House of Boys

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.

I liked this film a lot. Admittedly there were some questionable parts, but overall this film does what it sets out to; reel you in with many bare torsos and shove reality in your face with a hard knock, amid a love story that ultimately has you caring about it by the end.

Layke Anderson is wonderful in this. I haven't seen him in anything else, but he's fantastic as the rebellious party-boy who finds his own heart. It's a shame he finds it with Benn Northover (whom I haven't seen in anything else either), who pales in comparison to pretty much every other performer in this film. He seems an odd choice next to Anderson, and his character is lost among the other, more colourful ones.

Udo Kier and Stephen Webb are good for the laughs, which are few, but effective.

House of Boys pulls no punches in depicting disease and the effects it can cause; this may be unsettling for some, but you'll be glad you sat through it. It's not life-changing, but see it for Anderson's performance, and Udo Kier in drag. Obviously.

"House of Boys" was the peak of the London Lesbian Gay Film Festival in April 2011. "House of Boys" stood in contrast to the usual assortment of dry documentaries and silly fluff films. I lost count of how many of the characters seem like real people -- stereotypes or not -- i know and love. It was like being with friends. So much so, that when drama ensues, you want to be there for your friends. I can't remember the last time i saw actors get into their parts so well. I won't give away any plot here: for this film, more than any other, please avoid reviews and trailers that give away plot. Let it develop for you after you get to know these boys, exactly the way Jean-Claude Schlim intends it. Btw, after reading the script, several of actors begged for a part, any part, in this particular film. When you see it, you will know why.

If good intentions were everything then this film would be great. A comedy drama about the early years of AIDS set in a decadent Amsterdam cabaret/strip club. Unfortunately when a film is so ineptly conceived and made on every level, it ends up doing a disservice to the issues it raises and when it gets exposure in a prime spot at a major Gay and Lesbian film festival whose future is under thread, then it does a disservice to the future a gay film festivals as well.

The best I can say about the film is that is is professionally shot, but otherwise nothing here works. Why is the film set in Amsterdam when obviously nothing was shot there ? I'm all fine with low budget film-making but if there isn't any money, why not adjust the style of the film to the budget. Instead this sorry mess keeps aiming high only to fall short again and again. We get melodrama ( a death is foreshadowed by a clip of Sirk's Imitation of Life, just so we get it), garish flashbacks, a musical numbers, gross out humour, but all of it is done badly and nothing coheres into consistent tone.

The main culprit here is the terrible screenplay, full of one dimensional gay stereotypes we have seen a billion times before. Everything is sign posted and spelt out in terrible dialog. The two uncharismatic leads must have been purely cast for their abs, because the acting here is so embarrassingly bad, it would put a school play to shame. I have no idea how Stephen Fry (whose phone call to France got some unintentional laughs) and Udo Kier let themselves be roped in. The only thing that looks reasonably professional are a couple of animated birds by German comic artist Rolf Koenig, but what they are doing here I'm at a loss to understand.

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.