Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Cooktopi The acting in this movie is really good.

Eric Stevenson It's weird looking back at the older movies and then slowly getting more modern. It's interesting to see the movies tackle on more mature subjects. This is the earliest movie I have seen that was explicitly about homosexuality. It's kind of cheating for me to give this 10 stars. It's not the best written of its kind, but I simply love it. It might only be because it's great to see an early positive and realistic portrayal of homosexual discrimination. I had no idea that the British actually banned homosexuality, but I don't know how accurate this is. This is a disgusting notion that stops people from being unique and living their lives to the fullest. I don't want to make this review a political rant.The story features a guy who is not only gay, but also happens to have a wife himself. It's revealed that while it was mostly a cover-up, he does sincerely care about his wife, just not in that way. I don't think I have even seen any modern movies that deal with this topic. It truly is interesting to see something most people would just not talk about being discussed in such an old movie. The pacing is great and it never felt too long or short. The acting is quite good and I really feel for all these characters as their lives are being destroyed simply because of whom they love. Historically, I know very little about the history of gay rights. Well, this doesn't deal with American struggles. It's still a wonderful film that everyone should see. God doesn't make junk. ****

lasttimeisaw Half a century's age, this hidden curio from UK cinema revolves around a series of homosexual blackmailing cases (while men could be put in jail simply for being gay), an eminent married lawyer in the closet decides to expose the extortion on account of his "young admirer" commits suicide in order not to comprehend him into the dark corner, so as to prompt to unseat the discrimination inside UK's legislative system and which will inexorably end his prominent career. The film counts in a flock of various characters, among which mostly are gay men (of divergent ranks), under the milieu of repression, some are diffident and dodging, some are well-off and laissez-faire, and depicts a vivid gay scene at then with a briskly unobtrusive measure (in spite of multiply exploiting unsettling close-ups of faces to attenuate the dramatic currents), deftly projects Dirk Bogarde's heroic lawyer as the knight in shining armor to rescue the gay sub- culture being bullied and threatened. Bogarde is bold (off the screen) and instinctively mesmerizing (on the screen) in the film, even subconsciously one could dive into his dilemma and being shepherded until the exit of the maze, remarkably it is not a common whodunit trickery, no actions, no noir atmosphere, it is a moral lecture with a cogent victory of defending oneself's nature. Sylvia Syms is steadfast in her role as the wife, knowingly indulging her marriage and naively believes there is an alternative, the two-hander between her and Bogarde is the zenith of this film. The film's laconic 90 minutes length does seep some coerced discontentment, but frankly speaking the story has no loose end, one could divine its subsequent development in his own aftertaste.

ha-rob Looking at this film from today's perspective it looks very tame, the story is a group of gay men from different social economic groups being blackmailed, but this film was made in 1961 6 years before the 1967 Sexual Offences Act which decriminalised sex acts between men over the age of 21 in private, the film was made during the period which became known as the British new wave when British films wanted to become more realistic and challenge the accepted view of society and the establishment but this was still a brave move at the time, the film treats the men sympathetically (who at the time would've been regarded as perverts and criminals) and argues (as much as it dares) for the law to be changed, Dirk Bogarde plays a successful barrister who decides to take on the blackmailers and let the chips fall where they may, knowing that that decision will destroy pretty much every aspect of his life, the film is well acted and very well made, i think because of its time and subject matter the film will always be very interesting as a period piece more so as time goes by, to think that less than 50 years ago there were laws like this and people were persecuted and prosecuted for their preferences is a disgrace and i think that's what most of todays audiences will think.

edwagreen Dirk Bogarde must be given a lot of credit for starring in a movie deemed quite controversial for its times.He plays a successful man about to become a judge and yet he is hiding a terrible secret. That is, he was friends with a young man being blackmailed who ultimately killed himself in jail. Seems that the young man was forced to steal money as the blackmailers knew of his homosexual relationship. It doesn't take long to guess that Bogarde was part of this relationship.Trouble with this film is that the 1:43 minutes that it takes to tell the story could have been done in 20 minutes.The big surprise here is the discovery who was part of the blackmailing conspiracy. When it comes out, our maiden reveals the nature of anti-homosexual hatred in society. Of course, the financial benefits for her were secondary. Right?The story could have been stretched to further detail the relationship's effect on his marriage. His wife seems willing to continue, but that was probably a story in itself.When you think of this situation, it's a very sad commentary on the bigoted view of society on this topic. It shows how such a relationship could destroy a career.