This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

good back-story, and good acting

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Lesbian marries a Belgian gay man to keep him in the States; they fall in love for real, but he cheats on her--with a woman. Gay leading characters (male or female) in a mainstream motion picture hadn't been in vogue for a number of years--you'd have to go back to "The Fox" or "The Killing of Sister George" in 1968, "The Boys in the Band" in 1970 and "Sunday Bloody Sunday" in 1971--which makes screenwriter Henry Olek's efforts here doubly disappointing. He has the brave notion to introduce homosexual people in a bland, middle-of-the-road setting (no camp attributes), and then drops the ball (or, perhaps, the ball was taken and dropped for him). You can't blame the actors--Meg Foster or Perry King--they are doing what they were assigned to do, to push forward a false plot. But they are pawns in a heterosexual's fantasy, that the gay lifestyle can be "corrected" with the "right partner." The agenda here is obviously unbalanced, and yet director Paul Aaron forges on with Olek's romantic clichés as if the only audience for their picture were straight, upper-class men and women who want to be able to say when it's over, "I always knew it was a choice." * from ****

as a gay male i don't like being pigeon holed into any particular category. it's funny how the gay community loves to claim alternative lifestyle status but very rarely likes any one in their own community to step out of the prescribed mold. if you are gay, that's it, bottom line, and any diversity of your sexuality is discarded or questioned. if you're heterosexual you're allowed to be Bi or experiment. it often seems that in the gay community experimenting outside of your gay sexuality is frowned on.that's why 'A Different Story' still remains a breath of something different decades later. it explores sexual themes that a lot of gay movies don't like to touch on. i mean if you can be latently gay you can probably be latently heterosexual too. and contrary to criticism of the movie, lots of gay people have been married or attracted to the opposite sex.at the time of release in 1978, a lot of people thought this film wasn't daring enough or too afraid to break convention and be a "all gay" movie. now with the gay network Logo and gay movies more common, the outlook of this movie now seems to be less conventional and breaks a standard mold. the two main character seem very unconventional by current gay standards.it's very easy to relate to the main protagonist in this story thanks to to very fine performances by Perry King and Meg foster who are both excellent and radiate warmth and depth which helps to make their characters seem human and very fallible.this is a excellent movie for everyone as long as prejudice doesn't interfere with your viewing. prejudice from both sides, straight and gay which this movie is vulnerable to, unfortunately.

Considered somewhat daring at the time, but tamer now from years of subsequent film and television projects that further explored the topic of homosexuality, this romantic comedy-drama concerns an unlikely couple. King plays a sexy, gay Belgian (sans accent) who has lived as the plaything of several wealthy men, most recently symphony conductor Donat. When things go rotten in their arrangement, King finds himself staying with Donat's pretty, but sloppy, real estate agent. This kicks off a Felix vs Oscar sort of "Odd Couple" storyline until one day when circumstances lead to the pair standing before a judge in order to get married! The marriage is in name only for a long time, but eventually a real affection develops between the two and it turns physical. However, there may be a limit to how many new tricks an ol' dog like King can learn or re-learn, thus the relationship hits a road bump or two along the way. King is slim, toned, tan and blonde, strutting around in some very skimpy briefs and well-worn pants (and sometimes even less than that!) He gives a committed and heartfelt performance, though occasionally he is seen acting far more feminine than at other times, perhaps due to shifts in acting choices as the filming progressed. (Note the flaming way he acts in the scene with Donat following a party, though he doesn't behave this way again.) Foster is excellent, lending much feeling and passion to a difficult role. She also suffers a bit from inconsistency in her manner and mannerisms, going from chain-smoking slob to immaculately coiffed wife with little or no impetus. Sometimes both actors seem to have worked heavily on the outside of their characters in order to convey inner changes and it does come off a wee bit forced at times (King adopting a butch moustache and wearing three-piece suits is another example that comes to mind.) Still, the actors share great chemistry and clearly worked well together during this film. Curtain is excellent as a neurotic, fatalistic companion of Foster's. Bull and Collentine (spouses in real life as well) appear as Foster's fussy parents. The film had a divisive affect on the gay community then and now. Some saw it as an unrealistic sell-out while others were grateful to be represented at all. To the film's defense, both characters were always presented as having had sex beforehand with both sexes and it is purportedly based on a true story! (The author named Foster's character Stella, after his friend Stella Stevens, though he did not indicate that she was the inspiration for the scenario.) One of the film's flaws is the device of using tiny little episodic scenes, separated by blackouts. This gives the opening portion of the film a choppy feel. The film was made by people who specialized in TV commercials, so perhaps very lengthy sequences were not their forte and, in fact, some of the visuals and scenarios do resemble 1970's TV commercials at times. If one can accept the premise, without finding it unbelievable or offensive, this is a pretty easy and charming diversion featuring two appealing people.

Since this film was made in the 70's when people understood very little about homosexuality, I suppose someone was bound to come up with this absurd scenario. A gay man winds up playing house with a lesbian, then they get married to prevent his being deported.After discovering each other sexually after a drunken birthday party, they are magically turned into full-fledged heterosexuals, becoming parents in the process. Once the guy begins working for a gay designer, we're setup to think he's going to go back to his old ways. (Spoiler Alert!) Well, he's having an affair all right, but with a female model. But all is well in the end.This film is written and acted with complete sincerity, making the whole thing look truly clueless by today's standards. Gay life is represented by our hero's largely sexual attachments to wealthy men and trips to a bathhouse, while the heroine has a relationship with a pathologically insecure closeted lesbian who threatens suicide. In other words, the film makes being gay look like a truly depressing dead end existence - one that you can choose to give up when the right person of the opposite sex shows up.I suppose the bogus "ex-gay" movement could use this film as a recruiting device, except that it's pretty dull.