House of Boys

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.

"Frank" (Layke Anderson - anyone else thing he looks a lot like Freddie Fox?) is a young British gay lad living in Amsterdam who has just left school and who is looking for life, love and some sort of adventure. He arrives at the "House of Boys" where "Madame" (Udo Kier) believes his assertions that he's a great dancer - even is he looks bedraggled! He has to share a room with the club's straight star "Jake" (Benn Northover) who kicks him out each time his girlfriend come for a visit, but quickly this eclectic yet friendly group welcome him to their fold and he starts to become popular. The emphasis now shifts a little to "Jake" who is having a fairly torrid time with his "my body my rules" partner whilst simultaneously providing services for wealth visiting Americans who pay well to sleep with him. Things come to an head when someone steals his savings and when he discovers who took it, feels betrayed and that's where the arms of the waiting "Frank" might come in handy. Their relationship starts to take on a new dimension but it's not long before an incident leads to an hospital appointment and the entry of Stephen Fry's "Dr. Marsh" who has some news to deliver - news that was grabbing headlines all around the world in 1985! Initially, this is quite a light and fluffy look at stereotypical gay culture, centred around a seamy dance club where sex is bought and paid for with scant regard to any though of the repercussions. It's only when the story beds down and the characters become a little more established that it becomes a bit more substantial. It looks a little at transitional sexuality, and it addresses (albeit entirely one-sidedly) issues around abortion but the main thrust of the plot sees two characterful efforts from Anderson and Northover emerge from the "Magic Mike" elements and take us on quite a tormentedly plausible story set at the outset of the HIV/AIDS epidemic that was being stigmatised by not just the community at large, but the gay one too whilst the scientific one struggled to get it's head around people with no T-cell count at all in their blood! The plot is not that original, but it has an earthiness to it; a darkness peppered with bits of sarcastic comedy and some decent drag routines at the start to illustrate quite potently a naive and cavalier way of life that was in for a shock. Given it's timeframe, the outcome is pretty much writing in the wall, but to watch now when the disease is relatively manageable reminds us that a mere forty years ago this was an out-and-out killer.

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.

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.

The first ten minutes of this film might lead you to believe that it is little more than a campy celebration of homo-eroticism; however, this could not be further from the truth. House of Boys follows the story of Frank, a young man who runs away from home in order to pursue a liberated lifestyle in Amsterdam. After being abandoned by by a friend, Frank wanders into the gay strip club/brothel the House of Boys, where he is offered a job. As Frank gets to know the rest of the performers and their stories, this reviewer finds that the audience will get more than what they bargain for as Frank starts to learn about the World in its troubles.

Unlike a number of gay themed films, director Jean-Claude Schlim took great care that his actors performances did not come off as inauthentic or wooden. As the film progresses, the characters introduced continually strike the audience as authentic, likable, and sympathetic. The audience is allotted ample opportunity to become invested in the arcs of several of the key characters and appreciate the growth they reach at the end, with one exception.

Especially impressive is Schlim's use of set design to convey the change in tone within the film. Initially, the sets ((particularly the House of boys itself)) are loud , elaborate, and colorful. As the film progresses, however, the audience sees less of this and makes way for more plain, fading surroundings such as the hospital at the end of Act III.

One point of criticism is the arc of Emma. The end of her arc, while satisfying, did not have enough set up to provide adequate pay off to the audience. The film would be just as strong without the scene attempting to conclude her arc.

Nonetheless, every cast member gives solid performances that provide adequate depth and sympathy for their character. Despite dealing with sexually charged themes, the film is never pornographic and expresses the sexuality of the characters tastefully. In the end, it appears to this reviewer that the frilly titles and campy opening were intentionally misleading. The depth of House of Boys is more than skin deep.