Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

SincereFinest disgusting, overrated, pointless

Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Wyatt There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

Laight It's not just that the actors all come from the school of Sneering at the Camera is good acting. And not just that the director thinks extreme close-ups are artful rather than simply exposing bad skin and makeup. It's not that there's no real script, just a lot of clichés thrown back and forth. Or that one of the characters veers between a superb rendition of Edina in Absolutely Fabulous and the venal agent in Frazier. No, the real problem is the strange underpinnings of angry homophobia. According to this movie, all gays want sex, all the time. All gays are always being beaten up by gangs of youth, all the time. All gays are cruel to each other, and despise straight people. All gays are, basically, screwed. (And when gays have to run away from thugs, they always run to places where there are no people around, such as woods, so that no one can help them.)An unpleasant and incoherent work. Run. Run away, as fast as you can. And not into the woods.

sf_fred The major reviews of "Clapham Junction" on IMDb have collectively been on target. The characters are lightly linked and do little to show the positive aspects of gay life. The performances and technical aspects were workmanlike. Luke Treadaway (Theo) and Joseph Mawle (Tim) were the most memorable.The high IMDb viewer rating (currently 7.50) might be lower if it were not for student Theo's unambiguously nude scenes.What seems to me not to be on target is the write-up on the USA DVD package: "Inspired by True Events / In this riveting film about sexual tolerance in modern society, the paths of several men intersect during a dramatic thirty-six hours in which their lives are changed forever. After another man falls victim to a violent gay-bashing incident, the homosexual community of Clapham Junction comes together to bring the assailants to justice." My USA DVD timed out at 99 minutes and had SDH English subtitles and three previews as its extra features. You might compare the timing shown on the IMDb listing. The result is acceptable; I hoped the film would be more focused, not longer.

bob the moo 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.

evawatches This movie gets another mixed review from me.I didn't mind the negative portrayals so much (unsympathetic people exist, after all, among straights and gays alike, as does hatred and hypocrisy, and the performances were mostly really good), but I didn't like that that's all we get in this film. I've read that the writer didn't intend to portray the full range of gay life, but I guess that was what I expected from an anniversary-type movie. All the depression, the violence, the negativity left me feeling rather bleak and unsatisfied, thinking "But that's not all there is!"And, on a rather superficial note, as a big fan of 'Maurice' I did wish for more interaction between Wilby and Graves. :)