My Girlfriend's Boyfriend

This is a very silly film, but if not taken too seriously it has a few fun moments. It is also totally unrealistic. If you have nothing else to do on a Saturday night, it's not a total bore, but you will forget this one rather quickly.

Funny & cute comedy in the classic 1930's screwball sense. I >found it amazing how things got steadily zannier throughout the >film and how the energy kept building. Deborah Gibson was >suprisingly funny and Sean Ruennette was totally hysterical. He >reminds me a lot of a modern Charlie Chaplin. The film has a >suprising touch of charm at the end when it has a morale messege >that is perfectly woven into the script. There's a few rough >edges, but as an independent these are easily overlooked because >it was well put together and good entertainment. Worth an

My Girlfriend's Boyfriend had a decent plot and took place in one location. This movie however is an underground low budget movie that lives or dies be the actors. I liked it. The actors were alright, nothing Oscar worthy. The story line involving a jealous gay lover was very funny and so was the script. This however seemed like a really good cam corder project. I enjoyed it however but now we know that this filmmaker can make movies like this it's time for him to move on and do something better.

For the people that didn't like it, I don't know what to say. It is an underground movie. So underground indeed it theater in New Jersey. I'm a bit mad that I didn't see when it didn't receive distribution (I think it could have been a small success on the art house market). The movie only played at one theater for a week: The Screening Zone, a small 2 screen was there, I was in the next theater seeing Hurly Burly, another movie that lives or dies by the actors. Go see this one for a laugh and see Hurly Burly for something to think about.

I rented this on video out of curiosity - had no idea it actually played in theaters (not here in NYC, though).

The story concerns a gay soap actor (played by Chris Bruno) who is about to marry an innocent, unsuspecting young woman to help his hunk image, much to the chagrin of his longtime boyfriend, who is forced to play "best man" at the wedding.

Enter the bride's best friend/maid of honor, her klutzy date (the insufferable Sean Ruennette) who is soon mistaken to be the lover of the actor's boyfriend (don't ask), the bride's mother (Valerie Perrine, looking all at sea and who can blame her), and a pesky reporter (Deborah Gibson, the one bright light in this mess) with some compromising photos of the actor and his guy...and you've got a headache. How much contrivance can a movie handle?

And we're seriously stretching credibility here - a lot. This kind of "gay deceiver" plot might still work, but the script is so witless that the story seems silly & dated. The bride-to-be seems incredibly naive for the 90's. The film actually spends the most time on the budding romance between the klutzy guy and the reporter, so the central "farce" plot sort of gets the back seat.

The final denouement hinges on those photos and a mailbox found (are you ready?) on a path next to the woods. Enough said.

From the start of the movie I was told by the others watching the movie that it looked like something one of us could shoot at home with some spare time. This was true. The characters were very much overdone. This was also true. I didn't find the male lead very convincing at anything other than being a bumbling idiot. The basic plot idea was quite amusing but needed to be executed a lot better. Valerie Perrine, a long-time veteran of screen seemed very uncomfortable in her role as well. I have to say the one saving grace of the movie appeared to be the screen debut of Deborah Gibson. Though her music has faded into oblivion, I hope she will one day get a script that matches her dramatic talent.