Sodom

It is a film of atmosphere. Two men in an apartment, after one of them helps the other in an embarassing situation. A night and the connection. Options, realities, intentions and a bitter final.

A film proposing reflection. Less exactly a story or solutions but gifted by the fair exploration of ordinary dilemmas, choices, doubts and expressions of help and affection and loneliness.

It is the kind of film selecting in precise manner its audience. And doing that in subtle manner. Because not the subject is axis but the answers , to their reality, of the men.

And the end as a sort of deserved conclusion .

The title "Sodom" makes zero sense for the name of this film and it is very difficult to enjoy this movie unless you are sight-impaired. Imagine a Caucasian actor playing an "Asian." We are expected to accept something that doesn't match what we actually see. The film is a perfect example of how BAD CASTING can ruin a movie. It's like watching an actor calling for his dog and then a cat shows up (and we are told it's a dog). I have no personal issue with Pip Brignall (Will; the younger, straight soccer player). He does an OK job, he was simply NOT RIGHT for the part because:

• AGE: he is supposed to be 20, but looks almost as old as the other 40-year old gay character.

• Orientation: supposed to be straight but looks 10X gayer than the "gay" character. Everything from hairstyle, his smile and mannerisms are screaming "gay." Then he opens his mouth and all suspicions are confirmed. Yet we are continually insulted by being told that he's straight. Yeah right!

• Does not look like or act like a soccor player. Besides, why even write a "soccer player" into the story when it is not important to the plot..

REWRITE the story/script so it fits what we are watching. Otherwise cast an actor that fits the role. Don't try to sell us apples when you are offering oranges; then expect a good outcome.

First Brignall was miscast, and Weir was not. Second the title with its Biblical title and its association with a city damned by supposedly divine intervention was utterly inappropriate. The casting of two men talking and sexually relating through the night did not bore me, as I like that sort of film that is intimate, and no two encounters are ever the same, and the nuances of such meetings can be full of human insight. Eric Rohmer's films are a perfect example on how to succeed in that. But to be honest I did not quite believe that these two would have much to say, and when they did I responded and despite misjudged casting the film has its merits. I disliked the ending, which was as negative as the title. No spoilers although other reviewers have. Sadly again the final scenes reminded me of those novels of the 1950's when it was obligatory ( publishers colluding with public opinion demanded it ) to be negative, but I switched off. A pity as the film could have totally succeeded.

Slow paced love story kept me hooked but the straight acting gay guy did it for me he was gorgeous and a much better acting than the straight soon to be married guy. The only thing that I thought was a let down was the straight guy that was soon to be married was camper than the gay guy I couldn't see this guy as a footballer can't even for the life of me know how his girlfriend didn't know about him he wouldn't look out of place on a Mardi gras float in a gay parade.

Sodom is nothing very new. But it is a graceful, artful, masterpiece set to beautiful photography and music. Generational conflict makes this film interesting and alive. I can't understand how anyone would dislike or hate it. A film-goer inspects all parts of a film, not just the plot. Although important, the plot is not everything. This film is alive and carried beautifully by only two actors the entire film. Both men are beautiful and perfectly cast. This film is nothing short of beautiful and is a positive image in the genre.