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

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

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.

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" 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.

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.