Boyfriends

Although this film DID remind me of something else (NOT "The Big Chill" either), I found it to be refreshing and thoroughly enjoyable. The ensemble cast was particularly talented, the writing was appropriately intricate with a few surprises, and there was even a fun Dinah Washington song ("I Wish I Knew the Name of the Boy in My Dreams")to spruce it up a bit. As with most British films, I had a bit of a difficult time with the accents at first, but I think I got most of it. There's just something INTELLIGENT about the SOUND of the language in British films! At any rate, once I figured out the relationships (and lack of them), I had a good time watching the country weekend for the "lads" unfold. Perhaps the film didn't especially break any new ground, but I don't think a film HAS to do that to be worthwhile. Does every STRAIGHT movie that's fun break new ground? I don't think so. It's about time that a gay movie can be kind of ordinary (no drugs, no AIDS, no suicides) and still be good entertainment. I think the British are much better than we Americans at making gay films, and this is just another example. By the way, the film that reminds me of this one is "Love! Valour! Compassion!"--but this one came first.

Having recently dredged Boyfriends up on video i thought i might give it another chance.

I was surprised to find it wasn't as horrendous as a I remember from the first time round.

The wonderful mismatch of the slovenly Paul (James "let's play camp characters for the rest of my career" Dreyfus) and the wonderful Ben (Mark Sands) does shine through.

The other characters have no depth. It's as if the writers scribbled the script in one night, sorry Neil and Tom.

The only shining scene is the "pig" scene, wonderfully performed by Mark Sands.

Not anywhere near the class of "Get Real" and "Like It Is", yet worth a watch if it ever comes on television, which i doubt.

I think i may put the video on my bookshelf, and not in a cardboard box in the attic like last time.

This film is about 3 gay couples spending a weekend in a country hose together. Their troubles are unleashed and their relationships are tested.

"Boyfriends" has quite a brutal plot, as all three couples have problems in their relationship. One couple has been together for 5 years but is not happy; another couple's relationship is not working because a guy's love is not reciprocated; while the third couple have just met but not seem to get on. All these problems are common everyday problems that people do face, and the film analyses the emotions and reactions of these characters in depth. I think "Boyfriends" is a great character study.

I agree that "Boyfriends" is a low budget amateur production. However, I think this adds to the realism of the film, as it is about everyday problems of everyday men. There is no sugar coating, no pretentiousness, no fancy fluffs and no stereotypical drags. And no pink stuff at all anywhere. A plain and direct film about what problems gay men face is a welcomed change.

After 10 years, Boyfriends still stands out as one of the finest movies yet about gay relationships. I've seen it maybe half a dozen times, and never find it anything but fascinating and compelling and often very funny. The characters and story lines are complex and the performances believable. I recall reading that this film was based on conversations with the actors, all of who whom were openly gay (another reason this film remains accurate and unique among gay cinema). I would guess that almost every gay viewer will find himself or his relationship represented in this film. Unfortunately, most of the cast (with the exception of James Dreyfus and Andrew Ableson) have pretty much disappeared since Boyfriends. The filmmakers returned quite a few years later with the very different, higher budgeted, and equally fascinating The Lawless Heart. I hope we'll see more from their work in the future.

This is definitely a low budget film and having seen the other review posted on the web site expected to be extremely disappointed.

I am very pleased to say the opposite is true. I think the low budget, made the film more believable. At first I was extremely annoyed at the character Paul as being truly obnoxious and overbearing. With the appearance and interaction with the other weekend guests, some insight as to his problems as well as those of other characters began to surface.

I enjoyed the film because I could identify the behavior with friends I've known. At times I think the resolutions were a little simplistic. But that's Ok. It gives the romantic in us some hope, not only harsh reality.