New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Tiny Khloe: 2026 Exxxotica Interview

"I’m attracted to people’s intelligence. I like some substance. I want to be able to hold a conversation."
All Forums > Gay DVD Talk > Gay DVD Talk Forum Page 17 > The Fluffer - Quick Take
AuthorPost
netguy
Member


687 Posts
12/99
Posted - Sep 19 2002 : 9:20PM
Although I found it to be enjoyable the Fluffer," really wasn’t what I thought it was going to be, so that left me a bit disappointed.

The film is set in the world of gay porn movies, and involves a romantic triangle between a straight male porn star, Johnny Rebel (Scott Gurney), his hetero stripper girlfriend, Babylon , and the young gay man, Sean (Michael Cunio), who idolizes Johnny to the point that he gets the job as Johnny's "fluffer."

From that I thought the film was going to be possibly a cute, funny take on Sean and how he goes after his man, fluffing and all. Behind the scenes of the porn industry, etc. It stars off to a degree this way but really becomes more involved with drugs, Johnny’s relationship with his girlfriend and eventually a somewhat laughable ending with Sean and Johnny on the lam, ala “Thelma and Louise”.

Both the leads, Michael Cunio, and Scott Gurney are very attractive and it was fun to see a number of cameos, including Chi Chi LaRue and Deborah Harry but had this film stuck to it’s title and concentrated on the gay porn industry and the behind the scenes it really could’ve been a winner.

Oh, and if you’re thinking there’s going to be explicit sex there’s not. Some ass shots and simulated sex but that’s about all. Oh, there is a real quick shot of Scott Gurney full frontal that if you blink you’ll miss it, so make sure to play that dvd in slo-mo and you can check him out! I wouldn’t mind being the “fluffer” for that! But overall I would still recommend this but it was a bit deceiving.


Edited by - netguy on Sep 19 2002

joeblow69
Member

946 Posts
2/00
Posted - Sep 19 2002 : 11:05PM
I had 3 of my gay friends over the other night to watch this flick, and we all pretty much thought it stunk. With all the screencaps I've seen on the net, I was expecting alot more nudity. There wasn't much gay sex either.

The actual plot started interesting enough, but ended up pretty lame. I could have done without all the name-dropping, too.

TouchDown Tony
New Member

Pittsburgh, PA
5 Posts
9/02
Posted - Sep 20 2002 : 12:44AM
Has anyone had the opportunity to mark down the differences between the un-rated and the rated versions of THE FLUFFER?
So far, I've only found the un-rated in stores around here, so I'm holding out for the rated.

..we are just surrealist pilgrims, melting clocks in marble halls...

tdt

joeblow69
Member

946 Posts
2/00
Posted - Sep 20 2002 : 8:50AM
Why would you want the R rated version? I don't remember seeing anything in the unrated version that was more explicit than things I've seen in R rated movies. Maybe they took out the quick glimpse of penis, and a few of the flashes of fake porn.

Amazon has both versions, if you really want the R Rated one.

TouchDown Tony
New Member

Pittsburgh, PA
5 Posts
9/02
Posted - Sep 20 2002 : 9:13AM
Courtesy of JoeBlow: >>Why would you want the R rated version? <<

I wouldn't; that's the point. I'm holding out to get the unrated.
:-)

..we are just surrealist pilgrims, melting clocks in marble halls...

tdt

 
gayEMPIRE
Member

Warrendale PA
16 Posts
11/01
Posted - Sep 20 2002 : 11:23AM
From a "porn" standpoint I can see why everyone would think this movie sucks, but it was never billed as a porn. The sensationalized screenshots people throw around made it seem that way, but reviews will indicate that it's a drama.

Sorry to get my panties all in a bunch about this but I really thought this to be a facinating character exploration. Yeah, it's been done before and yeah more cock would have been yummy, but there are really people like this who, left to their own devices, self-destruct. I dunno.

To me it's just nice to see attention being payed to a "gay themed" film in a market that shudders when two men even talk about kissing, let alone doing it. Just my humble opinion though...

Todd
~"sometimes i swim beyond the scenery.."

joeblow69
Member

946 Posts
2/00
Posted - Sep 20 2002 : 6:30PM
Well, I wasn't expecting porn but I was expecting something more titilating than what I got. I don't think that's too unreasonable, either. With a name like "The Fluffer" and a half naked gorgeous man on the cover, I think a little more nudity and gay sex is in order. For God's sake, the straight sex scene is more explicit than the gay ones! Argh!

Looking past all that, I just don't think it's a very cohesive movie. The main point of the story is that cute young guy (forgot his name already!) and the porn star he lusts after. All too often, the focus will switch over to someone else, and I kept wondering "Why do I care about this person?!" If they would have cut that person's role down considerably, focused on the main 2 stars more, and re-wrote the last 1/2 hour, I think the movie would have been better off.

Finally, while it was neat to have real porn stars pop in every now and then, I think that ended up being just a cutsey little gimmick that distracted me from the story. They should have hired real actors to play the porn stars.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. I've read on other forums that there are quite a few people out there that really enjoyed it. So, of course, your milage may vary.

netguy
Member

687 Posts
12/99
Posted - Sep 24 2002 : 10:32PM
Overall I thought it was ok but I felt misled a bit....not expecting porn but more of a funny, cute story about this young kid lusting and trying to go after this straight guy with the whole gay porn industry as a backdrop....anyway....

VIP
Member

Germany
32 Posts
9/02
Posted - Sep 25 2002 : 3:04PM
The difference between the R rated version and the unrated one is exactly 4 minutes (!).



Jump To: