Claire of the Moon

i had heard all the hype about this movie when it was first released and when i finally got to view it, late one evening, i was far from pleased. i've seen my share of gay/lesbian cinema but this had to be by far the worse one to hit the screen. it was incredibly slow moving and a complete bore. i have to agree with one of the other reviewers when he/she said it was a horrible film. i found Trisha Todd's acting to be so wooden and stiff that i had a difficult time caring about her character. by the end of the film i just wanted someone to kill her off and put an end to her misery. the long-awaited love scene didn't make things any better. there's a lot better lesbian films out there and this isn't one of them. enough said.

Yes, the women in this movie are talky, but hey, they are writers and words are their medium. Given also that they are mostly graduates of the 70's and 80's the sexual politics/gender clashing thing makes sense.

Someone in this list of comments says that Todd and Trumbo are wooden. Compared to what? Yes, Trumbo's character is reserved, but we see her relaxing as her clothing relaxes -the long coat gives way to sweater.

There is a scene early in that shows the problems associated with low budget- Claire goes to the motel and is greeted by someone. The greeting came off like a question "Hello?" instead of "hello". But by that time I was in awe of Ms. Todd's presence driving the car, sitting on the rocks. I rather thought that the camera was in love with her, following her every movement. And as for wooden, I would say she was fluid and graceful conveying a character in conflict without histrionics. Different strokes.

A good budget, some retakes and tweaking the dialogue all could help, but for a movie that seemingly came out of nowhere it is rather remarkable.

This was a wonderfully done sensual and seductive movie. I first saw it a few years back and was mesmerized by the playfulness of the words of the two main characters, Noel and Claire. Playfulness of course then leading to a wonderful development of their relationship.

I've since bought the video, and musical score.

I find the film hauntingly erotic.

Feb. 5. 2000.

I hate this rule the lesbian community makes up, where if a film featuring lesbians is made and none of the aforementioned lesbians wind up killing themselves or going straight (as if that were possible) before the end credits roll, all of us are supposed to hail it as some masterpiece of filmmaking. Particularly in the case of this train wreck of a borefest, I refuse to join the crowd on this one.

The characters (particularly the woman who owned the lodge, the Southern-belle romance writer, and the nice-little-mom-of-two-in-her-jumper-outfits-writing-her-first-book) were offensive stereotypes, caricatures of what they could have been. It's possible for a straight woman to find the idea of lesbianism repellent without portraying her as some strange replica of Tammy Faye Bakker. And -- surprise! -- it's also possible to portray a lesbian lodge owner as something other than a hard-ridden, raspy-voiced, rough-n-ready bulldagger.

The plot dragged. AND dragged. AND dragged. If I learned a single thing from watching this movie, it's that I have an incredible reservoir of restraint -- I didn't stalk out of the theater in disgust. But then I'd paid $7 to get in, and that was in 1992 at an artsy-fartsy house. LOL

My take? Not a classic. Not even a contender.

This movie used all the right tools to pull at this romantics heart strings(I loved the score). My only criticism is that I wish more time was spent on the two main characters attraction to one another and less time talking,the ending left me wondering about the day after( maybe there's a sequel in the works). This really is a cool love story and I've seen it over and over again(Trisha Todd is HOT!). A little on the intellectual side but, I overlooked it for the sake of romance.