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.

As a gay man who's been in a relationship in the past with a drug user, I found this to be one of the most compelling and original films I've seen in a long time. The reviewer who stated he's "never even met anyone who's done crack" and accuses it of being "stereotypical" is either living in a small town somewhere or doesn't get out very much; meth and coke use are rampant in the gay community in San Francisco and other big cities, and this film very accurately portrays the disappointments and the gradual loss of self-esteem someone involved with a user goes through in hoping they'll recover. I don't watch a lot of "gay" films because I feel a lot of them are trivial, but this delved into territory I've not seen anyone brave enough to explore before, similar to "Shame." It's not always an easy film to watch, but it's raw and it's real. It will be interesting to see what kind of box office it gets or if it ends up falling between the cracks because it'll be marketed as just another "gay film." This is a universal story, it just happens to be portrayed here as happening between two men... I hope the film gets a fair release and people get a chance to see it.

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.

Thure Lindhardt is at the center of this film and he's really its only saving grace. His Erik is the kind of character many of us know, or have been, in life. He's in his late 30s, but hasn't really done much with his life, and he's somewhat addicted to casual sex. When a phone hook-up leads to emotional involvement, Erik's life suddenly has a focus and it gives him more impetus to complete his documentary film project. Handsome, charismatic Lindhardt is well-cast, as a non-native trying to make it in New York. He knows how to express the conflicts within Erik: wanting love, but pursuing an impossible object. He's decisive, tender, petulant and confusing, all at once. Lindhardt is the kind of actor who can do much with small nuances of voice and facial expression. Unfortunately, Lindhardt is playing opposite a much less compelling character and actor, in Paul (Zachary Booth). This actor gives a professional performance, but Paul is so nearly a non-entity, it's doubtful anyone else could do more with him. He's narcissistic, drug-addled and self-destructive from the start, and he never changes. Erik is narcissistic too, but his character and storyline have more substance. For some viewers, it may be hard to understand why Erik puts up with Paul and returns to him again and again. Lindhardt makes us believe in Erik's obsession, at least most of the time: we don't always want the most appropriate person. One one level, this is a story about the power of sexual attraction, but it's also about the attraction of a 'wounded deer'. Erik thinks that Paul needs him, and that notion is as strong as any to make him continue the relationship.Also good in the cast is Julianne Nicholson, as Erik's close friend and collaborator. She brings a natural, lived-in quality to their scenes together.The film opens well, and builds the narrative nicely, until the final third, when it feels slightly disjointed and suffers a bit from a loss of energy. It's nicely shot and has a mostly pleasing music score, highlighted by the song under the opening credits.