Btexxamar I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Janis One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

Dana An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

blacknbluish I have seen a lot of gay movies. Redwoods definitely beats most of them. It is a must see film about two men who fall in love. It is a beautiful love story and when I watched it I simply fell in love with it. All the characters are so convincing! Sometimes you feel that Everett is lost.. but he is lost because of what happens in the end... loved that scene.. Chase (Matthew) - he is so convincing! The chemistry between the men is so instant and the story just grabs u.. so cool!! I've already watched it 3 times and may watch it again soon. Movie is outstanding and writing + cinematography are superb! Only wish, that the ending was happier...

MuMu2525 The problem with most gay indie films is that they tend to be low-budget amateur productions. Amateur writing, amateur directing, amateur actors....they often come across as extended student films, but it is sadly the only way that most of these films would ever get made because the big Hollywood studios are still hesitant about "doing gay". Once in a blue moon we'll get a big studio release like Brokeback Mountain, but such films are few and far between.Redwoods is very much a typical gay indie film in that it comes across as an amateur production made for a margin audience that still doesn't have much product in their niche marketplace to choose from. Perhaps "semi-professional" is a more polite term than "amateur", and given its obvious limitations it is by no means a terrible film, but it isn't a good film either. The script could have stood another rewrite or three (particularly to cut down on the number of times where the characters say each others names in their conversations, which sounds painfully false). The director could have rehearsed his actors more thoroughly (though better casting would have been preferable), and also gotten a bit more coverage from his cinematographer for a wider variety of shots to cut to, not to mention looking over his editor's shoulder and insisting on a few more cuts here and there to avoid the often dreary static effect that ruins many scenes. And I am certainly not a prude, but the full frontal nudity in the film was both out of place and completely unnecessary. Whether this was an attempt to titillate or to try to make the film more of an "arthouse" piece remains a mystery, but it was a desperate move regardless - and it shows. Of course, the writer and the director of this production are one and the same person, and so he must take the biggest share of the blame for the film's failings. As all artists should, hopefully he will learn from his mistakes and go on to make something better.However, the biggest problem with the film is that, from beginning to end, it is a shameless rip-off of The Bridges of Madison County. Unfortunately, Brendan Bradley is no Meryl Streep, and making the story between two men rather than a man and a woman does not give this film enough of a distinction by itself. Had the film just loosely borrowed from "Bridges" rather than directly copying it, I might have been more forgiving, but a rip-off is a rip-off. In the film's favour, it at least gave the audience some decent photography of the redwood forests of northern California, though sadly this doesn't save the film from mediocrity. Perhaps it is unfair to be so critical of small independent films such as these due to their low budgets and often inexperienced personnel, although 2007's Shelter managed to rise above its humble indie beginnings and became a minor classic due to the sheer talent of its cast and crew. With better care, forethought and finesse from all involved, Redwoods could well have reached similar heights, but unfortunately it just doesn't make the grade.

Delius80 WARNING: This review contains major SPOILERS!! I just finished watching this movie and I have to say overall I liked it. I think Shelter is a better gay/romance movie though. The scenery in Redwoods is very beautiful, and I really really like Brendan Bradley. Matthew Montgomery grew on me as the film went on. My complaints are the following: The music is totally hokey. There were some scenes that were supposed to be kinda light-hearted moments and the music was really cartoonish during these scenes and I found it to be really distracting. There was a lot of times where I thought the character's actions and dialog seemed a bit unnatural. Some of the things that the characters said and did didn't seem realistic to me. Especially the scene where the mother tells the son about her own long ago extra-marital indiscretions. I don't believe that conversation would ever have really happened. I think she should have offered advice to the son and then maybe we could have seen her looking at the man's hidden picture and reading a secret love letter from long ago to show that she understands what the son is going through. After she tells him about the affair he asks, "Do you still think of him?" and I couldn't help but roll my eyes and say back "Obviously she does or she wouldn't be talking about him now years later." Everett and Chase have an argument that seems to come out of nowhere and then they suddenly decide they are so angry and frustrated with each other and the situation that they just have to go lay down right that moment and take a nap. Everett's brother strips completely naked in the middle of a conversation after the family dinner I guess he is some kind of exhibitionist but what importance was it to the story?? And would someone just strip down while talking to their brother like that? It is never explained why Everett returns to Miles after packing his bag and leaving to find Chase. He finds Chase and the viewer is lead to believe they will run off together but the next scene (5 years later) and Everett is still with cold as ice and uptight Miles. (What the hell?) I can only guess he stays for the little boy but have these people never heard of shared custody? There are two scenes of completely gratuitous full frontal male nudity such as the one mentioned above, the other when Miles throws his robe off and then stands naked while he nags Everett about clipping his toenails over the carpet and griping over mold in the shower. The scene does show how uptight and trite Miles is but he didn't need to be naked. I felt the two nude scenes only succeeded in cheapening the film as a whole. I'm no prude, and I'll be the first to admit that I enjoy some nice male eye candy, but it just didn't seem to fit in here. It was kinda random. I was actually disappointed that it was even shown. The writer/director , David Lewis, obviously didn't believe in his own film enough, it was like he felt he had to throw in the nudity to get attention. I know it sounds like I didn't like this movie, but I did. The characters Everett and Chase are both very likable and the actors have good chemistry. I fault the writer/director for any of things I didn't like. I look forward to seeing Brendan Bradley in other films. =)

sandover I wish I could go to Redwoods and engrave on the trees Oscar Wilde's aphorism so that everybody could marvel on the splendor of the insight.For at least one more thousand years, oh Oscar, stay with us, for I go Wilde with this, this thing, for this is a symptom of our current predicament, not a film: Suffocating cheap chords of piano and wind mark our downfall to letting cheap soundtracks describe our intimacy; no I do not want any more bad music describe my, or anybody's intimate moments. They make their own f***ing music.Mediocre writers-cum-directors feeding primly on previous films, not as films, but as hits, and they miserably miss, dragging us with them.(The actors in their two bed scenes were somehow let to be, and these are the only almost redeeming moments in the film - along with Brendan Bradley's bland expression playing the harmonica towards the close, that achieves something of pathos - , but, oh, so bereft when then one remembers the pap surrounding them.)No I do not want any badly informed directors turning the unlived life into one more self-indulgence!(And why is it that Matthew Montgomery is involved with creepily mediocre gay films ("Socket", "Gone but not forgotten")?) But let's start at the beginning: Dear trees, fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in, then fade out then fade in - did you get the headache spin; No, cut it to the middle: slow mo so oh slow mo cut with mom and dad pensive so; slow mo and tears aboard this is really worstward ho; scenes with me and my lover so, wait, no, this is mom and dad again, this editing is so -FIVE YEARS LATER Now this what can it mean?...Are we to marvel that the protagonist has not aged a day, that the film comes five years after "Brokeback", or that five years from now that we are going to have more of this kind of film? One starts to get the feeling we need more of the punk sensibility that informed Derek Jarman's films; one yearns for films with spunk.