Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

lastliberal Naturally, as a straight man, I would be attracted to lipstick lesbians like Abigail (Jessica Graham), a PI hired to find the twin of Michael Delmar (Michael Molina).She was not only hot, and quick to console a pop star (Jennifer Layne Park) who just lost her boyfriend, but she really made an interesting PI. I could see this being turned into a series. Who wouldn't want to see her running in a tight dress and high heels shooting at bad guys.Of course, you would have to take out all the gratuitous nudity, but that wouldn't hurt anything as it added nothing to the story.Good film noir with gay and lesbian leads instead of the usual straight characters - and it was funny, too.

mjholt Silly and fun, yet a good way to spend an hour. I don't see why it got so many bad votes. I enjoyed it. This is a TV pilot, and as an indie production, it would be great. The lack of prime time crime story conventions makes it more compelling. Some of the scene cuts are rough, but that adds to the experience. The story line holds together, and the reason for the murder is revealed in a believable way that adds to the enjoyment. The private detective is great. She gets distracted by sex and finds more action by saying "I don't date." Our hero, looking for his brother does better than he should since he maintains that he is not in the life. This is so not slick and that makes it better.

cincyguy90 I disagree with the negative posts. I saw a screening at LA's Outfest. I think the film is a very funny take on film noir. A lipstick lesbian character plays a hard drinking, cynical, love her/leave her, private detective. She takes on a murder case and connects with the gay brother of the victim. He's not exactly helpless, but she generally takes control in dicey situations. So, a role reversal of, for example, the Humphrey Bogart/Mary Astor parts in "Maltese Falcon." Still, it doesn't resort to stereotype humor. It has the look of a low budget film as evidenced in the lighting, sound, editing, etc. But, the script is clever and the acting is generally very good. It is what independent films used to be - short on production values but counterbalanced by originality in concept. I predict we'll hear more from Robert Gaston, the writer/director. He's crafted a refreshing film on what was probably a shoestring budget.

cinema_universe I saw this film last week, on a trip to Florida to attend the 18th annual Tampa Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, which I must admit, has grown into a fairly large stop on the gay festival circuit.The more mundane shows (IMHO) anywhere on the circuit are those films which merely try to be gay versions of straight stories. Why such a large number of gay filmmakers still try to be 'mainstream' is beyond me. "2 Minutes Later" is a crime-fighting/comedy film with some flesh and sex (not excessive, but certainly more than necessary). It tried to equal the sex & violence quotient seen in similar straight films. This film's director, who was present the night I attended, got on stage before the film screened, and said that his film was meant just as fun entertainment; nothing more, nothing less. -- and to the person who accompanied me to this screening, that's what it was. To me it was just a gay reworking of many straight suspense films, with a major plot element (spoiler) borrowed from "Blow-Up." It had a fair amount of tepid comedy added into the mix, justifying the director's statement that it could be called 'light entertainment.' Much to my dismay, --and very likely to the chagrin of the filmmaker present (and to the management of the fabulous Tampa Theatre, a splendidly renovated 'atmostpheric,' built in 1926) the film was shown through the wrong lens! What I mean is, it appears to have been a film that may have been produced with an aspect ratio of 1:1.85, but it was shown through a 1:1.33 lens. Everyone was just a bit too thin, too tall, --and all the cars were a foot, or so, more compact. I tried to ignore this technical problem (which wasn't easy) and see the film the way it's producer intended me to. It had it's fun moments, but I was glad when it ended. Almost glad, that is, because "The End" credit, itself, brought it's own "oh, no" moment. It came on-screen with a question mark (?) added after a few seconds, a la "The Blob."The leading lady, who was also present in the theater that night -and who accompanied the filmmaker on stage before the curtain went up, was the best actor in this film. As improbable as her character was, her lines were better than those of the leading man, --who was likely chosen for his shy boy-next-door 'look' rather than for any acting ability. I'm not knocking him, nor the filmmaker, nor anyone else associated with this production. It was obvious that the budget wasn't big, but neither was the thought put into this. Better films have been made on smaller budgets.It seemed to me that it borrowed an awful lot of bits and pieces from many other films, --besides the obvious big 'bit' borrowed from "Blow-Up." Overall, a mediocre effort. I rated it 5. --D.--