SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Limerculer A waste of 90 minutes of my life

Comwayon A Disappointing Continuation

Kodie Bird True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

mooseburton Was searching for films on Netflix and came across this gem. Never heard of it and don't know any of the actors. Well acted and very powerful. It is one of those movies that takes place in real time, albeit with flashbacks. The subject matter may not be everyones cup of tea, but an excellent movie overall.It is a Canadian film and that may be why it did not get much exposure here in the US. If you are a fan of indie or gay oriented films then you will really like this. While the gay theme of this is an important and critical part of it. Don't judge this on that aspect. Judge it on the overall story and the way it was told.

dcannon I have a high tolerance for "serious" gay films, but this one is unforgivable. The story is preposterous; are we really expected to believe that a bishop could be held captive in a prison confessional and forced to watch a play that re-enacts a crucial event in his boyhood? The decision to have the women's roles played by men is just plain ridiculous. And the way it milks the cliché that love between men must always end in death and betrayal does nothing to advance gay cinema. The two boys, however, are quite pretty. But the actor playing the adult Simon bears no resemblance to the young Simon. As a boy, Simon has a peachy, creamy complexion; as an adult, he bears the obvious signs of severe acne. This is just one of many implausibilities in this deeply silly film.

bijou-2 This is the sort of pretentious crap that has killed art-house cinema. The fact that the players speak English makes it more criminal to hear dialogue that appears to have been written in French and then sloppily translated. The actors speak like they are reading bad subtitles and are therefore forced to speak some very idiotic sentences indeed. The young actors are pretty but surprisingly sexless. They come across like twelve year old girls, not mature enough to pretend they have any of these feelings. This is stressed even more by the casting of older men in female roles, at once an insult to women and to gay men. Any film in soft focus is considered "beautiful" today and this one is particularly ugly with fantastic scenery badly photographed and endless shots of lakes and cottages that add nothing to the setting. The prison scenes are strictly 1960's bad theater of the absurd. This play on film presents a convoluted jilted lover plot worthy of a daytime soap pretending it is saying something important about homophobia. Indeed who is the true villain here? The jealous lover who killed for his love and became a priest in his atonement or the selfish and closeted Simone, who was dumping his true love after one beating from dad. It is Simone who is the sinner here but the writer would rather not see that and blames some smitten waiter for all the crimes of humanity. Apparently Simone paid for his real sins by ageing really badly, a punishment only a gay man would understand. Even with it's drag queen women and naked girly-boys, LILIES is not good gay cinema. But it sure is queer.

bbraat A beautifully made film. The way the movie flowed like quicksilver between the prison and the past was unbelievable. It was also great how the male actors, a la mode Shakespeare, played all the female roles. What was so good about that was that they didn't do so as hyper-female drag queens but simply as actors. after a while the viewer forgets that sex of the actors and focuses on the characters. I was surprised that this illusion held up despite several removals from the narrative when we are transported back to the present and the prison chapel and we see the actors as they really are. somehow the film keeps us from being jarred out of the movie and we once again are transported back to 1912. a profoundly moving story.