MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Bereamic Awesome Movie

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Suradit There are many good, in some cases excellent, movies about the AIDS crisis, including recent films like The Normal Heart and Angels in America, and earlier work such as And the Band Played On. House of Boys is not one of the good ones. Another reviewer suggested anyone disliking this movie must be a homophobe. To the contrary, anyone who thinks this qualifies as a good gay-themed movie must have a fairly low opinion of what a well done gay-themed movie can be. Admittedly there has become some degree of fatigue for gay films that trade off the AIDS crisis, but again, referencing the two recent films mentioned above, when done well they are still well-received.In this film there were too many terribly clichéd personalities. ranging from the world-weary aging "madame" of the House of Boys, to the straight woman rescued by said madame, to the somewhat mysterious wealthy American customer, to the assortment of boys working in the club and of course, to the film's very own Little Nell, the wide-eyed naïf, Justin … and nearly all of them with his or her own unsuitable or overdone accent. With all this heavy traffic distracting us, it was impossible for us to develop any emotional attachment to any individual, least of all the annoying Justin. In fact, most of the characters' development depended more on our familiarity with their recognizable cliché than anything revealed in the story-line.At times it seemed like a Dickensian soap opera, heavily over-dramatic and replete with all the trappings, including someone in the snow-covered street singing like an urchin beggar from Scrooge or Nicholas Nickelby. Unlike something written by Dickens, however, none of the characters in this story was very well developed nor did they engender much empathy or sympathy. The actor playing Justin was a poor choice. He lacked talent, charisma or the sort of good looks that might have made us feel some emotional attachment to him. Most of the other actors were fairly good, but the whole enterprise just never came together. Towards the end, when the tears are flowing on screen, I doubt many were shed by anyone watching the movie. And the subject at hand really should produce tears with little effort. I guess it's a matter of distinction that this movie managed to render the whole HIV crisis as well as the death & love loss experienced by its lead characters, as something banal.There are far better choices for moving, emotionally-draining and inspiring tales from this period in the gay community. You can give this one a miss.

jm10701 Unlike some other reviewers, I watch movies for the quality of the entertainment, not for the quality of the preaching. If I want to learn about AIDS, about the history or symptoms or progression or politics of the disease, I'll look it up - I won't watch a movie. I watch movies ONLY to be entertained, never to be educated.The big problem with this movie is that it's stupid, boring and totally, totally unbelievable. It starts out like a farce, with cartoon good kids and cartoon bullies and cartoon bad parents all interacting frenetically; and the thirtysomething high school kid pumping his thing behind his unlocked door right when Mom and Dad and Little Sis noisily come home - but does he hear them before they barge in and catch him full-handed? Of course not! Or even like a high school musical (the painfully contrived, amateur Fame-esque dance that bursts out of nowhere on the high school steps as the opening credits roll?) Or God only knows what - except that it turns into a maudlin, preachy, soapy tragedy long before the end.This is a TERRIBLE movie, in which Luxembourgers talk like Cockneys and the Dutch talk like Americans and everybody always looks like they just stepped out of the shower... and it's all just a crazy, mixed-up, phony mess that's as annoying as gnats swarming around your face. I hated it.

gradyharp Some viewers, unfortunately, will pass on this film as the cover of the DVD makes it appear to be a gay sexploitation waste of time. It is anything but that. Written and directed by Jean- Claude Schlim (with assistance from Christian Thiry and Robert David Graham) this is one of the finest films about the early days of the AIDS pandemic and long with 'Longtime Companion' is probably one of the more important films for the public to understand the inception of the disease that still hovers darkly over the globe. The cast is rich in talent and the method of unfolding the story is superb.In opening credits we see an apparent carefree young lad running through sunlit cornfields - perhaps reference the path to Oz: where that goes is revealed at the end of the film. It is 1984 and a gay high school lad Frank (Layke Anderson) escapes his rigid parents by moving to Amsterdam where he lands a job as a bar boy in a gay dance club, the House of Boys run by a man referred to as Madame (Ugo Kier) who keeps everyone in tow as well as performing in drag on stage. Frank is assigned a room with a straight boy Jake 9Benn Northover) who is the club's most popular dancer and who makes considerable money participating in passive physical gratification for the gentlemen who frequent the club. Jake has a girlfriend who sneaks in through the window of their room at night for trysts with Jake: Frank must then move in with transgender Angelo (Steven Webb) and raunchy mohawked dancer Herman (Oliver Hoare) for the night. Frank is talented and wants to leave his job at the bar where he assists the gentle lovely Emma (Eleanor David) and become a dancer. In the meantime Frank has fallen in love with the unattainable straight Jake but the two become close friends. Jake has been saving his money as a dancer and as an escort to run away with his girlfriend, but when his savings go missing he realizes his girlfriend has taken the money to abort Jake's baby. Jake is decimated by this but at the same time he leans on Frank for succor. The two boys realize their friendship has turned to being lovers. Jake introduces Frank to his way with clients and in the process falls through a glass tabletop sustaining cuts the require sutures. Frank takes Jake to the hospital where they encounter Dr. Marsh (Stephen Fry) who ultimately discovers that Jake has no T cells - and the mystery and cruel head of AIDS arises. Jake is fired form the club by Madame who fears for the reputation of this new plague and Frank and Jake move in together, compliments of Emma. From this point Jake has obvious Kaposi's sarcoma and the rest of the film is how Frank and the friends of the club are supportive. The unique aspect of the story is that it is the straight boy receiving passive sex from clients is the one who becomes infected. The beginning of the film is repeated with the full story at the end.This story could have easily been melodrama but the manner in which the story is handled and the fine acting on the part of the actors involved allows it to rise into the realm of very significant films. It copes with tragedy but it also emphasizes the honest meaning of love in all forms. Highly recommended. Grady Harp

vauxtc 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.