User Reviews

The final film I saw at 2013's Glasgow Film Festival (at 11.15pm - so much fun picking my way across the city at that time on a Friday night!) was 'The Sex of the Angels', a Spanish film about a young (male) student who, hitherto heterosexual, falls for a young (male) dancer. When the student's girlfriend finds out, she is so desperate to keep her man that she agrees to share him with the dancer, for whom she soon starts to develop feelings herself.

It's hard to know what genre the creators were going for with this. Much of the film is a heart-rending drama focusing on the girl's inner turmoil as she struggles to come to terms with her boyfriend's infidelity with another man. But when she starts her own sexual relationship with the dancer, the tone changes - one scene, where both the girl and the student turn up at the dancer's apartment at the same time, descends into a 'Whoops there go my Trousers'-type farce that had the audience in stitches. But it's a watchable film, and all three leads are very easy on the eye - although it's extremely noticeable that whereas the straight sex scenes are pleasingly explicit, the gay ones are very discrete - disappointing double-standards.

Lot to mention but let me say first off I do not consider this a "gay film." Yes, there is a male/male gay relationship that figures prominently. Lesbians are left out here. (You remember lesbians, right? Gay women.) Anyway, what you do have is a bi-sexual tale of swapping and loving that isn't a bad story, but one that takes a number of detours along the way. Then gets completely lost at the end.

They could have easily cut 20 minutes plus out of this film and not lost a thing. Nor does it bother me that the sexual scenes between straights are somewhat more graphic than those depicting gay men. Why does this bother people so? If you are looking for porn just go find it. It's free and it's everywhere.

To be honest, I subscribe to the "less is more" theory. I want the director (and the screenwriters) to leave room for my personal imagination. I want to fill in the blanks romantically. Stop turning me into a cheap peeping Tom sitting in the Peanut Gallery and let me become an extension of every scene---sexual and otherwise. Sometimes with modern film I feel like I'm just a circus prop.

There are several side characters that just slow things down. The whole notion of these young people working to put out a magazine is treated almost as an afterthought.

But the worst of all is the entire 3-way plot line. That both men and women can exist in this kind of 3-way arrangement is ridiculous. Human frailty being what it is, it just never works out. That's why so called "swingers" have to continually look for new partners. In this script, the young woman is at first repulsed by the idea of sharing her boyfriend with a man. In a matter of 30 minutes she's not only accepted that arrangement, she's joining in between them. Theatrical license is one thing. This is silly.

I think the film addresses two questions: 1. what is love and what is sex? 2. how far will you go to let your loving one happy with having sex with another one (whether same-sex or not) but suffer yourself from that happiness? One thing definitely for sure is that this film is NOT about homosexuality. Definitely not.

This film is worth watching. It's fun, logic (but not the end), and interesting. I mean it's interesting in the sense that it challenges the typical understanding and view towards love and sex as a unity.

This film makes me thinking if it is really possible that you can have sex with someone but refuse to love him/her? If the answer is yes, it's more like an open relationship. One can HAVE FUN with anyone and at the same time he/she claims you are the (life) parterre and you do the same. If the answer is no, it's like "Rai's situation." You are just afraid to love someone.

Rai is just afraid to love, to fall in love with someone (for not being hurt or unable to sustain the hurt of possible separation. ) What he brings to the couple, a couple's love in a traditional view point is the purity/ type of love.

However, I don't think the ending can be happening in the real life. If one can have sex without falling in love with him/her, what makes them stay together? Friendship? Moral ethics?

I would like to say about the ending of the movie. It seems a good ending with mutual relationship. But in real life its hard to carry this kind of relationship. It can be good representation of bisexual relationship also. No one like their partner interaction with third one that focused when both Carla and Bruno get affairs with Rai. Same thing happen when Carla found gay relation with Rai and Bruno see the relation with Rai. Cinematography and soundtrack was good. Story line also good. Everyone act nicely on their role. I can say its my another great experience of watching a good movie. Just love it. Hope everyone enjoy the movie. Happy movie watching.

This title appears under "gay" - which could be considered accurate if you would consider the Paul Rudd, Jennifer Aniston OBJECT OF MY AFFECTION to be a gay film. The box cover for the film is also inaccurate, in describing which character is the martial artist (and karate instructor would actually be far more accurate) and which was the observer; additional, it was a street pickpocketing, discovered in mid-theft, which turned physical in one brief blow, not a "violent mugging." For gay audience, this film is also problematic as others have pointed out, in that the heterosexual sex scenes are very nude and graphic (and in clear view taking place between two partners), while the gay sex scenes are brief, either very hidden or only partially unclothed and suggested. Personally, I don't have a problem - the forced, put upon full frontal nudity that some gay films feature -- particularly in this day and age when so much full on hard core nudity is so readily available for free, just feels strained at best. If they had shown only one of the graphic scenes between Bruno and Carla (probably the one after he came from the country, where it was integral to pushing the story where it was at that moment) would have sufficed, if they two male actors (or the director, and crew) were uncomfortable being more equitable - otherwise, this is a position that many similar movies have taken and it's equally annoying and a good reason to rate a movie as a pass.

Technically, the movie is reasonably proficient and uses it's low budget well, with the camera work being the best thing about it. The actress who plays Carla comes across as annoying and underwritten or, in her own words, written as pathetic, to know if her acting is any good. Being the mermaid in a large summer tent-pole movie (which was likely shot after THIS, not the other way around as some people have written based purely on festival and other distribution patterns) is not at all a recommendation for future roles.

The guy who plays the RAI role has a certain charisma but come across more as a user than anything else; the line where his friend says he is a seducer and more into the hunt than anything else is probably more telling, and that he didn't realize what getting involved with Carla would do - other than as another pelt on his belt, also speaks poorly for the character. He does gets off a few interesting lines, but these are the 2 am, sitting around in a dorm room, bullshitting with your friends, thinking you are brilliant to have discovered what the real world is and what it is like revelations. If you are young, immature and unworldly, yes, he's the character to get some pearls of wisdom from.

The movie has far too many 'fridge logic' moments (such as the lack of response in four days, listening to the toxic friend, throwing all the ex's stuff in garbage bags, ex shows up and garbage trucks are rolling away scene, as just one example) to make you engaged in the film. The leads are attractive enough, but they are actors - in a film, you don't expect any less from a scripted show on a lesser channel like the CW, yet you aren't necessarily going to give up an hour of life (including commercials) on it, are you. The story doesn't really tell us anything too, the situation it presents may have happened as laid out to the writer/director, but in addition to being far from universal, there's nothing there for most people to really feel entertained or informed after viewing.

The idea of fluid sexuality has been handled better in other projects. A movie about someone who has felt one thing for most of his life (in this case heterosexuality and a companionable affection and loving relationship with someone for numerous years) can suddenly feel something different and unusual for someone else - yet still desire the known quantity and wish for that companion and relationship - might have, with far better writing, made a mildly interesting character study, even if nothing new.

Bisexuality is not really dealt well as a topic - and many gay men are highly uncomfortable with true bisexuality so it would need to be marketed in a distinct and overboard manner, not as this was, but this is neither an accurate portrayal of bisexuality nor was it really meant to be.

I don't think that I'm the only one who, after watching this film, felt a little cheated. I initially thought that this would be a film about forbidden love, love surpassing all obstacles, a film that depicted the intricacies and beauty of same-sex monogamous love. I could barely have been more disappointed after watching this film as I found it so biased towards heterosexuality. The story begins sweetly enough, with a young man who has a girlfriend, finding out that he has a deep emotional and sexual connection to another man. Beautiful start, and then the film goes steadily downhill... After meeting the man he would fall in love with, Bruno and Carla (yes, Carla and not Rai) have a rather graphic romantic sex scene. If straight sex is what you're into then there are a few more similar scenes. Frustratingly any depiction of gay sexual interaction is filmed in either a sinister context (Bruno being caught cheating by his girlfriend) or a brief and vague shot with Bruno and Rai in a holiday-house. I don't necessarily think that sex is important or always belongs in a good romantic film, but there is a slight anti-gay undercurrent that runs through this film (as seen in the depiction of the love scenes), which brings me to my second point...

I thought that it was quite unbelievable and disappointing that Bruno found another man who he had this deep connection with and loved, only for him to stay with his girlfriend and then only have Rai as a lover on the side. To add to the disappointment, Carla falls in love with Rai and they all end up living happily ever after, together, in a great big apartment that they could never afford...with their salaries combined. Now perhaps monogamy is just as unrealistic as polygamy, biologically speaking, though I would much rather watch a film depicting the under-represented theme of monogamous gay love than a film which reinforces the stereotype that gay or bi people are sexually unrestrained, i.e the ménage à trois . Some people may find that this hetero-biased film about polygamous love easy to relate to and enjoyable, though I certainly did not. I will say that the actors were all great, and the the cinematography was quite well done, but the rest was simply bleak.

This film is shot in one of my most favourite cities in the world. Barcelona.

The story of three people who's lives become intertwined by a chance meeting.

The big question. Can three in a bed really work? I found this movie on Netflix and really enjoyed it. A wonderful story, beautifully shot. The cast were fantastic and each one of them played their roll really well.

I love Spanish films and this is no exception.

I was genuinely moved by many scenes in this film, and the moment when you realise how much they love each other, made me cry, which never happens.

This kind of tale could have easily become such a tragedy, but it is wonder for a change to have a story of this kind that ends of a feel good note.

Well done a to the brilliant cast, really really wonderful watch.