Rijndri Load of rubbish!!

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Staci Frederick Blistering performances.

Aussie-Woo I know it's easy to sit behind a computer, in my living room and critique the hard work of a writer, producer, director and a bunch of actors. I know it's not fair to comment as though my opinion is the only one that counts.....but having said that, this film is amazingly, spectacularly, brilliantly bad. Being Australian I have to respond to those who have commented that they "saw potential in" the actor who played Ian and those who suggested his accent was "passable" - clearly you've never heard an Australian accent. I'm not defending the Australian accent, it can be horrendous, but this guy didn't get it right for a single word. I was born here, I know Australian accents....this is nothing like one. Aside from this, the acting was appalling. I know there was no budget, that's great, but the DVD is still being flogged for $25 bucks, so if people still have to pay for it they should expect a certain level of quality. As far as I could tell the storyline was made-up as they filmed, like the actors were slotting-in implausible plot deviations as a dare to see if their fellow actors (and I use the term loosely) could run with it - the case in point was randomly selling a woman to white slavery by trapping her in a cage at a sex club, woeful - movies do not get worse than this. Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, don't. I can not be clearer than this, do not watch this movie.

lettertoraoulpeck Easily the worst movie I have ever in my lifetime seen. The titled intrigued me and the story line could have been good but there was absolutely no character development, among other things. A fourteen year old fag-hag could write a better script than that. Absolutely the worst screen writing I have ever in my life encountered. The actors were decent and probably would have been great if the screenplay was no so poor.I was very disappointed in this. Congratulations though to the actor playing Ian. I see a lot of good potential in him, I just hope he finds some better movies to star in.

NJMoon Director Richard LeMay admits on his DVD commentary that he changed his mind halfway through writing 200 American about what story he wanted to tell. But it doesn't take LeMay's commentary for us to realize that this film's major problem is lack of focus. The title alone should indicate that the central figure must be Ian, the Aussie rent boy searching for a way to stay in America without a legit green card. But LeMay instead opens his film from the POV of Conrad, an ad exec on the rebound from his ex, looking to get off with a renter instead of risking the emotional perils of dating. Never mind the fact that Conrad is a hunk that anyone would gladly bed gratis. Doesn't anonymous sex (for free) also imply 'no strings'? One would think so. The ad game must be going pretty well for Conrad, because he eagerly shells out a thousand clams for his hourly Boy from Oz to stay the night. But mid-vid LeMay ditches the inigmatic saga of Conrad and Ian for a more conventional romantic soap opera between Ian and Conrad's white bread co-worker Michael. To compensate, LeMay quickly resurrects Conrad's ex and proceeds with one of the most predictable pairings in queer cinema: Ian and Michael. Add to this lack of dramatic structure the fact that there's something a little lethargic about the whole affair and you've got a ho-hum gay indie.The dialogue tends toward the trite and the editing and cinematography are very hit and miss. The script's single funniest moment (although it tries for many more) involves confusion between the Dalai Lama and Lorenzo Lamas. A fed-up fashion model also provides a much-needed cathartic blast. Oddly, there's an unfortunate subplot about white slavery that should have hit the cutting room floor.LeMay's greatest asset is his cast, all of whom reportedly worked for free. They manage to make even the most illogical of plot points bearable. If it weren't for the quality of the performances, 200 American might well be totally unwatchable. If LeMay had spent some of his 200 on a script doctor, this film might have been something worth owning. As it is, it's just a 'renter'.

edforever this movie was very bad in some ways. but on finishing it, i found it wasn't entirely irredeemable.yes, the production values are horrendous. that was my main complaint. the film was grainy and the colors ugly. in fact, after seeing the gorgeous backdrop of new york in "hitch", looking at the new york city that this film was supposedly set in was distinctly unpleasant. some of the scenes were bad beyond belief. for example, i have never seen such a cheap set-up for a photo shoot depicted on screen. one of the characters in the movie is a photographer and i couldn't help but wonder who else but a tourist would use the small, cheap-looking camera that he was toting. the character didn't even look like an ordinary pro photographer, much less a hot shot fashion photographer. hot tip for the costume manager: real photographers usually carry huge SLR cameras and wear those vest jackets that have loads of pockets to carry their lenses and filters.with the exception of the leads in a few scenes, the acting was uniformly amateurish. what does save this movie however, is the script. there is the inevitable comparison with pretty woman, but with a twist. some of the lines in the movie were actually not bad at all, and showed a nice restraint in some scenes. those were scenes where the silence, if it had been managed by better actors, might just have worked. on the downside, the quality of the script is uneven. there are some utterly useless extraneous bits here and there and gratuitous use of the f-word that contributes nothing to story or character.perhaps not the "worst gay movie ever", as one poster put it, but i would say in general, not worth the time.