hddu10 Unclear as to why Israel has such a repertoire of gay films, but they all seem to have one thing in common: a very conceited, shallow, self-centered protagonist. In this case, the writer attempts to have the hedonistic protagonist come off as having a "heart" or soft-spot, when he allows an old "fling" (who was apparently the first guy the young lad had ever hooked up with) stay with him. The dialogue is pretty meaningless, but as they say in Hebrew, "it sounds funnier in Yiddish". But mostly, the film is just a bunch of blurry fast-paced sex-scenes with hairy Jewish men. If that's your thing, then this is the film for you.

harryjohnson2008 Oy Vay, where to begin with this one...... first of all, the movie starts out somewhat interesting. It focuses on a guy who has a seemingly endless stream of one night stands, and it seems like the movie is going to be about him. Then there is a shift to "three years later" and the entire focus of the movie shifts to another character (Omer). I had to stop the movie and back up to see if I missed something. I didn't. This was just very poor focus by the director. The rest of the movie focuses on a group of characters and Omer seems to be the main focus, but the lines are actually pretty blurred. As others pointed out in their reviews, there were scenes that were WAY too long and needed to be cut (I got very bored) and other scenes that were way too short and should have been expanded on and focused on more. And the whole thing with the alien abduction focus.....WTF? I don't see how that had anything to do with the story. The funniest part of all of this is the movie's tag line that says "One of the steamiest movies of the year". The first 20 minutes was fairly steamy, before the focus shifted to "three years later". After that, it was damp at best (but not steamy). I can't recommend this one, unless you are SO bored that you have to watch something. And then when you end up totally disappointed, just remember, I warned you.

anshul2001anshul if one forgets for a moment that love relationships shown in the movies are homosexual and not heterosexual, it is a simple film about people trying to find love and till they find one keep on trying. There is central character who is librarian and group of his friends and similar individuals they come across.in all there are 5 main male character and they are developed well given the time constraint, especially the journalist, librarian, the young boy and the Casanova. sub plot of hero's sister also being lesbian or their father being cross dresser seems unnecessary. there are comic moments though when their mother gets a new husband or one of the the character who works at a fashion store cracks jokes. Overall a good movie about love, commitment and relationship

sandover The film begins with a serial depiction of pick-ups by one of the film's characters, that appears promising - then, oh no, the character cries in the shower: the emptiness of his life, we gather, and also that the film is fishy.One bold leap three years ahead.Dear director, do not attempt such things if you have not foregrounded a story, however elliptic.Actually there is no story, just amateurish shots of characters that confuse our endeavors to figure what happens, why this one appears, if it is central or peripheral to what is going on, then a female character appears played by a male actor, and the film by that point becomes "inferential" at best: we "infer" that this "transvestitism" is an Almodovar-like take; that the film shows the givings and misgivings of destiny in a group of people that meet, or fail to do so, in the end; we "infer" that the "alien thing" is comic, and stands for tenderness in the very end.But the transvestitism is actually a travesty: a travesty for comedy, for relief, for enacting any sense of locality; the "alien thing" not only fails to engage in locality as well, but actually forecloses any sense of geographical specificity, and becomes a psychotic symptom for avoiding to do so (another film from Israel, that met with critical success, "The Bubble" engaged in the specificity of time and place, though it presented a nihilistic political point of view that, combined with its cinematic tendentiousness, turned it into hypocrisy). It is a sad, expansive phenomenon that such uninformed sense of engagement masquerades as a kind of hurt sensibility, and a plea for sentimental and spiritual gathering of souls, a plea for love beyond our shortcomings, be them racial, sexual, ethnic ones. The film reads like a juvenile attempt at themes it fails to attack: what it means to be lonely and insecure and crave for it or be well-poised etc. but all this is to "infer"; let alone the preposterous thing going on between the journalist and the salesman: a journalist that has a humane streak falling for a gossipy, cliché-carved little nelly? There is no plausibility concerning the hovering, changing sentiments and this is so severe that comes off depressively and in the end, with the actually mad closure, pathologically I dare say. Or,the three years leap is slumped on us for signaling the older dancer's reawakening of feelings for the young dancer? For the story we did not see in the beginning? That, OK, could be evolved in a later part of the film for bigger dramatic effect, but for what? So that we learn they passed three weeks together? This is the kind of thing the late Quentin Crisp serenely and acerbically mocked as three weeks of "meaningful relationship". This must also be the writer/director's sense of meaningful film-making.