Okay, I love psychological thrillers. I love gay cinema. I watched this movie and couldn't figure out what in the hell was going on.First, I couldn't tell who was who. The movie was so poorly lit that I found myself squinting to see what was going on. All of the main characters looked the same - I guess it was to link the three phases of the movie together to show the different dynamics of the same issue, but good Lord. Turn the lights up so I can distinguish between the leads.The story was so full of holes and there was nothing intertwining the different stories. It was like they couldn't figure out what direction the movie was going in. I felt the movie should have ended 5 times before it was truly over.I feel like hours of my life were sucked away and I will never get them back. It wasn't even a movie that was so deep that I reflect on it later. I watched it until the end and all I could say was, "What in the hell was this movie about?"

This is the best-made gay film I've seen for years: the editing, acting, writing, creative camera angles, sound effects, mixed film stock, etc all had the sheen of a glossy blockbuster despite the tiny budget.I think the reason this has received rubbish reviews is because the trailer portrays this as a nonstop bonkfest. In fact it's a complicated psychological drama with elements of horror told in three separate but interlocked stories.The main thing to keep in mind is that it's about dreams and film and other virtual realities, so although it may not make perfect sense, like a dream it does have its own internal logic. Stop craving continuity. You even have to stop thinking all the characters are real, doing realistic things.I admit being confused by the end, but the movie was so well done I watched it again with the commentary and sussed some things that hadn't occurred to me. Ask yourself for instance whether the boyfriend in the second part actually exists and you'll start appreciating the complexities of the film.What I've decided is that the first act is the nearest thing to reality in the entire movie, showing the humdrum existence of being a sex worker, explaining the reasons why people find themselves in the industry and showing what it takes to join the 'real world'.Next, you've got a consumer of pornography who passes off his voyeurism as research. He starts off as an ordinary Joe with a perfect life and perfect boyfriend, but the key to his scenes is that little of what he says, sees or does can be relied upon.Finally, you've got a character living in the real world, but whose dreams are real as well. This enables him to experience the lives of other people, which initially he thinks is his own creative imagination and something he can exploit for profit, but later he sees the underbelly of the industry and recognises the intrusiveness of cameras.It requires concentration, so kudos to the team behind this for daring to arouse an audience's curiosity for a change.

My review will be short. The low ratings of this movie have nothing to do with homophobia. In fact, had the characters been heterosexual it still would not cure what ails this movie.The issue with this movie is the narrative. It is ostensibly three different shorts held together by a plot based on an urban legend.As another review mentions, the movie starts really slow, you have to stick with it. It then transitions into the 2nd act which is quite interesting in part because the actors , well, they can act and hold the viewers attention.Unfortunately, the 2nd act ends in a disjointed an unsatisfying way and leads into the final act that also features some descent acting but poor storytelling.This movie could have been great. Several times I felt that this movie could become at least a cult classic but the director blew it.Don't be fooled. This movie isn't too high-brow,far from it. There is one, and only one reason to watch and that is to see how badly the opportunity to make a very good movie was squandered.

While I normally enjoy pornography of all kinds when it is done in a documentary way; it is not palatable when one adds a plot which does not have a way of telling a complete story. This is that kind of film. The writer/director, apart from having an obvious love for film and its techniques and auteurs by the dozens, he only picks bits and pieces from some of his favorites, and then writes a story that should have been storyboarded, in order to even play homage to his most often used,enigmatic and "surprise/plot" directors. Hitchcock would have thought this the longest trailer in history......as a matter of fact, the movie IS a long trailer. I yearned for reason, as well as reason for casting, for lighting, for a clarity, and for ONE interesting character. What a bunch of bores the writer wrote. Who the hell cares? It sounds homophobic, but gay films must learn to realize that the serious subjects are always going to deal with "gay" and its problems, and MUST not try and take itself seriously. Lesbian films succeed because they are willing to take chances with honesty and anti heterosexual subjects.