This is the second vertical AI BL drama I've sat through, and honestly I went in knowing better. I had it on while I was doing cardio at the gym, and what struck me was just how much the plot echoed the last one I watched. Same step brother romance angle, same mystery girlfriend showing up near the end, same extra guy pining after one of the leads. Genuinely the only thing going for it was the runtime, the whole thing wrapped up in forty five minutes flat. The setup kicks off with Finn moving schools because his mom just married into money. He finds out his new step brother Aiden goes to the same place, and he's warned to keep his distance from him. Their first run in at school is rocky, just like you'd expect, but there's this odd pull between them neither can shake off. Finn keeps telling himself not to read into it because Aiden's straight and openly homophobic. Things shift when some kids start bullying Finn and the student council president, Ryan, steps in to ...
This has to be one of the weirdest 'film' I have seen. It neither falls into dramatic recreation and neither documentary, but he way it is presented is definitely documentary style with interviews and some other snippets which are so damn slow that it can put anyone to sleep. Based on the true story of the infamous Groningen HIV case, in which three men drugged other men and infected them with their own HIV-infected blood, Feast is a bold and provocative film that skillfully reflects the questions of life, death and morality that have emerged from one of the most disquieting stories in contemporary Dutch life. Sadly what the above statement is supposed to represent doesn't get translated on the screen at all.
The film starts with a policewoman displaying all the objects that were at the sex party: from the wine glasses, CDs, to the sex toys. It was weird and long scene, but intriguing. Then we hear the conversation with Hans, one of the perpetrators, at whose house the orgies were hosted. He tells us the story of hw he met Peter online and how the duo used to host group sex parties with drug and bareback sex. He says what he did was not ok, but at the same time blaming the victims, because they should know what to expect at a sex party. And that blood exchange was, in a way, beautiful. Then we see an interview of Peter, who was the main guy behind all this and he shares his perspective saying it wasn't rape but consensual sex and what not. Then randomly we meet a botanist who tells us how virus can be transferred from one tulip to another. And then we see 3 cops interrogating a complainant. The film randomly ends as randomly it started.
I am not sure why this film was made if it wasn't; t even going to take a stand. It was snippets of multiple scenes joined together without giving meaning to it. Are you saying what the two guys did was ok? Because it was not. I understand them trying to justify because thats probably why they did it in the first place but as a film maker you should have an opinion, otherwise why are you making this film. The worse that botanist lady saying how infecting a disease can bring beautiful results on flowers, and depending on the perspective it can have beautiful results. And the idea of mixing blood could be romantic and beautiful. That was just jaw-dropping statement. The film is done in hybrid model mixing documentary, fiction and different perspectives of this creepy criminal case. This could have been interesting but this is an hardcore art house stuff, which despite its possibly interesting premise fails to invoke absolutely any emotions in the audience. (2/10)
Comments