Keep the Lights On (2012)

Fresh and Exciting

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Technically I put this film on my watch list because it said it is meant to be a good movie. Oh no, they were totally wrong with that point a lot!The character Eric had such a bad story plot behind him like it kept going on and on that he had sex with many guys who already had boyfriends of their own! Also, his voice was horrible, I couldn't hear what was coming out of his mouth, it made my head explode! They really should've hired a better and less scruffy actor who you can really understand and give a better impression on killing the film. I honestly wish I had that fantasy so this movie wouldn't become car crash to me!

What a trip this flick is! Director/writer: Ira Sachs really brings to the screen a story about obsession and pernicious behavior between the emotionally needy Erik and the psychologically baleful Paul. In this story you will go through three stages in what you think of Erik - impatience, because Erik can't see the obvious before him with Paul, - sympathy, because Erik is obsessed with Paul and Erik is truly a nice guy while Paul is nefarious, - relief, when Erik finally get beyond his hang-up with Paul.This movie is all about Erik! You the viewer are taken through about eight years in Eriks life and his undefinable infatuation with Paul. We are never shown why Erik cannot break free of his emotional need for Paul and Erik is lost without him. But Paul, on the other hand, can live his self loathing life perfectly well without Erik. So I believe Mr. Sachs is asking us which character is the more needy of the two. Erik because he is empty without Paul or Paul because he needs his drug habit and to hurt those who care for him.Whatever! This is quite a good film if you concentrate on Erik due to the fact he is the central figure and we see his life only. The story opens and closes about him.

As others have pointed out here, there are good performances, and the Dogma-style cinematography gives us the feeling that we're seeing some serious fare. The story is not necessarily UNbelievable, but the motivation of the characters seems missing, and ultimately, that's what sinks the movie.By missing motivation, I mean the love story itself. I saw the effects of the love story, but I felt like I never saw the actual love. I saw nothing in Paul that would have really and truly held the interest of someone like Erik. I mean, really--are there any worldly gay men around who would not cut loose a crackhead attorney post haste? It's one thing for an artist like Rufus Wainwright to admit he was mainly attracted to straight heroin addicts. That's so f**ked up, it almost makes sense. But a European filmmaker obsessed with a white bread American lawyer?? Sorry. Not buying it.That being said, there were some compelling scenes throughout. E.g., I was impressed with the hotel room scene, which felt real. And I'll admit, the movie held my interest enough that I wanted to see how it turned out. But the flaccid ending seemed consistent with everything preceding, making me feel a bit of a sucker.Like I said. Better than average, but not by much.

As a gay man, I like to support films with gay characters and stories when I can. Oftentimes such films sacrifice writing and acting in order to titillate. This film avoided that pitfall and delivered a cohesive, relevant and tasteful product. The characters were gritty and weren't cardboard cut outs. Personally, I found it a lot more relevant than a recent art film I caught called THE MASTER. The central relationship in this film is between gay men but the film manages to touch on failing/toxic relationships in general and offers up some noteworthy and humorous ensemble performances. As difficult as it is to believe, these relationships exist in gay and straight life. It seems to me that the filmmaker decided it was important to hold up a mirror and show us reality and a real relationship gone awry instead of showing us that gays can have just as little sex and/or just as loving relationships as straight folk. We have enough sanitized and safe portrayals of gays on network TV. I found the performances to be interesting and the characters were dynamic. Each had a journey unlike the static characters in the aforementioned, lauded art film. Since this film was most certainly shot quickly and with a limited budget, I take my hat off to cast and crew. The selfishness, desperation, preoccupation, co-dependency and obsessive behavior depicted seemed right on point. I felt that the filmmakers unflinchingly and without apology depicted the good, the bad and the ugly of this relationship while tell a story about two individuals in love.