Karry Best movie of this year hands down!

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Arianna Moses Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

Roxie The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Neil Doyle There's a DEATH IN VENICE quality to this low-key story about a British writer's consuming interest in the career of a handsome young man (JASON PRIESTLEY) whom he only knows from his reflection on the silver screen in a bunch of puerile teen flicks. He becomes so obsessed with his fantasy of meeting the lad that he, on the advice of his agent, takes a vacation--all the way to Long Island where the actor is spending time before heading back to his next film in Los Angeles.***POSSIBLE SPOILER***He manages to sneak his way into the lives of the actor and his girlfriend while interesting Priestley with his talk about becoming a more fully-rounded actor in the English tradition of Shakespeare and so forth...and perhaps even writing material for him. But the payoff to the whole story of this pursuit comes during the last ten minutes when he invites Priestley to a diner where they can have a quiet talk about Priestley's future--and more importantly, Hurt's confession of love.It's this final scene in which the two men really show their worth as actors. Hurt is excellent as he slowly gets to the point--a point that Priestley is slow to get--and once made, the look on Priestley's face is priceless as the camera stays on his inscrutable expression before he takes his leave. A very touching scene, extremely well acted.Summing up: Not for everyone, slow to develop its theme but very effective once Hurt actually meets Priestley.

jwalzer5 Teaming a veteran like John Hurt with Jason Priestley would seem to be a casting director's nightmare. Surprisingly, this film takes that premise and runs with it - very convincingly. John Hurt plays a tired, lonely writer (Giles) who is completely out of touch with the modern world, and Jason Priestley, in a touching and thoughtful performance (keep in mind that part of his performance is self-parody), is the object of Hurt's desire. Hurt first comes across Priestly as, "Ronnie Bostock," a forgettable, hunky presence in Grade-Z cinematic atrocities like, "Hotpants College II." Some viewers have mistakenly seen this film as a reworking of Mann's, "Death in Venice," but this film is different: while retaining the poignancy of old age (Hurt), it injects new life into Pristley's character, and allows the viewer to think of him as much more than an object, fruitlessly pursued. There is a key scene at a roadside café late in the film, where Hurt makes an offer he has no right to offer, and Priestley is confronted with a choice he shouldn't have to make. It is a key moment in the film, beautifully handled by both actors, and illustrates the simple power of human drama, devoid of a $100,000,000 special effects budget. And there is, thank God, no happy, artificial, manufactured resolution. This is a film for connoisseurs, and is well worth a look. One last note: the explicit "gayness" of John Hurt's character brought out the worst in some homophobic critics. Their whining only validated John Hurt's performance. Giles is paranoid and defensive because he's never been offered an alternative. Society has not treated Giles with either civility or decency, and he bears the scars of that mistreatment. A life lived in the closet is a waste, and Giles' insular life, uncontaminated by humanity, is a brutal commentary on the destructiveness of such an existence. Both Ronnie and Giles, one straight man and one gay man, are prisoners of society and the quality of their lives, to society's discredit, have been needlessly compromised and diminished. A wonderful film and a deeply disturbing commentary.

Philacas We just rented this junker by accident and thank whatever, it was a freebie. If we had paid for this turkey, we would have DEMANDED our money back. The story was telegraphed from the first frame - (SPOILER) - English widower sees hunk in movie, gets obsessed, follows obsession, has adventures, meets obsession, is rejected, starts new life.Hurt phoned in the performance, Priestly did what Priestly does best - NOTHING - except look like a C list porn boy, and everyone else mugged. The best things about this appalling piece of dreck were the dog, Strider, and the vintage Porsche. And oh yes, there were no egregious errors when it came to the scenes shot in London.Don't waste your time, your money, or usage of your DVD. This is movie that ranks up there with 'Battlefield Earth' , 'Ishtar', and 'Gigli'. Despite the comments of others, this is an dreadful piece of rubbish and if someone gave me a copy it would end up as a coaster or in the microwave.

inframan When I read the reviews of this movie on its release I was eager to see it. It sounded quirky & interesting, not the usual predictable product of a Hollywood factory. Unfortunately, this shallow film is more TV sitcom than anything else, with talking cars, supermarket shopping-basket confrontations, a goofy landlady & a bunch of phony pseudo-Cheers diner patrons. Nothing rings true on either an emotional or satirical level. I'm surprised it didn't show up as a Fox series. In particular I found John Hurt's performance disappointingly indifferent. See Ian McKellen in Gods and Monsters in a similar role & similar setup to appreciate what some dimensional acting might have wrought on this limp effort.