User Reviews (15)

Add a Review

  • 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.
  • vauxtc1 April 2011
    Warning: Spoilers
    Just saw this today and have mixed feelings about it. On the plus side there were some decent performances from the three male leads Layke, Benn and Steven as well as Eleanor David. But for me there were too many directorial clichés in terms of characterisation script and cinematography: blue skies, white screens, schmaltzy music. I just felt as I often do when watching gay movies that I wish there could be some real originality in a script. Yes all the types depicted here do and did exist amongst gay men and certainly the era was well portrayed: a free for all time when cheap sex was taken for granted without any consequences. But the only time in the movie where I felt really touched by a striking use of sound and image was when we heard Jake's dying death rattle in his breathing counterpointed with scenes of his sleeping friends there for him in the hospital. I do however have to defend the film from some of the charges in other reviews posted here. Porno scenes? Hardly. The film was set in Luxembourg and this was clear; why Amsterdam? because that was where his friends were going. It also was one of the few places at the time where male brothels existed. And it was pretty clear to me why Frank went there: to get away from hostility in college and at home. I also liked the flashbacks which served to explain why a straight boy like Jake would end up working in a place like that getting used in the same way his father abused him, this time though for money. I also thought the graphic effects of the disease and in particular Karposi's sarcoma were rightly quite full on. I doubt if anyone in the cinema where I saw it, at a Gay film festival, hasn't known someone who's suffered from this dreadful disease. The silence through the last section of the film spoke volumes. I found the drag really bad but it was authentic that bad drag often gets applauded so uncritically as in the House of Boys. Nice to see Udo Kier again, a legend from some of the work of the more controversial directors from the German cinema of the 70s..but does Stephen Fry ever turn anything down? I guess he took part as his name may have helped get funding and I guess also that he believes rightly that these films with this message are needed, they are. I just find it's impossible to get away from him in the media. Overall it's worth seeing this film and for me it got better as it went on.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Many movies 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. The acting was (with a few exceptions) awkward and the settings looked rather cheap. 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 more well-considered balance between the grave message and the way to deliver it.

    The script is melodramatic, on the brink of larmoyancy. The last half hour of the movie all characters gather around their dying friend, perpetually crying and sobbing in each other's arms, screaming to heaven out of sheer frustration, etcetera, etcetera. I also had some reservations about the settings. Why Amsterdam (apart from it's notorious sex-image)!? They never show anything of the real Amsterdam, everyone talks English fluently, and the doctor even 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 as specific subject an erotic venue/brothel, it's all filmed almost prudishly.

    All in all, good intentions spoiled by mediocre acting and way too much drama.
  • Some viewers, unfortunately, will pass on this film as the cover of the DVD makes it appear to be a gay sexploitation waste of time. It is anything but that. Written and directed by Jean- Claude Schlim (with assistance from Christian Thiry and Robert David Graham) this is one of the finest films about the early days of the AIDS pandemic and long with 'Longtime Companion' is probably one of the more important films for the public to understand the inception of the disease that still hovers darkly over the globe. The cast is rich in talent and the method of unfolding the story is superb.

    In opening credits we see an apparent carefree young lad running through sunlit cornfields - perhaps reference the path to Oz: where that goes is revealed at the end of the film. It is 1984 and a gay high school lad Frank (Layke Anderson) escapes his rigid parents by moving to Amsterdam where he lands a job as a bar boy in a gay dance club, the House of Boys run by a man referred to as Madame (Ugo Kier) who keeps everyone in tow as well as performing in drag on stage. Frank is assigned a room with a straight boy Jake 9Benn Northover) who is the club's most popular dancer and who makes considerable money participating in passive physical gratification for the gentlemen who frequent the club. Jake has a girlfriend who sneaks in through the window of their room at night for trysts with Jake: Frank must then move in with transgender Angelo (Steven Webb) and raunchy mohawked dancer Herman (Oliver Hoare) for the night. Frank is talented and wants to leave his job at the bar where he assists the gentle lovely Emma (Eleanor David) and become a dancer. In the meantime Frank has fallen in love with the unattainable straight Jake but the two become close friends. Jake has been saving his money as a dancer and as an escort to run away with his girlfriend, but when his savings go missing he realizes his girlfriend has taken the money to abort Jake's baby. Jake is decimated by this but at the same time he leans on Frank for succor. The two boys realize their friendship has turned to being lovers. Jake introduces Frank to his way with clients and in the process falls through a glass tabletop sustaining cuts the require sutures. Frank takes Jake to the hospital where they encounter Dr. Marsh (Stephen Fry) who ultimately discovers that Jake has no T cells - and the mystery and cruel head of AIDS arises. Jake is fired form the club by Madame who fears for the reputation of this new plague and Frank and Jake move in together, compliments of Emma. From this point Jake has obvious Kaposi's sarcoma and the rest of the film is how Frank and the friends of the club are supportive. The unique aspect of the story is that it is the straight boy receiving passive sex from clients is the one who becomes infected. The beginning of the film is repeated with the full story at the end.

    This story could have easily been melodrama but the manner in which the story is handled and the fine acting on the part of the actors involved allows it to rise into the realm of very significant films. It copes with tragedy but it also emphasizes the honest meaning of love in all forms. Highly recommended.

    Grady Harp
  • If good intentions were everything then this film would be great. A comedy drama about the early years of AIDS set in a decadent Amsterdam cabaret/strip club. Unfortunately when a film is so ineptly conceived and made on every level, it ends up doing a disservice to the issues it raises and when it gets exposure in a prime spot at a major Gay and Lesbian film festival whose future is under thread, then it does a disservice to the future a gay film festivals as well.

    The best I can say about the film is that is is professionally shot, but otherwise nothing here works. Why is the film set in Amsterdam when obviously nothing was shot there ? I'm all fine with low budget film-making but if there isn't any money, why not adjust the style of the film to the budget. Instead this sorry mess keeps aiming high only to fall short again and again. We get melodrama ( a death is foreshadowed by a clip of Sirk's Imitation of Life, just so we get it), garish flashbacks, a musical numbers, gross out humour, but all of it is done badly and nothing coheres into consistent tone.

    The main culprit here is the terrible screenplay, full of one dimensional gay stereotypes we have seen a billion times before. Everything is sign posted and spelt out in terrible dialog. The two uncharismatic leads must have been purely cast for their abs, because the acting here is so embarrassingly bad, it would put a school play to shame. I have no idea how Stephen Fry (whose phone call to France got some unintentional laughs) and Udo Kier let themselves be roped in. The only thing that looks reasonably professional are a couple of animated birds by German comic artist Rolf Koenig, but what they are doing here I'm at a loss to understand.
  • I saw this nice little movie in Luxembourg one week or so after it's premier here. Basically it's a story of two teenage boys who leave home for different reasons and meet up within a Gay show club in Amsterdam. After falling in love, one ends up sick with AIDS.

    Stephen Fry plays a sympathetic doctor but basically helpless with the knowledge of the disease back in the 80s. All the cast act great. I was impressed. Apart from a few short porno scenes, it is a neat little gay drama with some nice music and film direction. There are also some scenes filmed in Luxembourg and Morocco.

    If the movie doesn't come to your town, buy it on DVD when released!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I just watched this mess and barely had the interest to click further, having NEVER heard of it in the 5 years it's been out. It was on my queue so I must have added it at some point but OMG what a piece of crap!

    The story is well tired and in this instance, would be by the time you were done hearing the plot told as if it were an audio book.

    I can just read the synopsis presented to Foundations and charities all over Europe for this overly expensive rehash of midnight dancer bollywood field of dreams steven king make-up.

    "Rehash" does not begin to cover the scope of this slop.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    "House of Boys" is a somewhat deceptive film. At first glance, it looks like a low-budget movie that has nothing to offer except sex, drugs and wild partying set in the 80's. The promotional poster doesn't help to contradict this idea and I personally think it doesn't do the movie justice. The film is divided in three acts. Sure enough, the first is mainly about the things mentioned above. The second act develops the relationship between Frank and Jake where it blossoms from friendship to romantic love. The third act deals with AIDS as Jake is diagnosed with the disease and not only him but the people around him try to come to terms with his inevitable death. I found myself caring for all the characters. I felt sorry for Frank when his love was one sided, then cheered happily when Jake started to reciprocate his feelings and even made the first move. After Jake falls ill and then dies, I mourned with Frank. It's touching to see how Frank stays by Jake's side through the whole ordeal and even gives up his lucrative job at the House of Boys where he was being courted as the "next hot guy". I need to mention the supporting characters, Dean, Angelo (or should I say Angela) and Emma. They were true friends and a real family to each other.

    In regards to acting, I thought that Layke Anderson and Benn Northover were very good and had great chemistry together. In fact, I came to respect all the actors for their courage in being part of this film.

    I've been interested in LGBT films for a long time and I've seen quite a few of them now. I've enjoyed this film much more than others which were far more successful with critics and audiences alike (Brokeback Mountain for example). It's all a matter of personal taste, I guess.
  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Filmed in Germany and Morocco this is a beautifully told and well thought out story. With a cast that is so believable in their roles that you lose yourself in the film, leaving you with the feeling that you are there with them through it all.

    You begin falling in love with the characters, rooting for them to overcome circumstance, overcome barriers and find happiness in life. In the end, they all achieve just that. One gets the wish to become the person they've always known they are, another receives an unexpected but very welcomed visitor, and two find love when they least expect it.

    I recommend this film and give it 8 out of 10.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    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.
  • rudylopez-3516523 January 2022
    I wasn't expecting much from this movie, based on the title alone. I'm glad to say that I was pleasantly surprised. Wonderful story, thoroughly engaging characters, And if I hadn't lived in that era and witnessed everything myself, I would find it hard to believe. Take it someone who survived the 80s during the plague and lived to tell about it, this movie hits all the right spots. If you were up in the 80s, and also our survivor, check this movie out...... You'll be surprised. Highly recommended.