House of Boys

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.

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.

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.

When I look at casting lists of movies and the name Udo Kier pops up, I know that that film can't be any good. Unfortunately House Of Boys didn't prove me wrong. Kier could never act. And even the lip-synching is horrible. But he is not alone. With one or two exceptions the whole cast of this film is challenged and overwhelmed with their task to act. So in the end this looks like a film d'auteur made for television with a lot of ambition and heart but lacking of craft and money. The three acts of the film end in a sob fest and Amsterdam at Christmas looks like a typical Zeffirelli production of La Bohème at the Metropolitan Opera House. No, this is not a good film, no matter how ambitious it may seem.

I wasn't expecting much from this movie, based on the title alone. I'm glad to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Wonderful story, thoroughly engaging characters, And if I hadn't lived in that era and witnessed everything myself, I would find it hard to believe. Take it someone who survived the 80s during the plague and lived to tell about it, this movie hits all the right spots. If you were up in the 80s, and also our survivor, check this movie out...... You'll be surprised. Highly recommended.