Touch of Pink (2004) Reviews

• Charming and funny coming out story

  lorne-122004-05-21

  A remarkably charming homage to a dozen 40's, 50's and 60s romantic comedies. The plot is a standard coming-out-to-mom story, not particularly surprising, but mom and auntie are brilliant. Entire scenes are lifted from Doris Day/Katherine Hepburn/Cary Grant movies. Kyle MacLachlan as the spirit of Cary Grant mentors a gay Indian man in Toronto and London while the boyfriend charms the sari off of mom. The ambitious and acquisitive relatives plan a ridiculous marriage while the alienated son clings to an integrity no one else bothers with. At last, a story that's not poignant or heartwarming, just funny and good.

• More delightful than a samosa!

  Kickybrit2005-01-18

  I'd seen a preview for Touch of Pink and waited curiously until it came out on DVD to watch it. In that time however I started to read negative reviews for the film with some claiming it to be a rather dull and unfunny sort of movie. With slight anxiety I popped in the film and fell immediately in love with it. I don't mind that it isn't the most original of coming out movies but I certainly did think it was worth more than the reviews panned it to be. I found Alim and Giles' relationship to be quite refreshing from the bore of most gay relationships in movies. The family "ethnic" barrier played in quite well as did Giles' on again off again loose flings. I was most surprised by the way Machlachlan carried himself as Grant, he was fantastic! I watched the movie a second time and found Grant's presence to be more comical than previously thought. The film carried itself well throughout the film and ended nice and warm if not a bit predictable. Don't listen to the film critics who judge gay movies based on their original "gay" story, just enjoy the romantic comedy involving two very attractive men!

• not as unoriginal as some might think

  orangegoby2005-02-04

  Sure, the underlying plot of a son hiding his sexuality from his conservative mother isn't original and completely unpredictable, but there is a lot more to it, unlike many successful Hollywood movies. There's no nonstop violence and destruction, celebrity appearances, explicit sex scenes, or crude humor--not that those always make bad movies. The characters have varied depth (as do real people), the dialogue is great and sometimes even clever, and of course there are some good laughs. It's tasteful and maybe a little bit 'artsy', but that's completely okay. The details of the plot are different enough to keep it interesting. Some touching character secrets are revealed. 'Too bad it didn't have a wider release in theaters or more well-placed publicity. I think it would've been more successful. I definitely rank it as one of my favorites. As always, don't let the opinions of strangers be the only deciding factor for seeing a movie. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't.

• Who knew there were gay Muslims?

  DPennSOBE2004-06-10

  I had the opportunity to view "Touch of Pink" as a special showing to members of the Miami Gay and Lesbian Film Festival community this week. The director, Ian Iqbal Rashid, was present and provided a wonderful Q&A following the showing. The film is "low budget" - just how low is low? The director wouldn't say (a provision in his contract with Sony, apparently). Frankly, I have seen many big budget films that delivered much, much less. The fact that the director also wrote the screenplay and the lyrics to the original compositions shows his devotion to delivering this film. From concept to screen took him 11 years! Several facts speak for themselves: 1. The audience reacted very favorably to this film at Sundance, and at the screening I attended, 2. It has been picked up by several major Lesbian & Gay Film Festivals for prime opening or closing night slots and 3. It is scheduled for release by Sony Pictures in July. This is not your run of the mill film festival film! Most films come to the film festival circuit LOOKING for a distributor. One could easily say the premise has been overdone (i.e., homophobic mother/gay son/coming out angst story). For me, however, this film had unique twists that made it anything but trite. A gay, Indian Muslim from Canada living in London and forced to confront his own and his family's, homophobia isn't something I've ever witnessed before. Kyle MachLachlan as Cary Grant (a make believe friend of the main character, Alim) is a sight to behold. The acting is generally superb; the timing of the lines perfect. Throw in enticing sets and wonderful costuming and you've got magic going on. At a time when we in the West are confronted daily with images of the "evil" radical fundamentalist Muslim world, I believe this film serves yet another purpose. It shows the humanity of Muslims, and I'm certain this image is much more realistic than the one we see repeated ad nausea on CNN. Dealing with homophobia is a common denominator: Maybe we have more in common with the vast majority of Muslims than we have been lead to believe. One leaves with a sense of optimism (if Alim can survive this mess with such cultural obstacles, maybe there is hope for the kid in the Midwest from a fundamentalist Christian family). There is even an Indian distributor signed up, so maybe an even greater impact will be made in the Muslim world. As one audience member put it, "I like movies that make me think, make me laugh and make me cry...this did all three." I couldn't agree more. This is a must see!

• A very interesting movie ... mixed feelings about it though

  film_am_032005-01-14

  WARNING: Not only spoilers but some personal comments/rants Yeah, the premise is stale - multicultural (white/non-american) gay couple, homophobic mother, coming out etc. For most people, Cary Grant/Kyle Maclahan was the best aspect of the movie. Kyle Maclahan has clearly enjoyed himself, and it is a delight to watch him perform. But there is more to the movie. It is surprisingly realistic! Now reviewers I have a lot of respect for, including NY Times, have been harsh on the movie and that is understandable even though it's surprising. In my humble opinion, based on living in the South Asian culture for 27+ years of my life, I beg to differ. The fundamental difference between the "Western" culture and the "Asian" culture, as I can see, is the disproportionate emphasis on family in Asian culture as opposed to individuality, privacy, and personal space. To give you an example, in all the time I lived in India (the first 22 years of my life), I never had my "own" room. Even my parents didn't have their bedroom. Everyone slept in the living room. We shared closets for keeping clothes, shelves for books etc. People grow up differently under such circumstances. You learn to "sacrifice" for the sake of family. A tremendous amount of the individual pride in the Western culture - all that living your life to the fullest extent, being what you want to be in life, making your own choices and learning to take responsibility for them - is lost. It resurfaces as family pride. You do everything for your family. Your family has to be the best it can be. Your choices are guided by the ultimate prestige of the family. The elders (the heads of the family) make the choices for the younger ones. You would live at your parents' house till you are married to a person of opposite sex and once your parents retire, you and your spouse become heads of the family. Then its your turn. Even then you can't make decisions based on your preferences but based on what is "appropriate" to maintain and build the prestige of the family. I am probably saying stuff people think they know. You really don't until you experience it. I've found my American friends find all the Indian movies (Bollywood) very amusing with all its over-the-top melodrama. Having lived in US for 5+ years, I find it over-the-top and am turned off by it most of the time. But when I do sit and watch an Indian movie, I'm sucked into it at some point. I've always wondered why. The reason is this: in India, people actually live like that. My parents are living proofs for this fact. Everything is turned into an emotional blackmail so that I uphold the prestige of the family and help my parents "win" in their social life. Yes, parents actually consider arranged marriages of their children as personal victories in upholding family prestige and "love" marriages of their children as personal failures. Oh, the fact that I'm gay doesn't even enter the picture! So, for all its unbelievability and over-the-top amateur production values, this movie is indeed believable, simply because I have heard this very dialog from my own mother about plunging a knife in her heart for something much less trivial than falling in love with a "phirangi" - a foreign (different skin-colored) woman. Is my mom a selfish controlling monster? She probably is, according to Western culture, because she wants me to marry a South Indian, Iyengar Brahmin girl of good heritage despite the fact that I am gay, and that she'd throw much worse tantrums than Nuru ever did in the movie. But then, I know my mom better. I know the kind of personal sacrifices she did for the sake of her family, sacrifices that would have been called foolish, stupid, and naiveté by Western culture. Now I won't marry a girl and "sacrifice" like her, but I do understand that in my mom is a manipulator and a victim. I completely understand why Alim went to Toronto after his mom than stay in London and go after Giles. The movie touched me personally despite being flawed in many ways. Jimi Mistry's performance was horrible and Giles and Alim had almost no chemistry. The production values were amateurish. The biggest problem for me with the movie was that Alim's character was not fleshed out at all even in the screenplay level. Despite all that, the movie rang true in a number of levels for me and did not stereotype or reduce the issue of a gay man coming out in an Indian culture to a caricature. I applaud Ian Iqbal Rashid for that. 7 out of 10