Clapham Junction (2007 TV Movie) User Reviews

Brilliant acting, but sad & depressing

[jmcgurn · 8/10 · 20 August 2009]

As I gay man, I really liked this film. A more positive vision for at least a few of the characters would have made the movie better. But the acting is very good and violence against gay men still exists today. I have to say that I did not have a problem with the relationship between Theo & Tim. I do not support pedophilia by any means(!), but at 14 ("almost fifteen"), Theo is sexually mature and not confused about his sexuality. He seduces Tim; Tim asks him to leave (4 times I think). I don't believe we know for a fact that Tim is a pedophile. It's only word of mouth from Theo's mother, so consider the source! Their scenes together are quite moving.

Watch this film but beware, some of what you will see is very disturbing.

Abandon All Hope All That Enter Here...

[robertconnor · 6/10 · 24 July 2007]

Over a two day period a series of interconnected events impact a disparate group of Londoners.

Occasionally brilliant, often shocking and ultimately depressing exploration of contemporary urban gay sexuality and the resultant array of societal attitudes across age and class. In part influenced by the horrendously brutal murder of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in 2005, Elyot creates a host of deeply unpleasant characters as the main focus of his exploration into homosexuality, its surface acceptance and ever-present homophobia across all social strata's today.

Whilst astonishingly frank in its depiction of casual, anonymous sexual encounters in public toilets and open spaces (Clapham Common, Hamstead Heath) and the contrast between being 'out' versus being closeted and covert, Elyot falls back on the clichéd and contrived device of 'the dinner party' to enable a host of views to bubble up to the surface. Perhaps it's the environment Elyot knows best so finds it easiest to write about, but it's still hard to gauge what his intention is with his moneyed and privileged group of diners – are they intended as a representation of middle class views and behaviours? In addition, why is practically every character either unpleasantly selfish or irritatingly naïve? It may well be that the well-heeled dinner party set do have these views and opinions, but if they are so singularly unpleasant, how can we care? It's difficult to determine exactly what Elyot is trying to say with Clapham Junction – that homophobia is still real and in consequence very dangerous? That the general view is that gay men can be universally accepted but only if they behave like the wealthy, urban, heterosexual upper middle-classes? That heterosexual people don't have any kind of secretive, covert sex life? No, straight people don't go cruising for anonymous sex in toilets or parks, but that's only because they don't need to.

Elyot paints a deeply depressing picture in Clapham Junction, which may in part reflect the truth, but he fails to find any counterpoint. All is bleak, all is dangerous - hatred, bigotry and prejudice prevail. The minor strand of the young black boy playing his violin in the face of intolerance and persecution only serves to crack the nut with a hammer - we've already learnt that it takes bravery to be who you are in the face of adversity (witness the deeply unsettling, painfully honest encounter between Theo and Tim), so why bludgeon the viewer with this message a second time? The closing scene is gratuitous in light of all we have witnessed before.

Shergold and Elyot are well served by their actors, with Treadaway and Mawle in particular offering spectacularly honest, real and brave performances – their plot-strand is perhaps the most challenging, the most unsettling but ultimately the most truthful story, and this time the concluding lack of hope is in proportion and understandable.

Moments of brilliance then, from all involved, but in the end Clapham Junction is deeply flawed and devoid of any shred of hope. Is that all there is?

It's an okay TV-production ...

[gaytooout · 6/10 · 22 August 2007]

Comparing it to the other European heterosexual crap we get to see on TV, I would rate this gay one into the top league of good movies. As a gay man, I wonder why I like it. The message of this movie is that gays have ONLY bitchy sex, on public toilets and all of that in a violent way. To put this straight, gay life isn't that way! I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories but somehow, I hear all my alarm bells ringing. To make it short, the movie is good for people who are gay or who have at least experience with it. To all the newbies to that subject it's an anti gay movie. Please remember this story is fiction. 'Not a documentary!

Contains one of the most powerful and moving screen moments ever.

[endecottp · 23 June 2008]

While I do agree with many of the comments and criticisms of fellow reviewers on this site that there is much cliché,a narrow, outdated and perplexing depiction of the gay experience today, and some offensiveness.I have to say that the interaction of the 14 year old boy with an older man is one of the most powerful, intense, moving and poetic moments I have seen on film in a very long time. Those scenes are well worth the price of admission. Even though their interaction is between two gay characters and two characters far apart in age it transcends those particulars to capture emotional human truths and longings relevant and recognizable to everyone. I was so moved by those scenes that it took my breath away and left me stunned and fulfilled . I do not say this lightly, see for yourself. Rarely do we get to glimpse a depiction of the inner workings of human desire, longing,loss, repression, redemption, salvation , inner struggle, despair, loneliness, joy and fear crammed into one spectacular moment. The two actors were incredibly focused, present and controlled. It was like watching a very intense dance number, with the pacing and movement timed just right to impart the perfect punch. Do not miss this. This is art.

Depressing & stereotypical

[Laakbaar · 7/10 · 4 October 2013]

This movie tells the story of what happens one week to a number of gay men in and around Clapham Junction, a well-known gay cruising area in London.

The characters include various gay men who visit the park, including a gay couple, two or three closeted married men, a teenage musician, an amoral park lothario, a basher and his victims. The movie captures the excitement and danger of park cruising, but without showing the eroticism. Gay bashing is a major part of the plot.

In one narrative, we follow sexy but tortured Tim, a suspected pedophile, as he is seduced by 14-year-old Theo. There is no doubt who is the aggressor. Tim, who apparently likes them young, is helpless. (I agree with the other reviewers that this scene is powerful and erotically charged. However, it would have been more disturbingly realistic if the actor playing Theo actually did look 14. He looks more like 19. This robbed the scene of its shock value.)

However, in the end, Tim must face the acidic wrath of a demented mother who knows nothing about her son, and perhaps does not wish to.

All these characters are neatly linked, and not just by the geography.

The final scene shows the musician's smashed violin, complete with sad music. I get it. Clapham Junction is not a happy place. Cruising in a park is double plus ungood, and not just because of the violence. Gay men are victims. Resist temptation at all costs. The picture this movie paints is a dark one. A stereotypical one. We are living in a world of hysterical mothers, gay bashers lurking in the bushes, and desperate gay men with unacceptable urges.

Yes, these are stories that should be told, I suppose, but...surely there are also a few happy gay stories in and around Clapham Junction? The movie feeds on the stereotype of gay men as unhappy creatures leading pathetic lives. Sorry, but it's not realistic, is it?

Gay Multi-story Movie with controversies

[jimmatlock2004 · 9/10 · 10 March 2009]

First, I'd like to say this movie is dated in the themes it portrays, but the acting is very good. It opens with a gay civil union where one of the grooms tries to have a fling with a male waiter (I thought this has a lot of gall and I didn't like this portrayal at a gay union; very unlikely).

The movie dealt with gay bashing in several different ways with multiple characters. I didn't even get what was going on in the one guys head who took care of his grandmother (Alfie), he would get dressed up gay and go out to find someone to bash. His first victim, it was horrible to see what he did to him, the way he broke a glass vase over his head, beat and kicked him, stuffed ciggarette butts in his mouth, urinated on him and spit on him (HOW DEMEANING), I never knew what would cause this guy to do something like that. The waiter who was making out with the groom was bashed to death by two youths when they found him in a pickup restroom. The first gay basher I mentioned was later bashed by a big stocky guy he was trying to pickup to bash. At first I thought this might have been someone the first gay bashed victim may have hired to get even with they guy, but the movie never disclosed that.

There was a 14 year old boy who was possessed with an older man who turned out to be a convicted pedaphile, living across the street. Although one viewer though this part of the story was very very good and described the man only as an older man and not the pedaphile he was, this turned my thought on this part of their story. It was very well acted and the actors characters you did want to feel different about but pedaphiles do not deserve sympathy. Although he did not provoke the boys attention, quite the reverse, and he tried many times to get the boy out of his apartment and cried when the boy kissed him, etc, etc. The boy was determined to have the man. Despite everything, a pedaphile is a pedaphile and this story touched a nerve and I felt no sympathy for either character. There was a parental confrontation that was well acted as well.

The was one short story about a young black violinist that was being harassed by a thug group and he was afraid to go home any one way after his lessons. This story did not feed into the woven structure of the other stories and could have been cut out of the movie.

All the other stories, blended together throughout the movie and created a woven storyline. At times shocking, always interesting, most controversial. For the most part, the movie from beginning to end circled around one of the grooms wedding rings, except the pedaphile piece.

All together I thought it was a good movie, well acted, but exaggerated a lot of todays actual gay social life. It might be that way in London, but I'm not so sure about here in America. It concentrated a lot on violence and outdated gay sex scenarios.

I would buy this movie to add to my personal DVD collection but would be hesitant to share watching it with friends.

Well-done but rather one-sided

[evawatches · 6/10 · 28 July 2007]

This movie gets another mixed review from me.

I didn't mind the negative portrayals so much (unsympathetic people exist, after all, among straights and gays alike, as does hatred and hypocrisy, and the performances were mostly really good), but I didn't like that that's all we get in this film. I've read that the writer didn't intend to portray the full range of gay life, but I guess that was what I expected from an anniversary-type movie. All the depression, the violence, the negativity left me feeling rather bleak and unsatisfied, thinking "But that's not all there is!"

And, on a rather superficial note, as a big fan of 'Maurice' I did wish for more interaction between Wilby and Graves. :)

A truly brilliant piece of art

[c-melville · 9/10 · 23 July 2007]

A truly brilliant piece of work. The writing is creative, astute and exceptionally well crafted. The direction creates exactly the right mood for the story and brings out the best in the writing and the acting. The actors play each character so perfectly right from the beginning that you truly believe them - exactly what should happen! The story is not for the faint hearted and though explicit, it is never gratuitous. The story is written to challenge you and it does so superbly. Whether you like the content or not, you can't say it isn't a good piece of work. It makes you think and it makes you feel - and you can't ask for more than that.

Anything Goes London Going To Hell

[Coralknight · 7/10 · 14 November 2017]

There is definitely a "made for TV" feel for this production, yet at the same time it had several interesting and revealing aspects. The film centers around a number of people who either live near Clapham Junction, or those who pass through the Heath or "park" (an area known as a gay meeting site) for one reason or another. London today is notoriously liberal and pro-gay almost to the point of being visited by thought police to insinuate otherwise, and the plot centers around several gay men who range from open or "out", closeted (married to women), discovering and even self-loathing. Yet London is also full of random violence, as it is a big city with a very drunken population at any given time; a theme which manifests itself throughout this piece. I'm not a prude, but the male nudity in this piece went beyond gratuitous and bordered on obscene (there was absolutely no reason for the last scene with the young actor). So, somewhat interesting, but creepy in a "getting hit-on by your uncle" way.

Messy and Bleak

[Dr_Coulardeau · 8/10 · 19 December 2012]

An amazing film by the violence it contains. It is both realistic and frightening.

Gay people, young and old, are forced to live a clandestine life with an underground satisfaction of their desires or impulses. They have against them three types of people. The parents, in this case essentially a mother, who cannot understand that at age 14 her son can have some desires and can try to get them satisfied. She is a bigot. If he would look for girls she would just be satisfied but not for boys, what's more men.

The second type of enemies are gangs of gay hunters or in fact hunters of anything that is different and one of their victims is a gay waiter who is just walking home through a common park. He will be beaten to death. Another one is an Asian young teenager who is playing the violin and preparing for some Royal Academy of Music. We only see at the end the smashed violin in some underpass.

The third type of enemies is more vicious because it does not even have the excuse of gang rule. It is purely individualistic isolated gay-bashers who go around, let one flirt with them and then trap him in a way or another and smash him to death. The film has one moment of extremely morbid humor here since one of these predators meet with another of these predators and one will end up in hospital.

Gay men seem to have one more enemy which is among themselves this time. It is unfaithfulness. One couple gets their civil partnership celebrated and while everyone is having fun, the older groom flirts with the waiter in the pantry in the basement of the house. Pretty ugly for that predator of another type, a predator who only has one objective: have his way with as many gay men as possible while his civil union gives him some kind of cover up for his feline treacherous behavior.

That is sordid, bleak, and even morbid in a way. And yet there may be some hope in all that darkness. The hope of maybe some might start feeling differently about it, feeling that all men have the same right to love those they want and want to be loved and to love back. The hope that one closeted gay man might do the right thing and help the police catch the killers who took the life of the waiter. And eventually the second groom of the "married" couple coming across the ring he gave his partner on the finger of one of the solitary gay-bashers who got beaten up by the other solitary gay-basher understands that his own partner has given his ring to someone and this ring ended up on the finger of someone who was not at the wedding ceremony or celebration. The police will sort out the rest. That's the hope, but wrapped up in so much muck.

The film is supposed to be based on true facts and to have been shot to help develop a debate in our societies. It sure brings up many questions and no easy answer because you can change the law, you can change the police, you can change courts and judges, but to change the mentality and minds of bigots and hunters hunting human preys for the fun of catching, torturing and then killing those who are dressed to kill in a way and yet are killed by those who are just by-standers who should have let life live the way it wanted to be lived.

Such crimes might finally get down in number and gravity when everyone will have the same rights and the law gives everyone the same dignity and freedom. But it will be long and difficult. Bigotry is alas very well and widely spread and we have not invented yet the bigotry-collecting trucks and machines to get it to the closest bigotry dump.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU

Brilliant film.

[chappellw · 10/10 · 3 September 2019]

I watched this film when it first came out on tv in 2007 when I was 18. Now I am 30 I watched this as an adult and I still think very highly of this film. Me being a gay man myself it is very engaging. Have times changed? I don't know but give this film a watch. Cheers BL

Less could have been more

[MOscarbradley · 5/10 · 24 July 2007]

The problem with Kevin Elyot's (writer) and Adrian Shergold's (director) boldly ambitious "Clapham Junction" is that it attempts to bite off so much more than it can possibly chew in just under two hours. Elyot goes for an epic structure in an intimate setting. At times it looks like he's trying to cram in forty years of gay sexual history into a night and day and it just doesn't work. I wish I could have liked it more because there is so much here to admire and spread over, maybe six weekly episodes, he might have got away with it but as it stands it just doesn't ring true. This may well be down to Elyot's reliance on coincidence. All the characters seem to be inter-related. Nothing wrong with that, you might say; it has worked as a backdrop to many splendid dramas in the past but you have to suspend quite a lot of disbelief when in a city the size of London with a sizeable gay population, all the gay characters keep bumping into each other in clubs, public toilets, on Clapham Common itself or at dinner parties or just in living across the street from each other. It's a banal plot device and you can't help feeling Elyot would have made his point a lot better if the stories hadn't been connected.

Nor is Elyot particularly good at serving up dialogue that sounds believable or naturalistic. The characters either talk in sound-bites or are reduced to double-entendres. If he can get in a crass joke, he does and nobody comes out of it well. But at least he tries. There is hardly an aspect of gay life, (or of 'straight' society's reaction to it), that he leaves unexplored. He even gives us the self-loathing bit of gay trade who beats up his pick-up for the night, (and later gets beaten up himself), and the film's most successful story is the one between the pedophile and the fourteen year old boy who worships him, (this only let down by casting a twenty-three year old actor as the boy).

It is also very unevenly acted. There may be an in-joke of sorts in casting James Wilby and Rupert Graves, (the lovers from "Maurice"), Wilby as a closeted married man and Graves as an out and aging queen he eyes up in a toilet and later meets at a dinner party. Perhaps if these parts had been better written neither actor would have looked so foolish. The best performances come from Jospeh Mawle and Luke Tredaway as the pedophile and the boy and it's very much to their credit that they lift a very difficult subject and make it moving and oddly romantic. Detractors will, of course, find this story the most objectionable for obvious reasons although the producers have cushioned the blow by casting the obviously older Tredaway as the boy.

The film itself takes as its basis the real-life murder of Jody Dobrowski on Clapham Common in 2005 but the impact is weakened by the episodic structure. Ultimately "Clapham Junction" is neither fish nor fowl but an unwieldy hybrid. Its heart may be in the right place but you can't help but feel it does its subject, (whatever you take its subject to be), something of an injustice.

Raw and brutal

[Gordon-11 · 16 September 2007]

This film is about the events that happen to several gay men around Clapham Common in 36 hours.

Due to the enormous number of characters involved, the beginning of the film is a little slow. Once the scene is set, a lot of action kicks in. It touches upon a lot of aspects of gay culture, some of the unpleasant aspects are portrayed in a raw and almost disturbing manner. As others have commented, the scene where the 14 year old boy and the loner encounter at home is dramatic, tense and well acted. It is easily the most memorable scene of the whole film.

This film is raw, brutal and depressing. It can certainly help to raise debates over anonymous sex, and raise awareness over the tragedy of gay bashing.

More nudity please? Is there a directors cut?

[adamjohns-42575 · 8/10 · 6 November 2020]

A veritable feast of hot and sweaty, young, British talent. The film is packed with it. And I think the fact that they are all sweaty is actually very clever. You can't tell what's making them heat up, is it the sun or is it the sexual tension?

While I really enjoyed this film, it's probably more because I got to see Paul Nicholls' penis than because the story was good. Don't get me wrong, it was good, but not as good as Paul's little friend. However, I do feel that it doesn't necessarily send out a positive message of life as a gay man or the world surrounding Clapham Common. I've never been there, so I don't know and I know it's based on true events, but it would have been nice for something happy to occur as well as all the downs to provide a little bit of balance. Maybe I've just been very fortunate in that I have never been victim to homophobia on such a scale and it has made me complacent and naive, but I'm sure that good relationships must happen too. At least I've got to hope that it's the case.

It's definitely worth a watch and not just for Paul's willy, but I would suggest that you try not to let it scare you if you are a young or vulnerable gay man, who is easily persuaded.

I expected more nudity, as copies of this film on DVD are selling at a minimum of £19.99 on eBay and it generally has to be imported from America without a rating, and quite frankly, I wanted to see Detective Joe from Vera in the buff, I bet he's got a great bottom.

I don't think you can say it's as clever or as well put together as films like "Call Me By Your Name" or "God's Own Country", but it is thoughtful and filmed with some artistic perspective. I like the way their lives all intertwine, that was done well.

I do like a happy ending personally.

A big disappointment from an otherwise very talented writer

[willthind · 3/10 · 24 July 2007]

This is the kind of drama that I suspect will be loved by straight television critics and loathed by gay men. It would be easy to say that it holds up a mirror to ourselves and that we simply don't like the reflection, but my reasons for disliking this drama run somewhat deeper than that.

On the plus side, it's universally well performed and often well directed. London feels magical, but it's hardly authentic. The biggest problem is characterisation - or that lack of it. Characters are reduced to ciphers - they are stand-ins for a series of situations and issues. I don't need to love characters (and indeed, there's absolutely no one to love here), but I do want to engage in their lives and concerns. I want to get under their skin, to understand them more by the end than when I started watching two hours previously.

The drama takes place over 24 or so hours in the life of 7 (or maybe 8) gay or bisexual men and youths. Different story lines are juggled and the various characters find their lives engaging with others - often by the most spurious and improbable of coincidences.

It's as if writer Kevin Elyot wants to throw in every concern and thought he's ever had about gay life into a single drama. As a result, nothing seems satisfyingly explored and only the surface of some very big issues is scratched.

Is Clapham Junction bad? No, but from this otherwise talented writer it's a very big disappointment. I can't help wondering who he and Channel 4 thought that they were making it for.

London Changed Just Like Most of World

[MOSSBIE · 10 December 2010]

Having lived in London and going there often now than I am older, I do see the similarities of how the "old days" of homophobia are once again a lot more apparent with bashings happening mostly from different groups. I have to laugh at the reviewer from Berkely (who just happens to rent mostly gay or muscle movies) because he condemns the lack of story and the insight this film exposes of how regressive the behavior of the so called "enlightened" middle class members as this well acted cast are so subtly afraid and fearing the general violence returning to their lives.No longer does one believe that legalization of the life style as holding up and it is artfully revealed at the dinner party. Joan Rivers says in her act "that all Brits are gay and YOU know it" because good manners and breeding are no longer part of the old ways and the way the crazed mother behaved at the dinner party and the beating occurs to the most attractive and harmless young man in what is a posh area of the city. The scene of the young man with the closeted and terrified handsome older neighbor is something most gays have to go through at some time, but has never been so truthfully filmed with the testosterone overwhelming the innocent while blending into yet another story of verbalizing the increasing homophobia. This is really well directed and the message is not a shallow story, but when one sees the gangs of thousands of immigrants who have changed Europe, the Joan Rivers joke all of a sudden becomes kind of a reality because there is not the refinement and control of behavior where almost every gay, closeted or flamboyant gay was accepted and free to "carry on".The war and "don't ask, don't tell" is causing a lot of grief for gays and it is just as apparent in the states, but not as finely drawn as this film presents unspoken truths. Those who make fun of it, would seem to me to be gay or closeted themselves and express critics in their "straight" reviews. Surely everyone rented the film because of their interest in gay film and not about a very scary statement the director intended. It is one of the best gay themed films which has been released for other reasons than to titillate and look for nude men and gay sex which is typical of most gay themed films.CLAPHAM JUNCTION is artfully done and horrendously sad along with the rest of what is happening around the world.I doubt if anyone wasn't somehow moved or bothered by this film.

The lives of several gay men interconnect around clapham over the course of 36 hours

[kevinmcginness · 3/10 · 23 July 2007]

I was extremely exited when i heard the 40th year since homosexuality was decriminalised was to be marked with this one off drama, and was looking forward to clapham junction giving an insight and celebrating the changes that society has made in dealing with homosexuality in 21st century Britain.

I was profoundly disappointed to see that the programme makers decided to concentrate on negative stereotypes of promiscuous partners, horrendous homophobic attacks,closeted husbands and predatory homosexuals preying on underage boys.

this type of drama into gay lifestyle gives an untrue representation of how modern gay people live their lives showing that nothing much has changed from the stereotype of the 1950s and 60s. The writers had a massive responsibility and opportunity to show a positive and refreshing view on the matter, particularly for younger people struggling to come to terms with sexuality. Sadly they opted for drama rather than fact.

Negative and simplistic film that offers little

[bob the moo · 1 October 2007]

When I watch a film I normally try to ignore what the critics have said and just focus on what the film does (or doesn't) do for me. However it was more a problem for me with Clapham Junction when it was shown as part of the Channel 4 series of films and programmes to mark the 40th anniversary since male homosexuality was legalised. Unwittingly I watched the panel discussion 40 Years Out before I saw this film, and the first part of the former was a group of commentators laying into the producer of the latter. I remember being quite entertained by this match-up but was wary to make up my mind for myself rather than just repeating what the likes of Matthew Parris et al had said.

Problem is though, they were bang on the money in what they said because Clapham Junction is a poor film and a very strange choice to show as part of this series of films. As a narrative it is basically an interweaving set of characters all of whom has some comment on the nature of being a male homosexual in this day and age. However, as a piece of writing it is surprisingly lacking. The characters are connected by coincidence and convenience, without any degree of respect for the viewer. This is a minor issue though because my main one was how negative the entire film was. I have no gay friends and have not a part to play in the modern gay experience but this film seemed to be harking back to the 1980's rather than the noughties. Nobody is cast in a good light – the film opens with the groom of a civil partnership couple cheating with a waiter during the reception before following on with queer bashing, cottaging, a 14 year old seducing (then f***ing) an older man etc etc. It is tiresome after a while and has little to say about what it means to be gay today. What little it does say of value is interesting (eg the loss of the thrill of being "dangerous" that modern acceptance has brought) but it is scattered far and wide across the film.

The cast do little with what little material they have. They deliver the characters asked of them but none can find the people inside – instead they are horny, camp, in the closet, in denial, on cocaine etc etc, whatever simple classification the script has given them. Shergold's direction is OK in terms of the shots he gets but in terms of helping the material or the actors, he doesn't seem able – although Elyot's script offers him little support either.

Overall then a poor film that wallows in negativity while presenting the modern gay experience. There is little debate or discussion – just endless "shocking" scenes (yeah – shocking 10 years ago) and negative images of homosexuality with no real justification. A sense of balance would have been welcome but a less simplistic script would have been a great starting point – sadly it had neither.

A dreadful waste of a good opportunity

[williamsonkwr · 4/10 · 1 August 2007]

Such a pity the writer is normally good and the assembled cast was good, but quite frankly I thought this was a dreadful waste of a good opportunity.

The stories were full of tired old clichés.

A gay man picking up youth at his own civil partnership ceremony. I have been to several and while a few of the single guests might have been on the prowl I have not heard of any of the people taking oaths straying. A lot of the men I know who are now in civil partnerships have been together for years and in the majority of cases have been faithful.

Guys search for sex in public toilets – why would you today when everywhere is filmed by CCTV cameras, it is so easy to meet people in gay pubs, bars and clubs these days. Unless married men go to toilets to seek same sex – I don't know.

Everyone off there heads on drugs – and I will admit that there are a lot of drugs around on the gay scene – just as there is in straight clubs as well. The trouble is that anyone watching this will come away with the impression that all gay men are sleazy, drug fuelled, sex mad hedonists.

I couldn't agree more with the line spoken by the woman at the dinner party "so what if they are sniffing around for sex in bushes like foxes – no one deserves that". I still object to the proliferation of these out-dated and outmoded stereotypes. We are so much more and we deserve so much more and so much better.

Clapham Junction and unanswered questions

[chrisjay00-1 · 5/10 · 5 September 2007]

After much publicity by Channel 4, Clapham Junction started off slow and honestly quite dull. As time went on the plot line began to pick up yet you were still unable to empathise with any of the characters. The programme was cliché ridden and also contained scenes which were pointless at the very least. Three quarters into the show everything began to get confusing again. The character played by Paul Nicholls was also very confusing. Was he gay? Was he straight? There was a very dark mood throughout the whole programme which continued even to the end. As the end approached, i found myself asking questions about what would happen to certain characters. I was sure this would appear on the screen before the end credits. It didn't. And so the audience is left with not only a cliff hanger but also many questions about most of the main characters unanswered. Good performances by the actors involved but i can't help but feel that had some of the pointless scenes been cut, the running time could have been shortened and the programme could have concentrated on a lot less pointless characters. I also felt slightly confused by the inclusion of the small black child playing the violin at certain periods in the programme. By the end the dark mood became even darker when all that was left was his smashed up violin under a bridge. Cue the end credits. All in all a huge disappointment

Throwback to the 80s

[hesketh27 · 2/10 · 25 July 2007]

Good performances. OK - now wev'e got the only positive comment about this TV film out of the way, let's have a look. What the hell was the point of this? Populated by a group of unpleasant, unlikeable stereotypes, it really looked like something that would have been made 20 years ago. Cliché ridden and unrelentingly grim throughout, the gay characters were either predatory, seedy individuals or had serious repression/hang up or psychological problems. The sex and violence scenes were sensationalist to say the least. This was meant to be part of C4's marking of 40 years of the liberation of gay men from the previous institutionalised repression they had suffered in this country throughout history. There are gay men like the ones in the film, I sometimes meet them, but they certainly do not represent the majority. Nobody wanted to see a positive propaganda exercise about gays, but neither did we want to see this parade of sad / damaged individuals. Whatever happened to balance? A piece of TV that was thoroughly depressing and ultimately, totally pointless.

A very slanted view

[Bolly1965 · 5/10 · 23 July 2007]

This was shown on Channel 4 as part of a season celebrating 40 years since the legalisation of homosexuality in Great Britain. Anyone viewing this film would be likely to campaign for it banning again! While it was cleverly constructed to intertwine the lives of a variety of gay men from different backgrounds, I felt it used sensationalism to a very negative end. There were many gratuitous scenes of violence and sex, including full frontal shots and erect penises, which added little to the bleak storyline. Anyone curious about their sexuality, viewing this film would end up that far back in the closet they would be in Narnia! All that said, this film tackled some very pertinent topics, was well acted and beautifully filmed. I just feel that it wasn't appropriate to be shown as part of this particular season.

Anti-Gay Gay Film

[fubared1 · 2/10 · 1 January 2011]

Any organization or individual who is homophobic or hates gays in any way is going to love this film. Here we have every negative gay stereotype imaginable. First we have the gay guy who cheats on his husband on the day they are married. Then there's the pedophile who has sex with a 14 year old boy. Then we have the guys who revel in sex in a public bathroom. Then we have the fat, ugly old priest or minister or whatever. Then we have the closeted, married gay man. Then we have the gay basher who is himself bashed when he reveals his true nature and tries to have sex with a fat, ugly guy. The only stereotype we seem to be missing is the raving gay transvestite, but then most transvestites are heterosexual. So the lesson to be learned here is that it is not possible for gay men to have happy productive lives or 'normal' sex. And if there were anyone associated with this film who is gay, they should be ashamed of themselves for promoting these negative stereotypes.

Dreadful doesn't begin to sum it up

[Laight · 1/10 · 7 November 2011]

It's not just that the actors all come from the school of Sneering at the Camera is good acting. And not just that the director thinks extreme close-ups are artful rather than simply exposing bad skin and makeup. It's not that there's no real script, just a lot of clichés thrown back and forth. Or that one of the characters veers between a superb rendition of Edina in Absolutely Fabulous and the venal agent in Frazier.

No, the real problem is the strange underpinnings of angry homophobia. According to this movie, all gays want sex, all the time. All gays are always being beaten up by gangs of youth, all the time. All gays are cruel to each other, and despise straight people. All gays are, basically, screwed. (And when gays have to run away from thugs, they always run to places where there are no people around, such as woods, so that no one can help them.)

An unpleasant and incoherent work. Run. Run away, as fast as you can. And not into the woods.

how is this part of a celebration of gay culture?

[rstoppable-online · 2/10 · 6 August 2007]

singularly offensive in that it makes a pretense of addressing some of the darker issues of gay subculture while actually exploiting them for the titillation factor

reminiscent of a '50's pulp novel, with graphic and sensational violence

presents an unrelentingly grim picture of life as a gay man, and offers no redemption whatsoever

not particularly well-acted (the women could do with fewer histrionics), though it is interesting to see the leads of Maurice together again

cinematography exaggerates the sordid, but is otherwise lackluster