The film is set in Medellin (Colombia) where an old gay man called Fernando (Jaramillo) who after many years ago he has gone back . In a homosexual brothel meets and befriends Alexis (Anderson) a teen at 16 years old and starts a romance with him . He's a gunboy who kills too easily , he unscrupulously murders everybody create him problems . Fernando is struggling to flee him the ominous underworld plentiful of dangers , odds and murders .The picture deals about adolescents and children from Medellin . This city was under incredible violence and ruled the strongest law . Pablo Escobar has been detained and his drugs empire has been dismantled and the factions are spread engaging war each other and making an orgy of vengeance and killings . The movie is a thought-provoking and intelligent studio of juvenile paupers and an unflinching observation at the underbelly of Medellin city where teens and children are dragged into a life of crime become assassins . The flick contains emotions , records , strong violence and a little bit of critical social . The tale belongs a group of films which describe the unfortunate life of south-American youth as ¨Pixote¨ (Hector Babenco) and ¨City of God¨ (Fernando Melleires). Principal actors interpretation are outstanding , in spite of being novels players . Jaramillo is magnificent though relies heavily on the continuous philosophical speeches about his sense of life . The picture is an adaptation based on a semi-autobiography novel by Fernando Vallejo . Barbet Schroeder direction is awesome and stylish , he's a notorious Hollywood director (Murder by numbers , Reversal of fortune) realizing rightly this video- film .

I was initially reluctant to watch this film on account of the gay theme, thinking it would be yet another film about melodramatic queens celebrating their life and love against the prejudices of an incomprehending world. But the homosexuality in this film, like the rest of this film's worldview, is the tough, violent unsentimental homosexuality of Genet (as the title hints) or of William S. Burroughs's Interzone, where rent boys, misanthropy, anarchy and random violence are just part of the wallpaper. As such, this move succeeds in making a movie of "The Naked Lunch" much more so than Cronenberg's effort, even though it wasn't trying to do so.Fernando, the late middle-aged pederastic writer, returns from Europe to his home town of Medellin after a long absence "to die" as he puts it, because he professes to be sick of life. His family has already died, and he has inherited their money and residences, allowing him to live a comfortable life but with nothing to live for. At a boy brothel he meets Alexis, a teenage gangster from the slums, and they start living together. The love is genuine, giving both of them something to live for, even though it a sugar daddy relationship.The pederastic relationship is nevertheless a very small part of the movie. It is primarily a device to bring together these two characters who are polar opposites of each other. The opera-loving Fernando is aging and cynical, looking back to his youth surrounded by his family in a peaceful, semi-rural pre-narcotraffic Medellin. Accompanied by Alexis, he revisits his childhood haunts of the old Medellin, and comments bitterly on how they've changed or disappeared. Fernando believes in nothing, and wanders the streets of Medellin spouting his nihilistic, misanthropic but humorous cynicism towards religion, politics, Colombians, the French, breeders, hypocrisy, bad manners and just about everything else, to the delight of his uneducated and taciturn young companion. But Fernando is a man of words rather than action.The hardrock-loving psychopath Alexis by contrast says little, but lives out the nihilism that Fernando merely verbalises. Alexis's large family is alive in the slums, but he doesn't see much of them. Alexis has an itchy trigger finger, and shoots anyone who incurs their displeasure for increasingly petty reasons, with increasing disregard for any possible consequences, least of all from the absent and ineffectual police. Fernando is at first appalled at seeing this callous disregard for human life actually carried out, but drawn by his love for Alexis, comes to accept and assist and even motivate this casual violence as part of the way of life in Medellin. Fernando even berates a woman for shrieking over one of Alexis's murder victims. Despite this, Alexis is religious. He blesses bullets with holy water and keeps bringing Fernando along to Medellin's numerous churches. Yet Alexis is unable to shoot an injured dog, and Fernando does so only reluctantly.The churches have a central place in this film. Despite the chaos and anarchy of the slums, the churches are still magnificent, clean and orderly. You never see priests or nuns at the churches, but there are plenty of junkies, vagrants, whores and gangsters sincerely praying and seeking redemption among the pews or lighting candles, but also hustling for drugs. One of the most visually memorable sequences in the film involves a dream sequence where the camera does a long sweep through one of the churches. Likewise the city and the malls are also clean and orderly, and the public transport system runs. Somehow a relatively normal, indeed sophisticated and orderly, life goes on amid the carnage and the slums. This was for me the most affecting aspect of the movie.The movie is shot on video using rather naturalistic lighting, giving the whole movie a clinically clean but raw feel. Although music is played on many occasions over radios and ghetto blasters and by live musicians, there is minimal background soundtrack music. The acting is sometimes not very good, but it is always restrained and unflowery. All of these factors give the movie a pseudo-documentary look which makes it easier to believe the sometimes implausible elements such as the readily-accepted pederasty, the anarchic violence and the junkie-filled churches.Although there is a plot, most of the movie is devoted to mood and setting rather than plot advancement. Fernando and Alexis (and after Alexis, Wilmar) wander about Medellin with Fernando declaiming everything, cross someone's path and get into an argument, Alexis shoots the arguer, they go to church, they go to Fernando's apartment and talk some more. This happens several times without going anywhere. Despite this, the film is never dull and maintains a cracking pace. I was riveted throughout. I'm not sure what the message of the movie is if there was one, but it was certainly memorable.

I'll put in my 2 cents on this flick for what its worth, not that it matters much but it is interesting to see the wide extremes of opinions here. I'm quite oblivious to the situation in Colombia today. I've heard about the casual violence and the kidnappings through news media. As an outsider, I found the film to be some sort of a modern masterpiece. The use of digital video was odd but I felt somewhat closer to the locale. The screenplay was incisive, witty and at the same time displayed the depths of the human condition. Some have noted that the acting of the young boys to be bad and unrealistic. True, they are not thespians by trade but I thought they displayed their reactions and emotions toward the writer very well. If I was in their shoes I would have been taken in by this writer as well. Why not? He is providing me with what I need and at the same time showing me the compassion and wisdom that is lacking around me. I believe wholeheartedly that this is Mr. Schroeder's most personal work. Why else would one risk his life filming it in Colombia? I've seen some of his other works and none come close to this. The irony of this film is that the cinematography shows Colombia to be beautiful beyond words. It makes me want to visit. Maybe I'll be like the writer in the film and go there to die after I have done everything I wanted to in my life. This is an excellent companion piece to 'Maria Full of Grace.' Both films are two of the best to come out of this decade.

This movie is modest, and certainly flawed in some respects, but overall very impressive, and very disturbing. I cannot speak to how accurately it depicted Colombia, or Medellin in particular. What struck me was that Fernando, brooding and cynical in his middle years (not "elderly"--please!), often bringing up his own wish to die, is at first reinvigorated by his relationship with Alexis--young, enthusiastic, seemingly almost angelic--but completely absorbed into the culture of death that surrounds him. Fernando is disturbed by the anger and the callous, nonchalant attitude toward death and killing that he encounters everywhere he goes, and even in Alexis. But he is less disturbed by it as time goes by. And at times Alexis kills on his Fernando's behalf--for instance, shooting a neighbor about whom Fernando complains because the neighbor's late-night drumming keeps him awake at night. As Alexis's companion, Fernando himself is drawn into this culture of death. And at times, his own anger and his inability to keep quiet about his contempt for many of the people he encounters incite the situations that result in Alexis killing "for" him. This, to me, was a particularly compelling aspect of this film--the way in which Fernando, shocked and disgusted by the death and killing that surrounds him, becomes so much a part of it--and, at times, is even exhilarated by it, even as he sees the moral dilemma his "participation" in it represents for him.When Fernando shoots an injured, suffering dog as an act of mercy--yet something which Alexis, so callous about killing people, cannot bring himself to do--he (Fernando) is so bitter and upset that he threatens to take his own life. When Alexis wrestles the gun from Fernando, the gun is lost; Alexis loses his protection and is soon shot and killed. By saving Fernando from himself, Alexis loses his own life.Fernando later meets Wilmar, another teenager who at first seems so sweet and innocent that it seems almost jarring (to me, at least), when he later removes his gun. And, yes, it is a bit soap-opera-ish to learn later that it is Wilmar who had shot and killed Alexis, but when he explains to Fernando--who is ready to kill Wilmar when he learns that Wilmar is the killer--why he had killed Alexis, his answer seems so simple, and so devoid of emotion, that it is truly disarming--literally, in fact.As disdainful as Fernando is of his countrymen, and as aloof of the anger, callousness and death around him that he pretends to be, in his attempt to regain his own life and happiness, he finds himself more and more a part of it. To me, that is what is so artfully, even masterfully, shown in this film. That is what makes it moving and disturbing.And I thought the acting rocked. Also, I cannot understand comments about how this movie is filled with gay sex scenes. There is a little bit of embracing, a little kissing, a few scenes of Fernando lying in bed with Alexis and/or Wilmar, and a lot of scenes of Fernando walking around town with one or the other of them.I do agree that the English subtitles are pretty awful. My Spanish isn't good enough to have been able to do without the subtitles completely, but it is good enough to realize how much dialogue was missed, or poorly translated.