Clapham Junction

Comparing it to the other European heterosexual crap we get to see on TV, I would rate this gay one into the top league of good movies. As a gay man, I wonder why I like it. The message of this movie is that gays have ONLY bitchy sex, on public toilets and all of that in a violent way. To put this straight, gay life isn't that way! I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but somehow, I hear all my alarm bells ringing. To make it short, the movie is good for people who are gay or who have at least experience with it. To all the newbies to that subject it's an anti gay movie. Please remember this story is fiction. 'Not a documentary!

A truly brilliant piece of work. The writing is creative, astute and exceptionally well crafted. The direction creates exactly the right mood for the story and brings out the best in the writing and the acting. The actors play each character so perfectly right from the beginning that you truly believe them - exactly what should happen! The story is not for the faint hearted and though explicit, it is never gratuitous. The story is written to challenge you and it does so superbly. Whether you like the content or not, you can't say it isn't a good piece of work. It makes you think and it makes you feel - and you can't ask for more than that.

A veritable feast of hot and sweaty, young, British talent. The film is packed with it. And I think the fact that they are all sweaty is actually very clever. You can't tell what's making them heat up, is it the sun or is it the sexual tension?

While I really enjoyed this film, it's probably more because I got to see Paul Nicholls' penis than because the story was good. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but not as good as Paul's little friend. However, I do feel that it doesn't necessarily send out a positive message of life as a gay man or the world surrounding Clapham Common. I've never been there, so I don't know and I know it's based on true events, but it would have been nice for something happy to occur as well as all the downs to provide a little bit of balance. Maybe I've just been very fortunate in that I have never been victim to homophobia on such a scale and it has made me complacent and naive, but I'm sure that good relationships must happen too. At least I've got to hope that it's the case.

It's definitely worth a watch and not just for Paul's willy, but I would suggest that you try not to let it scare you if you are a young or vulnerable gay man, who is easily persuaded.

I expected more nudity, as copies of this film on DVD are selling at a minimum of £19.99 on eBay and it generally has to be imported from America without a rating, and quite frankly, I wanted to see Detective Joe from Vera in the buff, I bet he's got a great bottom.

I don't think you can say it's as clever or as well put together as films like "Call Me By Your Name" or "God's Own Country", but it is thoughtful and filmed with some artistic perspective. I like the way their lives all intertwine, that was done well.

I do like a happy ending personally.

Over a two day period a series of interconnected events impact a disparate group of Londoners.

Occasionally brilliant, often shocking and ultimately depressing exploration of contemporary urban gay sexuality and the resultant array of societal attitudes across age and class. In part influenced by the horrendously brutal murder of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in 2005, Elyot creates a host of deeply unpleasant characters as the main focus of his exploration into homosexuality, its surface acceptance and ever-present homophobia across all social strata's today.

Whilst astonishingly frank in its depiction of casual, anonymous sexual encounters in public toilets and open spaces (Clapham Common, Hamstead Heath) and the contrast between being 'out' versus being closeted and covert, Elyot falls back on the clichéd and contrived device of 'the dinner party' to enable a host of views to bubble up to the surface. Perhaps it's the environment Elyot knows best so finds it easiest to write about, but it's still hard to gauge what his intention is with his moneyed and privileged group of diners – are they intended as a representation of middle class views and behaviours? In addition, why is practically every character either unpleasantly selfish or irritatingly naïve? It may well be that the well-heeled dinner party set do have these views and opinions, but if they are so singularly unpleasant, how can we care? It's difficult to determine exactly what Elyot is trying to say with Clapham Junction – that homophobia is still real and in consequence very dangerous? That the general view is that gay men can be universally accepted but only if they behave like the wealthy, urban, heterosexual upper middle-classes? That heterosexual people don't have any kind of secretive, covert sex life? No, straight people don't go cruising for anonymous sex in toilets or parks, but that's only because they don't need to.

Elyot paints a deeply depressing picture in Clapham Junction, which may in part reflect the truth, but he fails to find any counterpoint. All is bleak, all is dangerous - hatred, bigotry and prejudice prevail. The minor strand of the young black boy playing his violin in the face of intolerance and persecution only serves to crack the nut with a hammer - we've already learnt that it takes bravery to be who you are in the face of adversity (witness the deeply unsettling, painfully honest encounter between Theo and Tim), so why bludgeon the viewer with this message a second time? The closing scene is gratuitous in light of all we have witnessed before.

Shergold and Elyot are well served by their actors, with Treadaway and Mawle in particular offering spectacularly honest, real and brave performances – their plot-strand is perhaps the most challenging, the most unsettling but ultimately the most truthful story, and this time the concluding lack of hope is in proportion and understandable.

Moments of brilliance then, from all involved, but in the end Clapham Junction is deeply flawed and devoid of any shred of hope. Is that all there is?

When I watch a film I normally try to ignore what the critics have said and just focus on what the film does (or doesn't) do for me. However it was more a problem for me with Clapham Junction when it was shown as part of the Channel 4 series of films and programmes to mark the 40th anniversary since male homosexuality was legalised. Unwittingly I watched the panel discussion 40 Years Out before I saw this film, and the first part of the former was a group of commentators laying into the producer of the latter. I remember being quite entertained by this match-up but was wary to make up my mind for myself rather than just repeating what the likes of Matthew Parris et al had said.

Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light – the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.

The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside – instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able – although Elyot's script offers him little support either.

Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion – just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah – shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point – sadly it had neither.