Aussie-Woo I know it's easy to sit behind a computer, in my living room and critique the hard work of a writer, producer, director and a bunch of actors. I know it's not fair to comment as though my opinion is the only one that counts.....but having said that, this film is amazingly, spectacularly, brilliantly bad. Being Australian I have to respond to those who have commented that they "saw potential in" the actor who played Ian and those who suggested his accent was "passable" - clearly you've never heard an Australian accent. I'm not defending the Australian accent, it can be horrendous, but this guy didn't get it right for a single word. I was born here, I know Australian accents....this is nothing like one. Aside from this, the acting was appalling. I know there was no budget, that's great, but the DVD is still being flogged for $25 bucks, so if people still have to pay for it they should expect a certain level of quality. As far as I could tell the storyline was made-up as they filmed, like the actors were slotting-in implausible plot deviations as a dare to see if their fellow actors (and I use the term loosely) could run with it - the case in point was randomly selling a woman to white slavery by trapping her in a cage at a sex club, woeful - movies do not get worse than this. Seriously, if you haven't seen it yet, don't. I can not be clearer than this, do not watch this movie.

mn_aqua I was about to tear this movie down to the ground, because of its bad quality. Until I saw the interview with the director LeMay saying it was a "no budget" movie, and that the actors didn't get paid! That really changed my thoughts about it.At first the film made an amateurish impression on me: the lighting was bad, the scenery cheapish, and the dialogues not too interesting. But in the end the director did a good job. The camera view angles were good, only it didn't came out as it should because their was no lighting. And since everything was voluntary all actors did it just to gain experience. That commands respect. Especially when talent is exhibited. Now I understand why most of the actors were totally relaxed during performance. There was no pressure to make achievements, as there would be when you get paid for what you do. But this gave very good results. It looked like everybody was himself. It gave a natural glow about everything.It's also true that this gay movie has a positive message (though it's not the only one) and that it does not focus on sex. This remains a nice relieve from the many gay movies with violence, sadness, pathetic behaviour and sexual fetishes.Still I feel the need to do some bashing: the acting performance of Sean Matic (the one playing the hustler) was hideous! Also this guy is far from handsome, to put it mildly. I cannot understand that somebody would pay more than one dollar to sleep with him. If he would do it with me I would ASK him for money, in stead of paying him! In my opinion this was a total miscast by LeMay. On the other hand, the efforts of Matt Walton (playing the CEO of an advert company) and Anthony Ames (playing the art director there) were good. Their facial expressions were convincing and charming. I hope to see more of them.Whether this movie is a "must see" for gays, I don't know. There are some funny moments, but not enough to call it a comedy. And for a drama it's way too shallow. Still, if you like to see handsome straight guys (Walton and Ames) kissing other men, then this is your movie.

marcelproust There's nothing wrong with low budget - the sight of boom mic shadows hovering on the actors' faces, scenes filmed in cast and crew apartments, a "supermodel" with thighs like canned hams - but honestly, there is no excuse for a script that can't make up its mind.There are at least three different films being made here - and sadly none of them hold enough interest to keep your attention for the 80 minute running time. There is a gay remake of Pretty Woman, with the Julia Roberts part taken by an Aussie tart with a heart. There is a cynical portrait at a broken-hearted ad exec whose good looks can't conceal the control freak underneath. Competing with these are some bizarre sub-plots regarding the fashion industry, NYC gay life and even white slavery. (Incidentally, what is the difference between white slavery and, well, slavery?)The acting is perfunctory at best and there are a few amusing moments, but by and large, after laying out 200 American, you may well be asking for your money back.

djkizza I went on the IMDb to look up this movie and see if a little bit of web searching could have spared me the waste of 1 hour and 20 minutes of my life that I will NEVER get back... Then I came across the other comment for this movie... "The acting is exceptional"?!?!?! I thought the acting was the WORST part of the movie, next comes the production, this editing is scratchy, the camera-work is lacking and the music is at times weird and randomly inappropriate. But the acting really was exceptional...And the writing, oh where can I start with the writing?! Lets start with the fact that one of the characters is sold to a white slavery by a co-worker for doing her job ring and instead of her being distraught she brags about being approached for a book deal and how she gave her phone number to one of the police who rescued her...Also, two of the random prop characters (Two stereotypical "hood" women) tells one of the main characters that she loved the Dalai Lama in the TV show Falcon Crest... her friend then says "Girl, you so stoopid, that was Lorenzo Lama. Dalai Lama his grandfather." That is the quality of this movie.The whole thing sucked. I just wanted to cry after watching it and I still do...BTW - I am gay, so don't start with the anti-gay movie review comments.