Manthast
Absolutely amazing
Roy Hart
If you're interested in the topic at hand, you should just watch it and judge yourself because the reviews have gone very biased by people that didn't even watch it and just hate (or love) the creator. I liked it, it was well written, narrated, and directed and it was about a topic that interests me.
Skyler
Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.
gilbertjones-546-597779
Some of the reviewers on here and I,must have watched different movies.For one thing,there is no character in this movie called Justin.Furthermore,I thought the characters were well developed and the portrayal of the AIDS crisis as it existed in the 1980's was spot on...I,like many other people,sadly,have known several victims of AIDS and have seen many of them die, much too young....The two lead characters,I thought, had a great chemistry together and it was very distressing to watch Jake die and Frank have to go through it with him....Especially touching,for me,was the fact that Frank traveled to Morocco to scatter Jake's ashes,since it was a place Jake always wanted to visit.All in all,I thought this was a great movie and not what I was expecting based on the DVD cover.
Suradit
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.
jm10701
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.
Ldnldnldn
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.
