I love this movie so much

Better Late Then Never

The acting in this movie is really good.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

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.

I watched this movie driven by many good reviews depicting the story of complex and difficult relationship, dealing your drugged partner while full of self-uncertainty and an unfulfilled life. Gay themed background or not, sounded worth a detour. This Indie movie (low budget) so I will not grade with an eye out for an outstanding choreography and impeccable script. It has some anachronistic oddities (character not changing style over many years, New York City scenes out of era, interior not changing a bit over the course of many years) but also a few artistic shot that may catch your attention (playing with lights, framing or softness). There is a reasonable balance of both your sensitivity or attention to detail may find either enjoyable or disappointing. Again, an Indie movie - don't be too harsh.With that in mind, the final product does fairly at treating the topic especially with the character of Erik well developed and believable. But it also has gaps and short comings. The second main character of "Paul" as the closeted gay lawyer with a secret side, fails to develop beyond that. By the end, we know nothing of him and it is not all clear if this was intentional or not. Without this development, it is hard to judge of the depth of the struggle - when the "intervention" scene comes to the forefront, we realize there is a real in-depth problem but have not been driven into it but we cannot relate to the depicting of Paul as a "loving and carrying character". We have to feel this as real through Erik.The movie has also holes and the side scenes and stories do not add much to the thread but raise more questions. From under-developed characters to shallow in passing add ons, we often miss the point and the value added to the threaded theme. OK, we get the idea that Erik has an unstable love life and fall for phone based dating and hook ups. But take the character of Igor for example. Who is he? Do they have a relation? Does he present a better alternative for Erik? This is so brief that the intent is unclear. And what about Erik's BFF? They often travel together but at no point in time are we sure of the nature of their relation - why the friendship and dependence? The confidence? How instrumental is she to his life's story? We are left in our unanswered thoughts.The performance of the main actor, Dane Thure Lindhardt (Erik), is one to remember for a movie which is not very deep and at times, treated with flaws, omissions and unexplained or unclear characters. The whole atmosphere succeeds to give you a sense of sadness and disconnect but comes short to an in depth drama.

As others have pointed out here, there are good performances, and the Dogma-style cinematography gives us the feeling that we're seeing some serious fare. The story is not necessarily UNbelievable, but the motivation of the characters seems missing, and ultimately, that's what sinks the movie.By missing motivation, I mean the love story itself. I saw the effects of the love story, but I felt like I never saw the actual love. I saw nothing in Paul that would have really and truly held the interest of someone like Erik. I mean, really--are there any worldly gay men around who would not cut loose a crackhead attorney post haste? It's one thing for an artist like Rufus Wainwright to admit he was mainly attracted to straight heroin addicts. That's so f**ked up, it almost makes sense. But a European filmmaker obsessed with a white bread American lawyer?? Sorry. Not buying it.That being said, there were some compelling scenes throughout. E.g., I was impressed with the hotel room scene, which felt real. And I'll admit, the movie held my interest enough that I wanted to see how it turned out. But the flaccid ending seemed consistent with everything preceding, making me feel a bit of a sucker.Like I said. Better than average, but not by much.

I saw this movie at the LIGLFF Out at the Movies event last night. As it happened, I liked it better than most. I thought it was a nice mood piece, with good acting, and an involving story, for the most part. I definitely would recommend it.There were some flaws, though. The biggest one was the time changes. For very little apparent reason, we flash though about 9 years of the main character's lives, and yet they look exactly the same from beginning to end. They have the same hairstyles and have not seemed to age at all. It just seemed non-sensical to make a big deal about the passing of years and not have it impact at all on the appearance of the actors.Also, other issues pop up that seem to have no relevance to the movie at all in the end, like the results of an HIV test.While I did like it, I thought it was definitely way too long. It was not as if each yearly segment had some significant action attached to it. Sometimes they didn't. The movie sometimes lurched jarringly ahead a few years, seemingly without valid reason. Since the movie's outcome was obvious in the first half hour, it played out way too long. Still, I did find the characters involving.As for the person who commented that they had never seen a gay crack addict, this film begins in the 90's. There were gay men who did crack. And not every gay man in this movie did drugs. In fact, the movie made that point quite clear. One of the 2 main characters tried it but did not like it. There was a definite validity to some of the drug culture the movie was referring to. I think more surprising to me was that the person in the movie who was very addicted still managed to hold his high-level job, without repercussions.One more thing, I did love the soundtrack in this film. It totally matched the movie.This film was not especially deep, however it was a bit of a melancholic art film that was an interesting look at the decade in the lives of 2 gay men.It is what it is, and not all that much more.