ClassyWas Excellent, smart action film.

Inadvands Boring, over-political, tech fuzed mess

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

evening1 I thoroughly enjoyed this profile of flamboyant British raconteur Quentin Crisp, played mesmerizingly by William Hurt.Crisp can be inspiring to us all. He was openly gay before it became acceptable, and he risked his life to be out when he was. Any of us, regardless of sexual orientation, can be buoyed by his interesting challenges, i.e.,"Who would you be if the only opinion that mattered was yours?"..."Think of the people who've NEVER been used -- life's much harder for them!"Crisp was an original. Who, even these days, could draw crowds, night after night, that just want to hear him/her expound? This is a serious film that doesn't idealize its protagonist. Crisp was seriously humbled by his careless remark that AIDS was just a "fad." It was good that this comment didn't prove to be his undoing.I enjoyed the scenes between Hurt and Richard O'Hare, as an editor who eventually became the closest thing Crisp ever had to a son.This is a beautiful film and a great surprise.

gradyharp AN ENGLISHMAN IN NEW YORK is a exceptionally well done film about the last years of the infamous Quentin Crisp (born Denis Charles Pratt, 25 December 1908 - 21 November 1999), an English writer and raconteur - one who is skilled at regurgitating funny anecdotes he heard someone else say first. Writer Brian Fillis has provided a highly polished script for director Richard Laxton, the two thus being able to bring to life this icon of homosexuality in the 1970s who, after publication of his memoir, The Naked Civil Servant, came to America to do 'speaking engagements', better described as cabaret comedy/philosophy routines. He dressed effeminately because that is the way he saw himself, and he adapted to life in New York with a joy that made people notice and respect him finally. John Hurt brings a brilliant luster to his role as the strange but lovely elderly Crisp who sits before audiences and says what comes to his mind. He is befriended by Christopher Street editor Phillip Steel (Dennis O'Hare) who gives him work as a movie critic, noticed by promoter Connie Clausen (Swoosie Kurtz) who schedules him heavily in nightclubs as an act, shy painter Patrick Angus (Jonathan Tucker) whom he champions among galleries, and kooky performance artist Penny Arcade (Cynthia Nixon). At the height of his popularity he makes a comments about AIDS being a 'fad', something that unites gays with a disease that Crisp claims is just what the straight public wants, and his popularity among his audience wanes. He discovers Angus is stricken with the disease and mourns his too soon death, and is sheltered by Steel as he grows into a fragile very elderly 91 year old. Throughout the film Hurt glows as the strange but somehow lovable Crisp, showing us all a side of a man who has been too often dismissed as a weird one. This is a very tender film, complemented by a first class cast, and one that deserves very wide attention. Grady Harp

Igenlode Wordsmith This film was definitely superior to the BBC's new "Day of the Triffids" adaptation (which was scheduled directly against it), but is not the dramatic equal of the original "Naked Civil Servant", with which it will inevitably be compared. I suspect the main cause of this is that the source material simply doesn't provide a lot of scope: when a story starts with its protagonist in his seventies and having finally gained acceptance and even celebrity, the time-span is inevitably somewhat short and there isn't a great deal more that can happen to him. Even in situations which could, and would, have been threatening to the younger Quentin Crisp, his elder statesman status effectively restricts the repercussions.As a result, more or less the only 'plot event' of the film is the arrival of AIDS in New York, with even that seen largely through the effects on Crisp's career of a single dismissive quip (his reasoned attitude is that making too much of AIDS will only bolster public perception of homosexuals as disease-ridden outcasts, but this doesn't go down well among his target audience). Otherwise, "An Englishman in New York" consists largely of bons mots; little snippets of Crisp performing and delivering his famous lines, whether to an audience of one or to a small studio gathering.That said, given the limitations of its material the film manages to pull off the difficult trick of its predecessor, presenting its deliberately flamboyant, over-the-top protagonist as a sympathetic human being whose pose we not only condone but find ourselves applauding. I generally shy away from 'gay issues', but find myself feeling here for the people he meets and the prejudice he encounters, both from them and on their behalf. In some ways, it is as hard to be a determinedly effeminate homosexual among the butch 'clones' of an out-of-the-closet New York as among the disapproving middle classes of pre-war England.John Hurt does an excellent task in portraying the physical aging of the character, and of course it is a great bonus to have the same actor appearing in both films with a genuine generational time-lapse between them. It is just a truism that -- despite Quentin Crisp's much-repeated prediction that every year "things are going to get worse" -- happiness, as the proverb has it, simply doesn't make for such an enthralling story as do troubled times; and this is essentially a depiction of a man who has finally come to terms with the world, and it with him. As such it is well-meaning and pretty well executed, but not a particularly unmissable experience. And inevitably it is less touching and less striking than its predecessor.

damientondleson I saw this last night at the Tribeca Film Fest and holy god was it bad.. From the script to the editing to the acting to the cinematography-- none of it worked. Not to mention the set design/costumes were so distractingly wrong for the time period (it spans the years from the late 70s up until 2006 or so). Even John Hurt, who's usually an amazing actor, was so over-the- top ridiculous. Granted, Quinten Crisp is an over-the-top guy to begin with, but Hurt was given nothing to work with here. I don't know much else to say except the audience I saw it with absolutely loved it.. so maybe it's just me. But audiences love anything at film festivals when they're sitting next to the director and all the actors. It's not a very accurate test of how good the movie is or how well it will play. Personally, I thought this movie was terrible. On the other hand, it was so terrible that it was hilarious. Get drunk and give it a shot when it's on HBO in 2 years, if it ever makes it that far.