I thought that a story about the struggle between two gay lovers after their cat dies would be engaging as well as a novel idea. Mind you, the cat is beautiful and the most engaging part of the story, for the short time that he is allowed to live.
My impression is that the two men adopted the cat, named Moses, as a stray, which might explain why they continue to let him run wild outside in the night against the elements. During one of his nocturnal explorations, Moses runs into a small fox; the two animals engage in combat, and Moses ultimately wins but picks up some kind of disease or distemper in the process. This, to me, explains what happens to him soon after.
Some reviewers of this film assume that Stefan, one of the lovers, purposely kills the cat, but Moses seems to die spontaneously as a result of the fox fight. Stefan, however, feels guilty that the cat died in his hands, a problem that gets worse when his lover Andreas suspects Stefan killed the animal.
From there, the plot deteriorates into some of the clichés that *dog* other urbane gay films about urbane gay life: the relentless classical music and smooth jazz, the soul-less dinner parties, the wine, the plush lifestyle, the affluent pretenses, and of course, the sex, which comes across as soft porn and, in one instance, involves a friend who likes to sit beside the bed and watch Andreas and Stefan go at it. Accompanying all of this is mediocre photography and a plodding narrative that needed better editing -- or in this case, gelding.
Only when Andreas and Stefan agree to take care of a friend's adorable white kitten does the story take on genuine horror and tension -- but not because of the director's skill. I just found myself terrified at what might happen to this poor animal in the hands of these two morons whose relationship seems ridiculous and unconvincing and who seem reckless about many things in life.
We are left uncertain about the poor kitten's future, but I wonder what the reaction of the viewing public would be if Moses had been a canine. Would there have been an outcry? Would audiences care so much about whether these two guys end up happy?
A previous film about two gay lovers called "Hawaii" refers to the two men joking about killing a cat in their youth. Still, we are supposed to care about these guys. Something's wrong: cats beware!
My impression is that the two men adopted the cat, named Moses, as a stray, which might explain why they continue to let him run wild outside in the night against the elements. During one of his nocturnal explorations, Moses runs into a small fox; the two animals engage in combat, and Moses ultimately wins but picks up some kind of disease or distemper in the process. This, to me, explains what happens to him soon after.
Some reviewers of this film assume that Stefan, one of the lovers, purposely kills the cat, but Moses seems to die spontaneously as a result of the fox fight. Stefan, however, feels guilty that the cat died in his hands, a problem that gets worse when his lover Andreas suspects Stefan killed the animal.
From there, the plot deteriorates into some of the clichés that *dog* other urbane gay films about urbane gay life: the relentless classical music and smooth jazz, the soul-less dinner parties, the wine, the plush lifestyle, the affluent pretenses, and of course, the sex, which comes across as soft porn and, in one instance, involves a friend who likes to sit beside the bed and watch Andreas and Stefan go at it. Accompanying all of this is mediocre photography and a plodding narrative that needed better editing -- or in this case, gelding.
Only when Andreas and Stefan agree to take care of a friend's adorable white kitten does the story take on genuine horror and tension -- but not because of the director's skill. I just found myself terrified at what might happen to this poor animal in the hands of these two morons whose relationship seems ridiculous and unconvincing and who seem reckless about many things in life.
We are left uncertain about the poor kitten's future, but I wonder what the reaction of the viewing public would be if Moses had been a canine. Would there have been an outcry? Would audiences care so much about whether these two guys end up happy?
A previous film about two gay lovers called "Hawaii" refers to the two men joking about killing a cat in their youth. Still, we are supposed to care about these guys. Something's wrong: cats beware!