ThiefHott Too much of everything

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

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

preppy-3 Kyle (Jim Verraros) understandably falls in love with nude model Troy (Marco Dapper). However Troy is ashamed of past gay experiences he had and wants to be str8. So Kyle pretends HE'S str8 and used to be gay to lure Troy into bed. Meanwhile Kyle's ex Marc (Brett Chukerman) finds this out and now HE wants to get Troy into bed...OK--I HATED the original "Eating Out". It was boring, stupid, unfunny and kept teasing the audience that we were gonna see some hot man on man action--but we never did. The acting was dreadful too. As you can see the plot of this one is ridiculous too--but this movie is so entertaining who cares? It moves quickly (it's only 80 minutes), looks great and is much funnier than the original. Also we see plenty of hot guy on guy kissing, gay sex (not explicit) and frontal nudity on Dapper and Chukerman (both of who are very handsome with great bodies).The acting is (for the most part) good. Verraros (the only holdover from the original) is a little bit TOO nerdy and needy--but he tones down his performance as the film progresses and actually is very affecting by the end. Dapper is unbelievably handsome with a great body and--surprisingly--is a very good actor. I was impressed with how talented he was--he perfectly shows his characters confusion. Chukerman is even better as Marc. A very easy-going, relaxed and believable performance. All the other actors are OK--the story basically centers on these three guys.This is no great milestone in gay cinema but it was fun, breezy and entertaining. Also the casual frontal nudity and gay kissing just made it better. Worth catching--especially for a gay audience. An 8.

ozswim23 I had read two bad reviews prior to viewing, I was pleasantly surprised how much I enjoyed this movie. I think it easily matches up to the first Eating Out, though they are very different films. Each character held there own, though there are a few standouts, including the reprehensible luminary Mink Stole. Marco Dapper as Troy proved he is not just a pretty face. Was that his over-sized appendage in the modeling scene, seemed like some airbrushing? The trio: Jim Verraros (Kyle), Emily Brooke Hands (Gwen)Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) stole the show with candid and off the hook deliveries. The notion that the characters in this film were traditionally rooted in stereotypes of the W.& G. variety is wrong. This film turns stereotypes on their heads.Laughed really hard at this movie! Take your friends!!

martyboy00 I saw this on October 1st, 2006 at the Austin Gay and Lesbian Film Festival. I had the chance to briefly meet the writer/director and he is amazing! (and very humble) I've read the negative comments on this movie and I could not disagree with them more. The judgments they have made on the film are based on it being a realistic comedy when in fact it is a farce. It is sad the we have homogenized the categories of film so much that we really don't get to see outstanding examples of the diverse genres out there. "Desperate Housewives" (another guilty pleasure and a national hit) almost didn't make it to the airwaves because Marc Cherry was selling it as a farce and people did not know what that was. Sad, because Shakespeare did very well with the genre. "DH" had to be categorized as a soap opera before the networks would pick it up. Here is the definition of "farce": 1. a light, humorous play in which the plot depends upon a skillfully exploited situation rather than upon the development of character. 2. humor of the type displayed in such works. 3. foolish show; mockery; a ridiculous sham. That said, this is a great movie that is hilarious to experience. I was one of many that despite the reviews and comments LOVED the first movie. It was not without flaw, but overall, it was wonderful. This one was in my opinion slightly better. Yes, it had stereotypes and ridiculous situations (see definition of farce above). That structure allowed some very clever dialogue, some hilarious scenes, and some mockery of society's need to categorize "gay" into any specific pigeon hole. This movie makes fun of those stereotypes, and in the process gives you the chance for introspection after the film.I think the actors (male and female) do an incredible job. Rebekah Kochan (Tiffani) has done a body transformation since the first installment. She looked good in the first one, she looks amazing in this one. Both Emily and Jim are fun to watch. The hot guys... well, they are very enjoyable to watch. I was a little afraid that I wouldn't like the character of Marc in this sequel (he was played by Ryan Carnes, now famous for his role in "Desperate Housewives" as Bree's son's boyfriend... in the sequel he is played by Brett Chukerman). By the second scene Brett was in, I was hooked. He did a great job of taking over an existing character.Overall, if you go into this film seeking reality, you will walk away disappointed. If you go in looking for a good time and realize it is supposed to be a farce, you will leave with a smile on your face from the laughter and poignant moments in the film. Mink Stole's final scene in the movie actually brought a tear to my eye. What gay son wouldn't want to hear her comments? :)I would say, check it out.

craiglendyl Finally, the question that has been nagging cinephiles for two years has been answered -- will there ever be a film that's worse than Eating Out? The answer is an unqualified "Yes, Eating Out 2: Sloppy Seconds." The script is completely predictable at every turn -- the opening even has two guys ripping at each other's clothing that dissolves into a fantasy sequence featuring one guy and his annoying girlfriend -- I didn't see that one coming. The direction by Philip J. Bartel is, well, sloppy and the actors appear to recite their lines of dialogue rather than deliver them in a believable manner that suits the characters. The sets look like they were put up an hour before filming and could collapse at any moment. Production values are nonexistent. The awful, awful director of the first film, Q Allan Brocka, even appears as an extra in this one in the scene with the nude male model. Brocka is seated right in front of him to get a good look at his genitals. Perv.How do films like this get financed when there are so many good screenplays languishing on shelves? Avoid this at all costs.It's not even bad-movie good.