DBre104574
What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more.
pauldspark
I had a great time watching AKA I am writing because I don't understand why so many people voted 1 when ever truly bad films don't get that many bad votes. I am not even gay and I was in my hotel room in NYC and it was on the Sundance Channel. It was really good and then I was told that it was originally playing on three screens. I am really looking forward to getting the DVD and experiencing the film as it was originally. I read the other reviews and they are so negative. I am not really a writer but I just wanted to say that it was great and it made me think and I am really looking forward to the other three screen version on DVD. It made me sad that this story had happened to real people.
neofight2
I'm a little surprised at how much vitriol is invested in some of the reviews of this film. As a film, it is tells a story that is challenging, thought provoking and fresh, while the filmmaking as a whole takes creative risks. With that said, it is also flawed in many areas, and many of the criticisms have merit. But on balance I was engaged by this film and have to applaud the filmmaker for trying to tell his story with a unique voice. Sure it's a low budget film, and that shows occasionally. But budget issues never "took me out of the movie" and the split screens - while reminiscent of Timecode - were altogether differently used - specifically using obviously different takes. That was clearly a creative decision, presumably commenting on the accuracy of memory (among other things). I'm not sure whether it entirely worked, but it was a brave attempt. I'm glad he made the film, glad I watched it and a year later, I'm still thinking about it.
theffner
It is without doubt that Duncan Roy inspires much love and loathing when ever the chance is given for the public to make comment about his film AKA. It made me chuckle to read the new comments here on this site. What ever may happen to AKA it has, as a first feature made for very little money, made waves. The film is a remarkable film, it is also an annoying film. AKA opened at the London gay and lesbian film festival and many of the same comments about this film written here were aired by similar sounding people. Perhaps the greatest proof of the growing respect he deserves for making this film so honestly and radically are the many awards and nominations for BAFTAS etc. he has received. I have now seen the film in LA and again at Sundance and at both of those screenings many people stayed behind to ask questions and I believed the applause was real. Perhaps this film only hits the mark with film reviewers and festival juries for this film to be so well reviewed (see newsday) and awarded, or more likely, the scewed "reviews" written here are by people with axes to grind. True talent has a habit of being undaunted. Duncan Roy, undoubtedly, will make other films with real money. Let's see what he can do next. Until then I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. I think that I will not be dissapointed.
AD
