Reviews

I thought this was a powerful and heartbreaking film. Powerful because of the dramatic storyline and the performances of all the leads and heartbreaking because of the tragic situations which exist in the Middle East where for some just existing is a struggle and being gay is life threatening. And once again government abuse is rife through the Israeli security service behaviour or through the behaviour of the self appointed thugs on the Palestinian side. The script was strong with believable dialogue. And the film interestingly doesn't take sides. The ending left the possibility of a sequel which I gather is a real possibility.

Well worth seeing and well filmed and clearly aimed at a wider market than just a gay one. No harm in that but you get the impression that compromises have been made in order to appeal for a wider marketplace even though like many features the finance was apparently difficult to get.

Comfortable professional setting, articulate characters seemingly no money worries but nevertheless the situation the lead characters find themselves in, the element of chance which determines a death, the guilt which follows and so on are all ones which anyone could find themselves in. And it deals with the politically torrid issue of visas, residency and the love which is not recognised by official political and governmental mantras. The acting is generally good especially from the actresses and from the actor playing the older gay man.

Just saw this today and have mixed feelings about it. On the plus side there were some decent performances from the three male leads Layke, Benn and Steven as well as Eleanor David. But for me there were too many directorial clichés in terms of characterisation script and cinematography: blue skies, white screens, schmaltzy music. I just felt as I often do when watching gay movies that I wish there could be some real originality in a script. Yes all the types depicted here do and did exist amongst gay men and certainly the era was well portrayed: a free for all time when cheap sex was taken for granted without any consequences. But the only time in the movie where I felt really touched by a striking use of sound and image was when we heard Jake's dying death rattle in his breathing counterpointed with scenes of his sleeping friends there for him in the hospital. I do however have to defend the film from some of the charges in other reviews posted here. Porno scenes? Hardly. The film was set in Luxembourg and this was clear; why Amsterdam? because that was where his friends were going. It also was one of the few places at the time where male brothels existed. And it was pretty clear to me why Frank went there: to get away from hostility in college and at home. I also liked the flashbacks which served to explain why a straight boy like Jake would end up working in a place like that getting used in the same way his father abused him, this time though for money. I also thought the graphic effects of the disease and in particular Karposi's sarcoma were rightly quite full on. I doubt if anyone in the cinema where I saw it, at a Gay film festival, hasn't known someone who's suffered from this dreadful disease. The silence through the last section of the film spoke volumes. I found the drag really bad but it was authentic that bad drag often gets applauded so uncritically as in the House of Boys. Nice to see Udo Kier again, a legend from some of the work of the more controversial directors from the German cinema of the 70s..but does Stephen Fry ever turn anything down? I guess he took part as his name may have helped get funding and I guess also that he believes rightly that these films with this message are needed, they are. I just find it's impossible to get away from him in the media. Overall it's worth seeing this film and for me it got better as it went on.