Once a Year on Blackpool Sands

If only this had had a more focussed auteur then it could have made for a far more potent tale of growing up gay in England in the 1950s. Instead, Karlton Parris rather misses his open goal and provides us with a meandering film that largely underwhelms. That said, there are two strong performances here from Kyle Brookes ("Eddy") and Macauley Cooper's "Tommy" as we relive a story told by way of a retrospective of their forbidden love. The pair have been friends since they were nippers and have been having a clandestine relationship, the odd shag in the pigeon shed, for a while before they embark on their family's annual holiday to the coast - and Blackpool. Homosexuality is still very much illegal - and frowned upon - in Britain and before they travel we, but not "Tommy", know that "Eddy" has a secret. The holiday is like any gathering - people get fractious, fed up and rattled by each other - and the two men, increasingly frustrated by their inability to be open like everyone else, find their relationship severely tested as truths come out on all fronts. Add to this frequently toxic mix their new friendship with local transvestite "James" (an engaging, if sparing, effort from Dominic McCavish) and the scene is set for plenty of familial set-toos and a denouement that, unfortunately, the flashback nature of the story telling has already largely revealed. There's far too much script, the scenarios are often over-contrived and the essential love story between these two men fighting for their identity is largely lost amongst a clutter of too many other characters and sub-plots. Bluntly, the narrative is a mess. At times it does resonate. Being gay here, then, was dangerous and nigh-on impossible - but this really doesn't capitalise well enough on the point it is really hoping to make. Pity - when it is just the two men by themselves, it sort of works.

I'll state rightaway that I gave up after forty minutes. The prospect of having to watch for more than an hour longer was too onerous to bear.

First, the acting. Really. Did any of these people have an Equity card? If they did, they should hand it back immediately. I've rarely seen such hammy thespians. Cues were missed, lines were delivered unconvincingly, interruptions were made after a gap rather than over the other person.

Then, just how much was the make up department's budget? About ten quid? The guys in the 80s suffering from AIDS had laughably-painted blobs on their skin that were meant to be Kaposi's sarcoma. Apart from that, they looked the picture of health apart from the fact that someone must have gone out and bought a pound of flour to give them an ashen look. After a beating by the cops, Eddy turns up for the outing with PINK blood lavished on his mouth and shirt. Utterly ludicrous and unconvincing.

Dialogue didn't ring true particularly amongst the female characters. The constant one-upmanship and put downs by various female characters were not true to life at all. I lived during that period and women didn't behave like that. They might have gossiped behind backs, but not at people's faces.

Then Eddy and Tommy. No real spark. No real connection between them. Indeed, no sense of camaraderie amongst the 80s guys either. They were just a bunch of actors.

I didn't know that this had previously been a play. That explains some of the film's deficiencies. What the screenplay needed was money spent on true professionals who could have adapted this properly for film. And then a competent director. However, I'm doubtful even Jarman could have got anything out of this cast.

This was a huge, awful, talentless mess. If anyone's thinking of paying to watch this, save your money.

I was surprised that this is categorized as a comedy. I found it to be a serious and emotional film about homosexuality in Yorkshire, England in 1953. Two men, Eddy and Tommy, who have known each other since early boyhood, are in love. But their relationship is shrouded in secrecy and shame. Homosexuality was illegal at the time in the UK, and one scene involving the police gave a hint of how difficult gay life could be at that time in a small mining village. But there is a reckoning during the annual village holiday, when Eddie finally decides to take a stand.

Apparently, it's based on a true story of Eddy Corkhill and Tommy Price, who became outspoken LGBT activists. I'm glad to have learned that bit of LGBT history from the film.

It's a story about shame, tough decisions, and about courage.

It begins and ends in the 1980s, in the midst of the AIDS crisis, where the story of 1953 is being told among a group of gay characters gathered together for mutual support at a time when no outside support was forthcoming for people with AIDS.

The casting, and the acting on the part of all the characters is excellent, and while I found the strong Yorkshire accents sometimes very difficult to understand (and I was unable to find any subtitle setting on this movie), I found it a well done, engaging, and quite powerful film.

There are some funny lines, and a couple of chuckles here and there, but I wouldn't call it a comedy. Expect a deep and dark, moving drama if you decide to watch this movie.

I had the privilege of seeing both the theatre performance of this twice, and being at the premiere at the cinema. There are lots of funny parts, but also some very emotional scenes. I would definitely recommend this film.