Endgame (2001) User Reviews

Daniel Newman looks great, but the 'plot twist' is insulting

[Libretio · 6/10 · 20 May 2005]

ENDGAME

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Dolby Digital

After killing the thuggish gangster (Mark McGann) who'd been acting as his pimp, a beautiful London rent boy (Daniel Newman) goes on the run with a sympathetic American couple (Toni Barry and Corey Johnson), but they're pursued by a corrupt police officer (John Benfield), one of Newman's former clients, desperate to retrieve an incriminating videotape in the boy's possession.

Gary Wicks' low budget feature debut will divide opinion like few other gay-themed movies of recent years. The pacing is a little muted, and some of the lapses in logic are too significant to ignore (Barry and Johnson's reaction to Newman's crime is simply not credible), but Wicks generates a fair degree of emotional tension, helped by attractive location photography (by David Bennett), a memorable music score (by Adrian Thomas), and a fine portrait of corrupted innocence by Newman (SPEAK LIKE A CHILD), an elfin beauty whose low-key performance anchors the entire production.

True to expectation, Wicks (whose resumé includes an executive producer credit on MOMENTS WITH JOHAN, a softcore ode to European porn star Johan Paulik, produced in 1996) makes a virtue of Newman's exquisite splendor, presenting him either shirtless or naked in every other scene, while Bennett's camera savors (almost) every inch of the young actor's glorious, sculpted body. But in a plot twist calculated to provoke outraged disbelief from some quarters, Newman's relationship with McGann and his cronies is depicted as violent and coercive, while his first heterosexual encounter (with Barry) is portrayed as a tender, liberating experience! This narrative backflip is both inappropriate and offensive, and suggests nothing more than a sop to commercial fortunes, skewing the film toward a gay audience whilst simultaneously appeasing potential straight viewers, an approach which defies all narrative logic and satisfies no one. That aside, however, the plot is reasonably engaging and the performances are superb, while the fetishization of Newman's fabulous torso provides some compensation for the movie's thematic shortcomings.

NB. The VHS version contains full-frontal nudity from Newman during a shower sequence early in the film, but the US DVD has been deliberately reframed to obscure everything below the waist.

Very Interesting ...

[phoenison · 7/10 · 20 March 2007]

The storyline and acting was considerably good for a gay movie, but most foreign (outside of the US) gay films have amazing plots. This was a thriller. Daniel Newman's character could have been played by a girl and it still would have had a similar emotional impact. I didn't feel that his homosexuality was the focus of the movie - the strong points are focused on the environment that he is trapped in and the bonds of friendship he makes with his neighbors who end up helping him out.

***Spoiler section*** Now, why this movie lost 3 points is due to the main character sleeping with the female neighbor at the cottage. This really threw my attention to the film. I understand that the hustler was experiencing sex with someone he loved for the first time, but it seemed to deter as a tangent on something that didn't necessarily need to be addressed in the film. The virtue of innocence for this character seems conflicted now, because he is sleeping with a woman whose heart belongs to another man, which in turn seems to substantiate the theory that all gay men are whores or sluts and have to sleep with something everyday. If I were a straight married man watching this film, my wife would now be off limits as to hanging out with her gay male friends. One of the joys of being a gay male is that you can hang out with gorgeous women (single or married) and have a good time and there is no sexual tension. So the loss of three points is due to this lapse of judgment on the character's part - I felt so much for the hustler until this point.

Overall, this was a good flick. It wasn't a waste of time - and the solo shower scene was immaculately filmed. I didn't know a white boy could have a back end like that!!!

A portrait of boy exploitation which itself exploits the boy actor.

[RichardvonLust · 5/10 · 18 August 2016]

It is no wonder that Gary Wicks who wrote, cast and directed this effort has found his career limited to low key gay productions ever since. This film suggests a peculiar personal bent which has little relevance to the wider public whether gay or straight.

A rather cute rent boy is retained by a wealthy gangster to be exclusively available to him in a posh West End apartment. He uses the lad to service business clients or entrap business rivals or debtors. Sessions are filmed for subsequent blackmail use.

The gangster himself is turned on by violence and rape and we see the youth seriously abused on several occasions. Plainly there is little humanity in his treatment. Eventually a series of deaths occur as the plot evolves into a search to retrieve blackmail tapes hidden by our attractive young hero.

The camera work is both artistic and indulgent for admirers of boy beauty. Daniel Newman, a prolific 90's UK child star with elfin good looks and a well tuned physique, is filmed in every glamorous method. Soft lighting, superb make up, imaginative angles, explicit full frontal and frequent erotic posterior shots provide the viewer with a definitive 'soft porn' experience that has probably made the young actor into masturbatory fantasy image for millions of gay men ever since. But did Daniel Newman ever realize the motivation of Gary Wicks to produce this effect? The young man probably had to spend hours on set stark naked for the 'artistic' pleasure of his employers. And what we see in the finished film is probably just a censored fraction of the full unexpurgated footage taken during shooting. Gary Wicks went on to produce an intimate portrait of real life boy porn star Johann Paulik and, unless Dan Newman was entirely unmoved during the filmed sex scenes, I expect there is an archive of XXX material depicting him somewhere.

In short I got the distasteful impression that an innocent former child star was hoodwinked into appearing in a soft porn production that ultimately wrecked his career. He has done very little since, despite the fair reviews of his acting performance, and runs a fitness center in Wimbledon today for his living. Type cast as an effete boy prostitute with nothing of his body left for the public to imagine, there was very little future in the industry for him and he was just put on the sidelines.

This film portrays homosexuality as a sick violent disease, boy prostitutes as 'trash' figures without any sense of self esteem and women as the only qualified givers of worthy love - even though they betray their husbands to sleep with boy prostitute neighbors that happen to need their help. I give the actors top marks for this production - especially Dan Newman who probably suffered a lot for it - but the film itself is nothing more than soft porn masquerading as respectable drama.

Dreadful & Offensive

[mjwill78 · 10 April 2003]

I recently saw End Game at the London Lesbian & Gay Film Festival. From the synopsis i was duped into thinking this would be a psycho sexual drama/thriller exploring the brutal relationship between a gangster and his rent boy lover.

What we actually have is a hammy, badly written, underdeveloped film which neither thrills, excites or convinces on any level. Which is a shame as the first ten to fifteen minutes of the film director/screenwriter Gary Wicks shows some signs of directorial flair. Unfortunately when he starts putting dialogue in his actors mouths and drenches the story in jaw dropping implausibility this soon becomes a painful experience.

Tom (Danny Newman) is a pouty rent boy living in stunning flat somewhere in West London which is financed by his gangster lover/pimp Norris (Mark McGann). Tom appears to do little else then sit around the flat chain smoking and looking moodily into space waiting for Norris to pop round, whiff a line of coke and start beating ten bells out of him.

Things get complicated, however, when Tom meets his neighbours American couple Max and Nikke Bergman(Corey Johnson & Toni Barry). For some inexplicable reason Max takes a shine to Tom and invites him round for dinner. Unfortunately for Tom his fist happy fella happens to pop round while he's out and menacingly waits for his return. Clearly we have some idea where this is heading....Tom accidentally kills Norris and turns to his new best buddies for help. Conveniently they have a cottage out in the middle of nowhere in Wales where they can all flee. This turns out, luckily, to be quite handy as corrupt policeman Dunston (John Benfield) is hunting Tom for some incriminating video tapes.

The eventual outcome of this scenario is so far fetched one can't help wonder what exactly Wicks was going for. By making his lead quite obviously queer it would have made much more sense for his character to form a relationship with Max however instead love blossoms between the gay boy and the American wife. This reeks of a cop out, as if Wicks knows there is no way a wider audience would stand for the idea of a straight man and a gay boy having a relationship that's based on anything other than money or violence.

In a failed attempt to add gravitas to Tom's plight we learn, from soft focused flashbacks, that all he really needs is some proper TLC which he clearly is unable to get from another man. By taking this stance Wicks renders his film completely absurd and manages to offend and alienate his target gay audience.

Performance wise there is no denying that the camera loves Danny Newman (especially his naked torso) however his acting consists of two styles.....moody and pouty...his final emotive speech is quite unintentionally mirth inducing.

Johnson is OK as Max and is perhaps the most likeable amongst a gang of completely unsympathetic characters while Barry is bland at best.

Production values are quite high on this film so at least everything looks nice and there are one or two touches of humour that work but that really is all the film has going for it. Thrown in some unnecessarily gratuitous violence and a denouement which is sign posted before the half way mark this really is a waste of time for all concerned. A massively wasted opportunity.

*

A Good Thriller at the beginning but not delivered good end!

[javierubio · 7/10 · 23 May 2020]

When I started to watch this film, I liked the scenario where it started. A cute boy from West London and his relationship with a Gangster that abused him constantly sounded interesting specially in a city so versatile and cosmopolitan as London!! Everything was good so far and the relationship with the neighbor downstairs sounded this drama was going to bring more than expected and that exactly happened when this guy went to stay at this couple's cabin in the country. Everything seemed to go down because I really did not buy this guy falling into this woman so in few words, the second half of this film could be much better than what was delivered!

OK Movie, for what it was....

[rwnyack · 3/10 · 12 January 2005]

I don't think I would be as harsh as the previous reviewer, although, he raises many good points. But, I found the movie to be "ok". It always helps when one of the main characters is really hot to help you get through some of the bad parts of the movie. ;) I thought the acting was decent, but most of the characters typical. Newman as Tom was pretty good. The actor who portrayed Max was also pretty good. But, many stereotypical parts...the old "the character is gay because he was abused as a child" bit really is old.

I must admit though, I really am sick of gay movies about f***ed up gay people. Does every gay character have to be a prostitute, abused as a child, drug addict, sex addict or some combination there of? How about a movie about a gay character where the guy is actually normal and relatively happy? That's why I loved "Trick" so much. Just a couple of normal, relatively happy guys living relatively normal lives.

Endgame is not awful. How's that for a ringing endorsement? ;)

Uber-violent, ponderous, homophobic tract

[LuvSopr · 2/10 · 7 October 2016]

I could say the movie could have been more, but the basic idea was so rancid that no amount of tinkering would have made any real difference.

Tom (the pouty Daniel Newman) is a kept man (although they regularly emphasize to us that he is still too emotionally immature to be a man) who kills his gangster "daddy" to save himself from rape (the only time we see anything with two men in this film involves rape and violence). He then flees with a hapless American couple. He grows close to the American woman while corrupt cops and crooks are on his trail, complete with a grotesque scene at a gay bar where, if memory serves, they rape someone who works there. While the American man goes off about the car, Tom and the wife give into their attraction. This is juxtaposed with graphic torture and murder scenes involving the husband, a clumsy way to remind us of the horrors to come. And so they continue coming, finally leading up to another grisly, excessively violent set piece, with the conclusion being that Tom is back where he started, that without the love of a good woman, he has no hope. As the icing on the anti-gay cake, we also get a heavy implication of just what "caused" him to be gay.

There's a difference between showing the reality of a life of a rent boy, or even telling a story about how abuse and homosexuality sometimes intersect, and idealizing heterosexuality to such a strong degree - to the point where the woman in question is not even a character, but rather a thinly sketched out martyr and sexual savior.

Beyond the message itself, the mechanics of the film are crude and coarse. No amount of nice scenery or noir lighting are enough to compensate.

The one scene in the film that has a poignancy to it is the scene that the whole movie is about - Tom, essentially, finding healing and peace through his first sexual encounter with a woman. The shy vulnerability that defines him as he slowly strips (hesitating before he removes his underwear, as he knows he can't go back after that last step) contrasting to his pure joy and release as he kisses and tastes the upper body of the woman who is there to show him what his life is supposed to be, as he makes love to her, in the missionary position, as she exists as a missionary to what the film wants him to be.

They may have been better off just releasing this scene and ditching the rest.

Ignore the bad reviews!

[Funkydaisy · 8/10 · 24 August 2009]

Endgame is gritty, sexy, dramatic and sympathetic. We all have our opinions about the genre, definitely not a movie for children; however to not see it would be a shame. Endgame may not be everyone's cup of tea, it is slow in places but this sets the mood and it does get better, and has some lovely camera work. Overall I enjoyed it, all actors need starter movies and it is the relatively unknown faces which make this movie. I am not going to spoil the film for viewers, but be aware Endgame does touch on some delicate subjects, abuse, rape and life on the streets. Filmed around Wales, UK, some of the scenery is absolutely stunning! So rent it, view it, enjoy it what have you got to loose!

Stylish, Sexy & Sadistic

[NYCNetguy · 8/10 · 12 June 2003]

For those of you unaware, `endgame' is a chess term. After the opening encounters and tactics of a game, it's the final plan a player has to finish off his or her opponent. And such is the concept of `Endgame' a stylish, sexy and sadistic British crime thriller, although with a few minor flaws had me on the edge of my seat and at times my stomach in my throat! There are some brutal and graphic scenes of rape and torture, which may not suit everyone's taste. Yet it's directed with such visual flare by Gary Wicks that you cannot help but watch. There's a brutal fight and beating in a bar scene and as the music played it reminded me of a scene from a `Clockwork Orange'. The scene, among many, is twisted and dark for sure, but very well done. Daniel Newman who plays Tom is convincing as a male prostitute who's on the edge and John Benfield who plays Dunston is one of the most vile villains I've seen in quite some time and it drew to mind Ben Kingsley in `Sexy Beast'! Outstanding performances!

The premise of the story centers on Tom (Daniel Newman) who is a `rent boy' and turns tricks around London for his sick, psychotic `sugar daddy' George Norris (Mark McGann). Through a series of flashbacks we learn of Toms past while he tries to deal with the present and his future. And the future looks bleak. Regularly raped, and brutalized sexually by Norris he also endures the verbal abuse from Norris's driver. He's made to turn tricks, one regular being that of Dunston, as well as help George perform his dirty mob deeds. Without giving to much away things take a turn, when a twist of fate releases Tom from his violent `keeper' and with the help of some American neighbors, Max (Corey Johnson) and Nikke (Toni Barry) he flees the city to their remote cottage in the country with Dunston close behind.

The story fails a bit in the relationship between Tom and the Americans and vice versa and a few scenes that seem thrown in for the sake of erotica but in general I thoroughly enjoyed the story and it was nice to see a thriller featuring a gay/bi lead role. I recommend this highly. The DVD doesn't feature any extras but the audio and video were nice and clear for an independent feature.

Moody and Brutal

[kaneastro · 5 November 2002]

This moody British film, not to be confused with Samuel Becket's work of the same name, was chosen to "disturb" the festival audience, or so said the talking heads of the programming panel. Rent boy Tom (Daniel Newman) gets caught in the evil machinations of his pimp, gangster George Norris (Mark McGann) and a crooked cop Dunston (John Benfield), who enjoys using Tom from time to time, himself. A fateful twist causes Norris's accidental death during his attempted rape of Tom. Desperate to escape Norris's body and Dunston's pursuit, Tom seeks the solace and protection of a very unlikely pair, his downstairs American neighbors Max and Nicki.

Max is a hothead consumed with a passion for money, while Nicki is more down to earth, but a bit unfocused and uncommitted herself. Why in the world would Tom come to them? Desperation, indeed. Walking totally of their initial characters (or perhaps showing us how complex they are?), Max and Nicki, after little hesitation, agree to hide Tom out at their rustic cottage in Wales. A very confused Tom is attracted to Nicki's warmth, and they eventually "seduce" each other. We can understand Nicki's dissatisfaction with Max's self-absorbed hard shell of a personality, and her momentary attraction to Tom's complete vulnerability. And despite how implausible it may seem at first, their sex scene makes sense once we realize that Tom is seeking tenderness, not hot sex per se.

All in all, this film hits home with its theme of sex as a tool of power which even the power-obsessed themselves can't control. But it falls short trying to wrap things up with a fast and violent ending which leads Tom to a happy future, and leads Nicki to sacrifice much more than her husband, Max, does.

A nasty bit of cynical, erotic noir; well-crafted, mean-spirited and engaging.

[TheVid · 24 September 2003]

This one's relatively typical, albeit decidedly less flashy and without some of the pretentious editing, of most modern British gangster pictures (THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY, GANGSTER NO. 1, SEXY BEAST) in that it's overtly violent and foul-mouthed for those that like a dose of toughness now and then. This one's unique take is that it uses gangster shenanigans as the basis for a thriller revolving around homosexual, rough-trade sex and police corruption. The cast is first-rate; and in spite of a story that's relatively contrived and silly, it still entertains like an old Fritz Lang thriller, which is saying a lot for it and it's creator, Gary Wicks. Fairly smashing!