and he acquitted himself exceedingly well.

Roxanne Day turned in a sensitive performance as Johhny's girlfriend Julie, and the entire cast worked very well indeed.

The film's weakness was Co-director Writer Wash West's screenplay, particularly the last section. When murder was introduced and his antiheroes crossed the southern border, it seems Mr. West himself ran out of steam. The ending was weak, thus lessening the film as a whole. Admittedly, West had a problem wrapping up his characters and plot, and he did his best; however, that wasn't quite good enough.

Richard Glatzner's co-direction was serviceable, and one can see where the film gained some acclaim at the 2001 Berlin and Toronto International Film Festivals.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Not Much To It
kh980213 March 2002
I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Bit of a let down
eVissa10 March 2002
Good acting and script but something was missing somewhere. I guess the storyline wasn't as compelling as it could have been. Maybe I was hoping to understand more about what it's like to be a gay man working in the porn industry.

The opportunity to explore the feelings of the main characters was missed.

Worth seeing but not worth going to see.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Fluffy
jvframe26 March 2002
The Fluffer may have strong elements of porn industry truth to it - but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's pretty shabbily directed and acted - and with a very mediocre script.

B grade from start to the exceedingly drawn out finish.

It would be embarassing to think of the general public being offered this piece as an example of state of the art gay film making.

Hopefully it has a limited life in the gay film festival circuit and is allowed to die a natural death on video.

This film will open the Queer Film Weekend in Brisbane on April 10, 2002. I think its success there will be strongly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in the preceding cocktail party - they're gonna need it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
2 out of 10
mustican4 April 2004
I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of *****
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Bring your kneepads.
bonoix-121 January 2002
This film is smart, it's fun, and surprising. Not at all what I expected. Any comparison to Boogie Nights should be ignored. This is what Boogie strove for and failed. And as some of the reviewers have relegated it to "gay film" alley, it's much more universal. Go see it!!!
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pathetic
Orpheus_Dude17 February 2020
The only excuse for this movie is that it is an attempt at giving some guys in the American adult industry a pathetic, painfully amateurish shot at proving their legitimacy at being able to act in an R-rated movie. It is truly unwatchable, and fails on every possible level.

This is typical of American gay flicks of this time when countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Spain, France, and even the UK were turning out well-written, beautifully-acted gay films of high quality. Skip this meaningless embarrassment and watch "Do começo ao fim" (from Brazil) or "Juste une question d'amour" (from France) which were made at roughly the same time and are a thousand times better.

And don't miss the films of the great, young Argentine director Marco Berger, who has already made half a dozen masterworks, especially "Hawaii," "Plan B," "Ausente," "Taikwando," and "Un rubio." Watching Berger's sensual, beautiful-acted and stunningly-filmed, moving works of cinema magic will actually make you feel proud to be gay, as opposed to this American trash.

As for more recent films, don't miss "God's Own Country" from the UK (Nominated for two BAFTA awards, the UK equivalent of the Oscars), which outdoes anything attempted by "Brokeback Mountain" or "Call Me By Your Name."
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Interesting, yet Difficult to Watch
Nick_Dets25 June 2004
After Paul Thomas Anderson's "Boogie Nights", the porn industry has been explored in a few interesting ways. Last year's "Wonderland" showed the downfall of porn legend John Holmes, a study of how desperate he became after realizing he hasn't been seen for anything but his "manhood". I recently saw "The Fluffer" which is detached to its subject, and simply shows how the characters are affected by their work.

"The Fluffer" is a film that unflinchingly shows the work of a small gay porn studio. I questioned its taste in some points, but I did in "Boogie Nights" also. I liked how it realistically shows how sex outweighing love leads to insanity in some form or another, but it is extremely hard to watch in spots.

Wash Westmoreland's story follows a pure young man named Sean who lets himself be degraded and used in his work as a cameraman in the studio. He falls for the studio's biggest star, Johnny Rebel. Rebel is straight, or so they say, but Sean can't help but love him. I found this point interesting, how Rebel (and I'm sure many straight porno stars) reduces himself to the homosexual market for more money. Anyway, Sean lets himself be dehumanized by Rebel and soon the industry sends all their lives in the wrong direction.

As a whole, "The Fluffer" doesn't fully succeed. Its messages are all told in familiar ways, (note the use of American flags to show the faded American dream for example) and the ending isn't fully convincing. However, it is a film that never stops entertaining and is definitely one of the very bravest depictions of the porn industry I've ever seen.

(2 and 1/2 out of 4)
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
I liked this one
shaid3 February 2002
Sean McGinnis (Michael Cunio) apply(and get the job) for a job as a cameraman in Janus Studio, which produce gay porn films, so he can work closely to his porn idol Johnny Rebel(Scott Gurney). This the basic story that serve as vehicle for a behind the scenes film about the porn industry. And it is a rather good vehicle. The story is simple and in the script writter Wash Westmoreland have inserted some one-liners which say something about the industry. I admit that there is nothing new in what he says(gay for pay,what actors in the industry do after their "career" before the camera ends, drugs in the industry, the short career they have and etc.) but he still manage to keep you interested with what happened with the characters.

Scott Gurney is the perfect casting for the role of Johnny Rebel and Sean McGinnis is good as the naive but obsessed cameraman. But the best performance come from Robert Walden(Chad Cox) and Roxanne Day(Babylon)and only(but not only) for their performance the film is worth watching.

This is not Boogie Nights(it lacks the complexity of that one) but it is nicely done, a little bit funny and engaging.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed