ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Brennan Camacho Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

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

aarcher64-1 A lot has been said about the anachronisms but only to the point that "times are still tough for gay people." My impression is that they have more meaning then that, like were those court reporters portraying the actual reporters present when Mandela was sentenced using prison typewriters? Was that the Land Rover he rode in? Was the cousin dressed as Jackie O. saying something about Kennedy's involvement in S. Africa? There have also been complaints about the limited development of the Scot botanist's role. I believe they didn't spend more time on that because it wasn't necessary and maybe there wasn't more facts from the transcripts available.

jkdrummond I had seen this in the cinema some 7 or 8 months ago and when I saw it on sale on DVD, I snatched it up immediately; this is a film I will definitely watch many times before it's exhausted its fascination.This is unquestionably one of the strangest films ever made, and one of the most intriguing and even beautiful. Slight spoiler: *It does NOT have a happy ending, but it IS, nevertheless, a tremendously positive ending.* The love story involved is complex and clearly developed with an eye firmly fixed on the morality, ideas, and misinformation endemic to the early 18th century, when the "real life story" took place. Nevertheless, the film is chockablock full of some very strange anachronisms. Nevertheless, both the buddy I saw it with and I were able, very early on in the film, to adapt easily to that. Subsequently, I DID find out that, as I had expected, Greyson, the director, and Lewis, the writer along with Greyson, did those wild anachronisms deliberately in order to underscore, so to speak, the fact that racism, homophobia and class differences are as alive and well in the 21st century as they were in the 18th.The main focus is on the two lovers, but the Scottish botanist -- Spoiler: *present more as observer and sympathizer as anything else, though he is a major plot element* -- helps to open the story out to a much wider impact than a "mere" prison romance could allow for.Beautifully acted (particularly Rouxnet Brown, Neil Sandilands (the lovers) and Shaun Smyth (the Scots botanist, though ALL really do a splendid job with difficult material), for a film that was made on the merest wisp of funding fantastic production values, and, IMHO, great heart.A Canadian/South African Film Treaty movie, it pleased me enormously to learn that some of that micro-funding actually came from the government of SA! My major criticism of the film is the somewhat confused subtitling: There are, apparently, some four languages used in the film, Afrikans, Dutch, English and the click tongue of the Bushmen. *Once or twice the language on screen was subtitled in a non-English language.* A bit frustrating but scarcely off-putting.Enjoy!

harry-76 This "art house" film, based on factual documents, depicts real events which are informative and provide a historical context for some of today's social attitudes.Although the recorded events took place in the mid-18th century, the director has peopled his set with deliberate contemporary anachronisms. This is apparently to tie together time periods, showing significant similarities.The film itself seems to have a divided audience, from those who love it to those whose reactions are the opposite. While the events covered are pretty grim and unpleasant, the production is well shot and the quality of the actors is uniformly strong. In my opinion, though, here's a film that will probably have a limited general, together with an appreciative special, audience. It is commendable that the South African government has opened its political policy for more inclusiveness in artistic subject matter. Well produced by a Canadian company.

gwmindallas At the heart of Proteus is a great story - actually two great stories - about the oppression of homosexuality during the 18th century. The main "love" story between Claas and the sailor has the makings of a very dramatic story if told well.Where the movie went wrong, IMO, was mixing costuming, sets and props from different eras. I "get" what the director was trying to do - show us that these problems exist today as much as they did 300 years ago. But the visual jarring of seeing the modern next to the historical kept knocking me out of the plot. Halfway through the movie, I was wondering if this really was a directorial choice or simply a way to reduce costs by using readily available stuff rather than recreating the time period.The secondary story about Virgil never takes off. We are supposed to juxtapose his life with Claas' and see how Claas becomes more accepting of his homosexuality, or at least "love" for another man, while Virgil becomes more closeted as the oppression begins. I never could figure out if Lorenz was Virgil's lover or just a gay friend. In many ways, this movie would have been better served as a straightforward historical drama than attempting to take on multiple plots and risktaking direction.