Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

Nessieldwi Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

Stephanie There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

james richards I have avoided this film after seeing D Roy's Dorian Gray - which has to possibly be the worst film that has ever had the misfortune to see the light of day....anyone who put money into that film should be unbelievably ashamed of Roy's profligate waste of hard invested cash....not to mention the audience's money being flushed down the drain the moment the first frame appeared....dreadful dreadful dreadful.I digress - AKA - another disaster. The split screen device only serves to demonstrate that this film was seeking a way to save itself. It didn;t work. There is a fantastic story in this film somewhere and a google of D Roy reveals that like his alter ego in the film he too is a little bit of a fantasist - interviews reveal a somewhat arrogant personality (as was evident in the comments he made about Elizabeth Hurley)....sadly arrogance only masks insecurity and this in turn clearly underpins his lack of skill at being able to make or direct a good story. It is clear that this director neither trusted the actors nor people around him to write a credible and direct a worthy entertaining script. I think this film is a tragic lost opportunity. It casts suspicion on the near faultless direction of his film Clancy's Kitchen which was a fun well made featurette. I am not sure this director will ever eclipse that little success.

yawnmower1 AKA is writer/director Duncan Roy's thought-provoking memoir of his own youth. He escaped from a brutal, sexually abusive working-class household by assuming the identity of a young aristocrat and became famous - or notorious, rather - in the process.Mr. Roy's movie is brilliantly written, directed, and cast. Matthew Leitch is perfect as Dean, the handsome, sweet, innocently seductive young man who desperately wants a better -- or, to be more precise, another -- life. His intelligence, looks, charm, and manner make people want to believe he is who he says. All the actors are notable and entertaining. Two are exceptional: Diana Quick as the prickly patrician Lady Gryffoyn, whose son Dean impersonates; and George Asprey as the striking, urbane, gay aristocrat who takes Dean under his wing. Heir to the Asprey fortune in real life, he was born for the part.Aside from the fascinating story, imaginative photography done solely with available light, and perfect musical support, AKA is a scathing portrayal of the English class system, where aristocrats rely on certain cues (accent, pronunciation, name, manners, schooling, demeanor) to identify one another and preserve their exclusivity. Dean lives as 'one of them' successfully and happily for over a year. After which he says, quite truthfully (if Mr. Roy's portrait of Alexander Gryffoyn is in any way accurate in its mean-spirited snobbery), that he was a better Lord Gryffoyn than the real one could ever be. Mr. Roy also depicts a working class equally complicit in maintaining 'place' and limited social mobility.After watching the single screen version, the three-screen triptych version, as it was released theatrically, is an interesting complement which adds dimension to the story. Mr. Roy's commentary track is illuminating politically, and enlightening cinematically. His film is a very personal work of art. The entire ensemble is outstanding, but the talent and beauty of Matthew Leitch form the solid core on which the story rests.

hephaiston those of you who saw this in the theater (cinema, for any Brits reading this), as i did, might be interested to know that i have been told that the DVD release is in single-screen format. because of this, i intend to have another look at this film, on DVD. while i found the triptych format interesting at first, it came to be a distraction when used for the film's entire length. that device is not sustainable for such a long time and detracts from the film, as the viewer becomes more focused on form than on content, IMHO. others who saw this in theaters and were disappointed by it might want to give it another try on DVD this time.

KiwiBoinAussie I was so looking forward to seeing this at the film festival in Sydney. I left the theater, like many others, before the end credits because I couldn't sit through it any longer. It was badly shot, the sound sucks, and the acting was worse than an episode of The Love Boat. Now I know why this film hasn't been able to find an American distribution company to release it in the United States. This screams of a low budget high school production.