Reviews

This is the best-made gay film I've seen for years: the editing, acting, writing, creative camera angles, sound effects, mixed film stock, etc all had the sheen of a glossy blockbuster despite the tiny budget.

I think the reason this has received rubbish reviews is because the trailer portrays this as a nonstop bonkfest. In fact it's a complicated psychological drama with elements of horror told in three separate but interlocked stories.

The main thing to keep in mind is that it's about dreams and film and other virtual realities, so although it may not make perfect sense, like a dream it does have its own internal logic. Stop craving continuity. You even have to stop thinking all the characters are real, doing realistic things.

I admit being confused by the end, but the movie was so well done I watched it again with the commentary and sussed some things that hadn't occurred to me. Ask yourself for instance whether the boyfriend in the second part actually exists and you'll start appreciating the complexities of the film.

What I've decided is that the first act is the nearest thing to reality in the entire movie, showing the humdrum existence of being a sex worker, explaining the reasons why people find themselves in the industry and showing what it takes to join the 'real world'.

Next, you've got a consumer of pornography who passes off his voyeurism as research. He starts off as an ordinary Joe with a perfect life and perfect boyfriend, but the key to his scenes is that little of what he says, sees or does can be relied upon.

Finally, you've got a character living in the real world, but whose dreams are real as well. This enables him to experience the lives of other people, which initially he thinks is his own creative imagination and something he can exploit for profit, but later he sees the underbelly of the industry and recognises the intrusiveness of cameras.

It requires concentration, so kudos to the team behind this for daring to arouse an audience's curiosity for a change.

Maybe it was the dearth of good movies coming out at the time, but I think the UK critics went overboard heaping praise on this movie. Some reviews sold this to me as a high-tension thriller when in fact it is a quiet and slow character piece with a (very slight) whiff of mystery about it.

It was well done, but rather dull. It really crawls along in places. Maybe the future instalments will flesh out the overall story as this 'episode' suffers from poorly developed characters.

Also, I thought the 'twist' was signposted better than a motorway.

***SPOILERS*** She recognises someone fresh out of prison, someone she happens to keep clippings about. She learns that he has been released early and is told 'sorry about it, but one mistake and he will be thrown back in' (hmmm, wonder what she's going to do...). Every time she goes near him she picks up a rock (big clue). She hops under the duvet with a couple of funeral urns (BIG clue). Everything else comes through her conversations with the father-in-law, so by the time the thug breaks in (in a scene where the dialogue was particularly hard to understand), I don't think there were many people in the cinema slapping their foreheads in sudden realisation. It was well done, but ultimately dull and not one I could sit through again.

As for the 'icky' bit. Reviews mentioning 'frank depictions of female sexuality' and an 18 rating rather set me up for their encounter, so no surprises there. I really only cringed because I'm not that way inclined ;) but to hear some people talk it was more like a horror movie. Why, because she wasn't attractive in a traditional sense, neatly groomed and blessed with a big rack? I thought the most shocking thing of all about the film is that the city of Glasgow itself helped pay for this production, seeing how Glasgow comes across as a hell hole.

Creepy pedos in baseball-playing, mom-loving, apple pie-eating small town America? You bet. And because it is devoid of an "after school special" sentimentality or Spielberg gloss, it feels that more chilling and bold and real.

An uncomfortable film to watch, but resonant for me as someone who grew up gay in 1980s Kansas. Details like the Little League games, the Halloween spook house and the shady characters cruising the park were all spot on, though I doubt the film will be championed by the Kansas Travel & Tourism Division.

I've not read Scott Heim's book on which this film is based, but on reading his background you realise each of the youths in the film is a manifestation of himself. He claims to have seen a UFO with his family, excelled in school and lived with his single mom after a divorce (like Brian), he announced baseball games (like Neil) and his infatuation with cosmetics and British goth pop made him the subject of death threats (like Eric).

Altogether that means there's a lot of truth to what's being depicted, no matter how dangerous or taboo some may consider the subject matter. I think Araki should be praised for making a mockery of the American movie ratings by filming such an explicit movie that doesn't show a thing. I've seen European art-house films with twice as much flesh which were half as frank. I think what disturbs people most is there is no moralising, no revenge against the coach and no happy ending where learning the truth frees the tortured characters from their shattered lives.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt was the stand-out from the cast, with Michelle Trachtenberg failing to bring any weight to the film's more poignant scenes because her dialogue is too 'writerly', saying things that people may think but rarely voice.