Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Calum Hutton It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Christopher Carter I had high hopes that this wasn't as bad as I was reading. Sadly it's as bad as I was reading. I had to read the plot summary to find out what the film was about and as the movie was acted out I only got two aspects of the summary, one that Erik was a documentary film maker and Paul and Erik were in a relationship. This is a film I would not recommend to anyone for any reason for there is nothing to learn from it. The premise is supposed to be the ups and downs of a relationship but for me the premise was more like two strangers that meet, fall into heavy "like" with one another and never quite stop being strangers to one another. Erik is clingy and cloying and annoying and Paul is cold and standoffish and, according to the plot summary, closeted but I didn't get any of that aspect. For them to fall into a relationship after meeting once off a telephone sex line, even though I know it can happen and has for many, this love at first sight thing between these two diverse and disparate characters is more than unbelievable.The purported good times between the couple really never materialized for me and so why they were a couple for as long as they were a couple just never made any sense to me.I felt no connection with these characters, actually none of the characters.All in all it is just not a film that I want to view again.

Tom C I had high hopes for this movie because it has overwhelmingly positive reviews, some even called it the "best film of 2012". I didn't watch the movie until now, and I am really disappointed!I was dragging myself through most parts of the movie. 30 minutes into the movie and I was thinking, "I'm not interested, what's so interesting about this movie?" Things only became slightly interesting midway through the movie, and so I tried to finish the movie to see if there's a really great ending or something. But sorry, no. I guess there are two things you can learn after watching this movie: first, the gay hook-up culture (and how it hasn't changed 20 years later... cough... Grindr... cough...); second, the overused "drugs ruin relationships" cliché. Come to think of it, I don't really see the point of the use of drugs in this movie. What's most frustrating is that not much is known about Paul other than his drug addiction! Let's draw an easy comparison: "Weekend" (2011). I don't get how "Weekend" was dragged for filth for featuring drug use, when it actually carries weight and adds an excellent level of depth to the characters! Yes, Paul is a druggie, so what then? Go see this movie if you want to see a rocky relationship that may or may not work out in the end (no spoiler duh). But don't get you hopes up cause you'll be just as disappointed as I am.

hughman55 This is a terrific, low budget, independent, limited release, film about a relationship mortally wounded by addictions. Erik and Paul (Thure Lindhardt and Zachary Booth) meet while trolling for sex on a phone sex line back in 1998 when people were still doing that. The opening scene is of Erik, spread out on his bed in his dingy apartment, on the phone, clicking back and forth between callers, sifting through details of size, appearance, top, bottom, etc. These calls are not about, "would you like to hook up". They are about, "I'm ready, you're ready, do we suit each others needs". One after another he either hangs up on them or they hang up on him, and then, score. Next, we then see Erik walking through the streets of NY, which are as dark and dingy as his apartment, to meet up with "Mr. Right Now", Paul. And then - the big reveal. Erik knocks on Paul's door and as it opens you have the moment that is the giant metaphor for this whole movie: are you who I'm hoping you are and will this work out? Did he lie or tell the truth about his height, looks, hair color, penis size? Will this be a fairytale or a nightmare? On most occasions this is probably where, if you are the one knocking you turn and walk away fast. And if you're the one with the door you slam it and lock it. They do neither. And, for just a second, before the sleaze begins, their eyes lock in a gaze that tells you that they will know each other long after this encounter is over.Writer/director Ira Sachs has some problems with this script. It bogs down near the end. In the scope of the entire film, however, it's minor but worth a mention. He has written, and brought to life, a very gritty, sentimental, and real, story about two men falling in love, as one of them crashes to the ground in flames. Paul has a drug problem. A bad one. Erik tries to tolerate it, bargain with it, talk Paul out of it, literally hold his hand through it, until he finally says, enough. The road from here to there is painful to watch. It unfolds nakedly through the actors, the script, a brilliant music score, and menacing cinematography. This is a familiar story, with a new treatment, and it is raw to the bone. The cast here is breathtakingly effective. Julianne Nicholson (Flannel Pajamas) plays Erik's colleague and best friend with disarming gentleness. Zachary Booth plays Paul, a man only slightly aware of the harm he does to himself and others. Erik's sister is played, sparingly but effectively, by Paprika Steen. With very few lines she establishes the "normal" facets to Erik's character. There's brother/sister tension. But mostly there's love and family. The very thing Erik and Paul want for themselves. One of the more interesting castings is Russ, played by Sebastian La Cause. Russ is one of Erik's distractions from the chaos of Paul, and he is bizarre. They meet over the phone and their first encounter goes a little differently. Sebastian Le Cause has very little screen time but he makes an impression. He is the flashing caution light for those contemplating anonymous encounters. And the way he does this character is jarring. He is as menacing as he is alluring. Ultimately, this film belongs to Thure Lindhardt as Erik. Lindhardt makes you feel this movie, and his journey, as he is dragged through the madness of drug addiction and loving someone who is out of control. He has the same quality that I attribute to great actors like Heath Ledger. He pulls away from the camera, away from the movie, and draws you in closer, until you're living the story with him. Before you know it, Erik's problems are your problems. Which made me care deeply about both of them. It is an astonishing technique and Lindhardt gives a mesmerizing performance. It is natural and unstudied. He finds the perfect pitch in every scene and the expert camera work is there to capture all of it. Thimio Bakatakis's cinematography is art. It's not possible to discern who the genius is here, Bakatakis or Sachs, but someone has angled a camera here, boxed in a shot there, and sometimes filmed scenes where a character is completely back lit by a bright sky, leaving them in shadow, empty, lifeless, or unreachable. Twice, you see Erik caged in the shot. The first time at the museum when he is made to hide from Paul's unexpected ex-girlfriend. The second time, at the bathroom door listening to the running water, quietly calling for Paul. If you turned off the sound, the camera work alone would tell this story.It's easy to get into the weeds too much about how, and in how many different ways, this film is brilliant. But ultimately, it is just compelling. You want these two guys to win. You want their love for one another to trump the mountain of odds stacked against it. You want them to live happily ever after. If ever a film cried out for a sequel, and they almost never do, this one does. Five years after the credits roll on this film I can see Erik and Paul together again, tenuously, carefully, and forever. At the beginning of this film when they see each other for the first time, unglamorous as it was, you know that it's the start of something better. When they see each other for the last time here, I just got the feeling that it wasn't over. This is not an easy film to watch. But much like driving past an accident on the freeway, you can't not look.

Turfseer While attending a recent screening of 'Keep the Lights On', director Ira Sachs indicated that the title of his new film about a gay romance spanning approximately ten years, refers to transparency, or lack thereof. An additional theme he revealed is that the characters are trapped in a masochistic relationship.The film begins as we're introduced to Erik, a documentary filmmaker from Denmark. He's basically supported by his father (much to the chagrin of his sister) who criticizes him for not having a regular job. Erik has just broken up with his lover and compulsively seeks out physical encounters with other gay men, using phone hot-lines (the film begins in 1998, at the time when phone hot-lines were beginning to be phased out, due to the rising popularity of the internet).Mr. Sachs holds little back in depicting the sexual encounters Erik has with strangers as well as his new found lover, Paul, a literary agent. They're not completely explicit but there's a raw immediacy, which gives the film an authentic verisimilitude--a peek at gay life that outsiders rarely are privy to.Sachs wisely chronicles the dichotomy of Erik's personality. On one hand, he's almost irrational in his obsession with Paul, ignoring the obvious reality that Paul is a drug addict and is rapidly going downhill. Erik also keeps a lot of things to himself and there is a lack of communication between the two lovers (that lack of transparency that Sachs alluded to during the recent screening I attended). On the plus side, Erik is deeply concerned about Paul's welfare and is instrumental in getting him into an inpatient program.While Paul has to struggle with his demons, Erik gradually makes good on his promise to become a successful documentary filmmaker. He wins a 'Teddy' Award in Berlin, after garnering acclaim for his documentary about a gay artist from the 40s and 50s, who Erik in effect, rescues from obscurity.The tension in the plot is bound up in guessing whether Paul is going to make it or not. After Paul returns from rehab, there's a great scene where he disappears for a number of days, and Erik and his friends have no idea where he is. When Erik finally finds him at a hotel, it's obvious that he's had a bad relapse. Erik hardly seems surprised when a young man comes over to have sex with Paul. Instead of getting angry and feeling betrayed, he accepts the fact that Paul has relapsed and holds his hand while Paul has casual sex with the stranger.'Keep the Lights On' slows down considerably in the third act, as Paul seemingly is much better after a few years and is now able to work. Erik's attitude has changed toward Paul, who has kept away from him for about a year. When Paul gives him an ultimatum--either break up or find a new home and live together--Erik, perhaps now realizing that their relationship has run its course, chooses the option of dissolution.Erik's obsessive love for Paul does eventually become tiresome and of course the point is that Erik must go through a process of self-actualization before he realizes he's been in a masochistic relationship. Nonetheless, Paul's breakdown and Erik's efforts to help him, is the best part of the picture. And yes we also want to know what the ultimate disposition is of their relationship.Director Sachs' portrait of Erik is of a gay man who is not isolated from the rest of society. He has female friends and well as straight male friends, and despite flights of sexual compulsivity, Erik comes off as someone who is pretty much part of the mainstream. In that respect, Mr. Sachs ably argues that gay people should not be considered 'outsiders', but ordinary people, who are no different than the average middle class straight person.A good part of 'Keep the Lights On' is strangely compelling. Will Paul overcome his addiction? Can Erik remain in the relationship, despite Paul's chequered history? Erik's 'love at any cost' obsession with Paul is necessary to show his self-destructiveness but by the same token, remains unexplained and goes on for a little too long. Some judicious editing, to make the film slightly shorter, would have helped. Nonetheless, this is a film that is definitely worth a look, not only for a few nice twists and turns in the plot, but the particularly strong performances from Thure Lindhardt and Zachary Booth, as the gay lovers, whose relationship reaches its nadir and then unceremoniously, fizzles out!