House of Boys (2009)

Let's be realistic.

Lack of good storyline.

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

The first ten minutes of this film might lead you to believe that it is little more than a campy celebration of homo-eroticism; however, this could not be further from the truth. House of Boys follows the story of Frank, a young man who runs away from home in order to pursue a liberated lifestyle in Amsterdam. After being abandoned by by a friend, Frank wanders into the gay strip club/brothel the House of Boys, where he is offered a job. As Frank gets to know the rest of the performers and their stories, this reviewer finds that the audience will get more than what they bargain for as Frank starts to learn about the World in its troubles.Unlike a number of gay themed films, director Jean-Claude Schlim took great care that his actors performances did not come off as inauthentic or wooden. As the film progresses, the characters introduced continually strike the audience as authentic, likable, and sympathetic. The audience is allotted ample opportunity to become invested in the arcs of several of the key characters and appreciate the growth they reach at the end, with one exception.Especially impressive is Schlim's use of set design to convey the change in tone within the film. Initially, the sets ((particularly the House of boys itself)) are loud , elaborate, and colorful. As the film progresses, however, the audience sees less of this and makes way for more plain, fading surroundings such as the hospital at the end of Act III.One point of criticism is the arc of Emma. The end of her arc, while satisfying, did not have enough set up to provide adequate pay off to the audience. The film would be just as strong without the scene attempting to conclude her arc.Nonetheless, every cast member gives solid performances that provide adequate depth and sympathy for their character. Despite dealing with sexually charged themes, the film is never pornographic and expresses the sexuality of the characters tastefully. In the end, it appears to this reviewer that the frilly titles and campy opening were intentionally misleading. The depth of House of Boys is more than skin deep.

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.

"House of Boys" was the peak of the London Lesbian Gay Film Festival in April 2011. "House of Boys" stood in contrast to the usual assortment of dry documentaries and silly fluff films. I lost count of how many of the characters seem like real people -- stereotypes or not -- i know and love. It was like being with friends. So much so, that when drama ensues, you want to be there for your friends. I can't remember the last time i saw actors get into their parts so well. I won't give away any plot here: for this film, more than any other, please avoid reviews and trailers that give away plot. Let it develop for you after you get to know these boys, exactly the way Jean-Claude Schlim intends it. Btw, after reading the script, several of actors begged for a part, any part, in this particular film. When you see it, you will know why.

This movie surprised me, but not in a very positive way. I know they intended to recreate the atmosphere of the eighties, but I could hardly believe that I was watching a movie that was made as recently as in 2009! The script is close to melodramatic, the acting was (with a few exceptions) awkward and the settings looked cheap and fake. I'm convinced of the good intentions of the makers, that is: to serve the important cause of keeping up the awareness of the world in regard to AIDS, but this cause would have been better served with a little bit more of a balance between the grave message and the way to deliver it.The storyline was okay. Somewhere in the eighties Frank, a young gay party-animal travels to Amsterdam to submerge himself in the party-circuit, and in search of a roof over his head he's offered refuge in a boys club annex cabaret annex brothel, where he finds work and warmth among the "family" of boys and the proprietor Madame (Udo Kier). Frank falls in love with one of the dancers (Jake). After some misunderstandings this love is reciprocated, but then fate comes down like an axe and Jake is diagnosed with this new terrible disease, the "gay cancer" AIDS. The rest of the movie we watch Jake slowly dying.This premise can hardly be called original. Many movies already have pictured the early days of AIDS, with it's dramatic consequences. So you have to come up with something pretty good to make a difference. Unfortunately that's not the case here.For starters: the script is way too dramatic, on the brink of larmoyancy. The last half hour of the movie all the actors gather around their dying friend, perpetually crying and sobbing in each other's arms, screaming to heaven out of sheer frustration, etc. etc. The slow decay of Jake is pictured in a very realistic and extreme way, which may be intended to make an important point (like: see how terrible AIDS is), but this more or less overshadows the realism that's necessary to the dramatic storyline. We hardly get time to grow some sympathy for both lovers, who in the beginning of the movie both are extremely egotistical and opportunist; then they suddenly turn into lovers and wham: there's the disease to spoil it all. This made it very hard for me to feel for either of them, in spite of the buckets of shed tears.Then I had some reservations about the settings. Why Amsterdam (apart from it's notorious sex-image)!? They never show us anything of the real Amsterdam, and to my knowledge there never was such a sophisticated gay cabaret in town (if only!). Furthermore everyone talks fluently and accent-free English. In Holland?? It's as if there's not one Dutch person in town. Even the good doctor has an English name (in a Dutch hospital??). In the club we see a few erotic dance-acts, and there's also some gay making-out between lovers, but for a 2009-movie with the specific subject of an erotic venue/brothel, it's all filmed very discreet and almost prudish.Layke Anderson as Frank at least has an interesting screen-presence, and it's clear to see that he is willing and enthusiastic, but the direction and script made his character so one-dimensional that he failed to move me. His acting consists of bursts of emotion: extreme mirth, sudden anger, total devastation, etc. Again it's probably the direction that's to blame. Benn Northover as Jake looks like he was barely going through the required motions and didn't much believe in the whole project anyway. There was no chemistry between the two whatsoever. Veteran Udo Kier of course gave his usual professional performance, but he doesn't really get enough chance to make something more of his role as "Madame", the brothel proprietor, than a stereotype, he's too much busy with being haughty and snubby and ad-libbing one-liners. His drag-act though is absolutely great!! Stephen Fry is okay but his only task is to be extremely friendly and understanding and look wise. Not much to put your teeth in. But I did like Eleanor Davis as good Samaritan Emma and I especially liked Steven Webb as Angelo (later: Angela): beautiful, funny, sexy and with a very easy and natural way of acting, even in the unnatural queery attitude he had to play, and that's a real accomplishment! To end positive, there were a few scenes that seemed to be from a totally different movie and that were surprisingly beautiful. They were flash-backs of Jake's childhood in some Mid-West-like forlorn part of America, where Jake as a boy lost his mother, had to endure his father's (sexual) abuse and at last decided to elope from. It sounds like a bit much, but they comprised all of this in a handful of very short but poignant scenes, in an exquisite photography. It's a shame that the rest of the movie couldn't have been in this same vein.