Keep the Lights On (2012)

What makes it different from others?

an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Technically I put this film on my watch list because it said it is meant to be a good movie. Oh no, they were totally wrong with that point a lot!The character Eric had such a bad story plot behind him like it kept going on and on that he had sex with many guys who already had boyfriends of their own! Also, his voice was horrible, I couldn't hear what was coming out of his mouth, it made my head explode! They really should've hired a better and less scruffy actor who you can really understand and give a better impression on killing the film. I honestly wish I had that fantasy so this movie wouldn't become car crash to me!

I saw this with a group of other filmmakers. The film was loosely constructed and most of us found it tedious and boring. One person left mid film and I can say I can't blame him.The scenes seemed to be edited in a haphazard manner,and the story moved so slow that at times it appeared that there was no story at all. We failed to connect to the characters and were not invested at all. I found myself wanting the main character to hurry up and die so I could go home.Coming from such an esteemed director, I think we all were expecting a deeper, more emotionally intense cinematic experience. It was a festival hit, including Berlin, and I am not sure why.

This is a terrific, low budget, independent, limited release, film about a relationship mortally wounded by addictions. Erik and Paul (Thure Lindhardt and Zachary Booth) meet while trolling for sex on a phone sex line back in 1998 when people were still doing that. The opening scene is of Erik, spread out on his bed in his dingy apartment, on the phone, clicking back and forth between callers, sifting through details of size, appearance, top, bottom, etc. These calls are not about, "would you like to hook up". They are about, "I'm ready, you're ready, do we suit each others needs". One after another he either hangs up on them or they hang up on him, and then, score. Next, we then see Erik walking through the streets of NY, which are as dark and dingy as his apartment, to meet up with "Mr. Right Now", Paul. And then - the big reveal. Erik knocks on Paul's door and as it opens you have the moment that is the giant metaphor for this whole movie: are you who I'm hoping you are and will this work out? Did he lie or tell the truth about his height, looks, hair color, penis size? Will this be a fairytale or a nightmare? On most occasions this is probably where, if you are the one knocking you turn and walk away fast. And if you're the one with the door you slam it and lock it. They do neither. And, for just a second, before the sleaze begins, their eyes lock in a gaze that tells you that they will know each other long after this encounter is over.Writer/director Ira Sachs has some problems with this script. It bogs down near the end. In the scope of the entire film, however, it's minor but worth a mention. He has written, and brought to life, a very gritty, sentimental, and real, story about two men falling in love, as one of them crashes to the ground in flames. Paul has a drug problem. A bad one. Erik tries to tolerate it, bargain with it, talk Paul out of it, literally hold his hand through it, until he finally says, enough. The road from here to there is painful to watch. It unfolds nakedly through the actors, the script, a brilliant music score, and menacing cinematography. This is a familiar story, with a new treatment, and it is raw to the bone. The cast here is breathtakingly effective. Julianne Nicholson (Flannel Pajamas) plays Erik's colleague and best friend with disarming gentleness. Zachary Booth plays Paul, a man only slightly aware of the harm he does to himself and others. Erik's sister is played, sparingly but effectively, by Paprika Steen. With very few lines she establishes the "normal" facets to Erik's character. There's brother/sister tension. But mostly there's love and family. The very thing Erik and Paul want for themselves. One of the more interesting castings is Russ, played by Sebastian La Cause. Russ is one of Erik's distractions from the chaos of Paul, and he is bizarre. They meet over the phone and their first encounter goes a little differently. Sebastian Le Cause has very little screen time but he makes an impression. He is the flashing caution light for those contemplating anonymous encounters. And the way he does this character is jarring. He is as menacing as he is alluring. Ultimately, this film belongs to Thure Lindhardt as Erik. Lindhardt makes you feel this movie, and his journey, as he is dragged through the madness of drug addiction and loving someone who is out of control. He has the same quality that I attribute to great actors like Heath Ledger. He pulls away from the camera, away from the movie, and draws you in closer, until you're living the story with him. Before you know it, Erik's problems are your problems. Which made me care deeply about both of them. It is an astonishing technique and Lindhardt gives a mesmerizing performance. It is natural and unstudied. He finds the perfect pitch in every scene and the expert camera work is there to capture all of it. Thimio Bakatakis's cinematography is art. It's not possible to discern who the genius is here, Bakatakis or Sachs, but someone has angled a camera here, boxed in a shot there, and sometimes filmed scenes where a character is completely back lit by a bright sky, leaving them in shadow, empty, lifeless, or unreachable. Twice, you see Erik caged in the shot. The first time at the museum when he is made to hide from Paul's unexpected ex-girlfriend. The second time, at the bathroom door listening to the running water, quietly calling for Paul. If you turned off the sound, the camera work alone would tell this story.It's easy to get into the weeds too much about how, and in how many different ways, this film is brilliant. But ultimately, it is just compelling. You want these two guys to win. You want their love for one another to trump the mountain of odds stacked against it. You want them to live happily ever after. If ever a film cried out for a sequel, and they almost never do, this one does. Five years after the credits roll on this film I can see Erik and Paul together again, tenuously, carefully, and forever. At the beginning of this film when they see each other for the first time, unglamorous as it was, you know that it's the start of something better. When they see each other for the last time here, I just got the feeling that it wasn't over. This is not an easy film to watch. But much like driving past an accident on the freeway, you can't not look.

Honestly this movie was one of the worst gay movies I've ever seen.The audience was fidgeting for the whole length, I saw a few people go out in the middle of the movie and not come back. I personally stayed the whole time and I couldn't believe the abyssal emptiness of it.2 main problems: 1/ The movie is supposed to cover 8 years (from 1998 to 2006) but everyone is wearing 2012 clothes and 2012 haircuts. Not just the people on the street - all the actors too. And in 8 years, they don't change clothes or haircuts or anything not even once. The guy starts and ends with the exact same shaggy beard. I know they probably shot the movie under 2 weeks but it would be nice if they made an effort to at least pretend they didn't. I'm not saying that just to be anal about it - but because it's one of the main things that kill the movie because even with the title cards warning you we've changed years their whole story seems to last 1 month, certainly not 8 years. Difficult to get emotionally involved.2/ The drug. I didn't know it was a drug movie, but it is. It's closer to Trainspotting than to a gay romance. And I hated the casual way it's shown, as if all gay men smoked crack and it was normal. I've been around, and I've never seen ANYBODY smoke crack, ever. Not saying it doesn't exist but to play it like it's a normal occurrence is just stupid.Then there are many other things: A guy who's in the closet, with a girlfriend... and 1 month later he's kissing his boyfriend in the street? And of course we saw nothing that showed his evolution. The problem just disappeared. There were definite pacing problems as well (the first 25 minutes, everything is happy-in-wonderland, and you're just shifting on your seat waiting for the movie to start).The only saving point is that the actor playing the drug addict is incredibly good looking. Apart from that, you'd tell me the movie was sponsored by the American Family Association and the FRC, I wouldn't be surprised. it just plays into every single negative stereotype about gay people (save for the child molesting, I guess they didn't have the time).