It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

The first thing that struck me about the imagery in this film was how much the art of Pierre et Gilles owes to it. Oversaturated color, pink, blue, and yellow gels, and every object gilded and bejeweled within an inch of its life. Add chiffon, satin, and skin-tight chinos, and almost any still from this movie could be misconstrued as Pierre et Gilles.As much as those French artists have borrowed from PN, the film itself reaches for a lot of gay iconography of the time. The street scenes seemed to be trying to animate Paul Cadmus canvases, e.g., with a pinch of Tom of Finland thrown in.Another reviewer mentions that while the film is dated 1971, images from it appeared as early as 1964. I was a teenager in 1964, and the first thing that struck me was how early 60s Bobby Kendall (the lead) looked vis a vis hairstyle and clothes. And the props, such as they are, would now be called Hollywood Regency, and that wouldn't be far wrong. From our current perspective, I would say it's a good look back at what openly gay men looked like--or aspired to--immediately before Stonewall, and before the hippie aesthetic took over the 60s.Correct, the film is free-form, nonlinear, yet seems to be trying to get some point across. I'm not exactly sure what that point is. It's pretty much fill-in-the-blank, it's so generalized. Something about gayness and self-revelation, but perhaps it was too early in the century for the filmmaker to be able to give us something with more emotional impact.This isn't especially a good film, but it is an ambitious one. And it's early in gay culture. For that reason, I think it deserves to be seen, but keep your expectations low. If it had been trimmed by at least half of its 110 minutes it probably would be more highly respected today as a work of art. But then a 45 minute film wouldn't have made it into the art houses of the 70s....

PN is one of those films that even Roger Ebert runs across now and again that really defies categorization. It is a fantasy, a spectacle, a tour de force, an indulgences, a homoerotic cornucopia, idealized male sex. It's possible to see different emphases every time its viewed.Is it a precursor to Fellini's "Satricon"? To "Midnight Cowboy"? A youth, Bobby Kendall, in a romantic idyll who sees his grubby hustling trade on NYC's as a Roman bacchanal, a prancing matador. Does Bobby really see the world in which he lives or does he choose not to see it? The unanswered mysteries and questions this film raises, despite its last minute snatching from the hands of its creator, make it a Mona Lisa of filmdom. Even if you don't like it, you'll be intrigued by it and want to talk about it. That's why it's worth viewing.

I don't know why the rating for this is so low -- well, that's not true, I do know: it's arty, it's got no dialogue (we have radio weather forecasts in lieu of that), it's in grainy pink, and it doesn't have a story. But it is a successful glimpse into a gay dream, and a successful passing on of that experience -- and the title character, a wonderfully objectified youth, is the perfect gay ideal: pouty lips, messy brown hair, dark features, a fantastic and well-exploited rear, and a sculpted body. And he's unclothed for most of it, a Caravaggio boy.The film is a good example of ingenuity on the director's part -- it's a small-scale melodrama not unlike those of Guy Maddin, if Maddin was more lushly sensual and less manically comic. It's not a porno, but it is extreme gayness, and the mere essence of that is enough for some people to get it up. But regardless, it is very erotic; a number of scenes (stripping the boy's undies off, sucking his own fingers, slowly humping the ground in nature) push the right buttons. There are some inventive scenes, like the boy getting a beejay from a leather man swimming in a milky liquid (and then after that a urinal-fetish scene). I haven't seen "Un chant d'amour," so I don't know the degree to which this is influenced by Genet, but it does have its parallels to the Genet-inspired third of "Poison." 9/10

Possibly the most artistic movie I have ever seen. Beautiful Bobby Kendall (where is this guy now??) in a series of self-indulgent fantasies. The 'narcissus' theme carries to the end. And who could blame the guy? An arousing, provoking short film full of sexual, and more importantly, sensual scenes. Not quite hard-core gay, but right up there. Better. Filled with elements which porn lacks - beauty, art and eroticism. The viewer is treated to plenty of teasing shots, where things are actually left to the imagination. Colorful, magical, erotic. Recommended to anyone who wants to view a hot gay film which also asks things of you artistically.