donwc1996 OMG! This film is so hot I could not watch it in one sitting but had to come back to it once I cooled off. But what blew me away (no pun intended)was the bonus feature interview in which the director mentions the fact the actors were straight! Yikes! I couldn't believe it! Is there anything hotter than two straight guys making out? I think not. The director/writer/producer, Richard LeMay is something else that's for sure and I have to hand it to him for pulling off such an achievement on a budget that apparently was nothing. Getting such a group of hunks in front of the camera for poco dinero really says how great LeMay is and why he got such an incredible cast. I even sent him an email at his web site asking him how he did it.

brett-denver OK. Where do I start? I used to spin around in a video store and rent whatever I pointed to. There were some bad movies out there; "Whore" was pretty awful, "Dirty Habits" (about spying nuns) was at least tolerable. This was simply the worst piece of cinema I've ever seen.First it was totally predictable. I'd comment about how I bet they make a "Pretty Woman" reference and within a minute it was there! That was like number thirteen of 20 or so poorly scripted things that occurred in this film. Poorly made, poorly shot, poorly directed. Horribly acted. This isn't even a movie. It's torture. It's unbelievably bad.Nobody is going to give a gay hooker a job in the real world. Just because you're pretty and nice? Please. And it wasn't as if the eye candy made up for the cinema excrement that made up this movie. ugh.

acciojosh I don't like putting people's hard work down, but it feels like a thirteen-year-old girl who has a fascination with gay blokes and doesn't know a thing about them wrote it. Ian is meant to be from Sydney, but can't even hold his accent for an entire sentence, let alone even hit the right Aussie accent when he does. The plot is full of holes; the editing was terrible, the script short and the direction could not have been any better. The budget may be low, but I have seen movies without budgets that use talent to pull them off and they work. It was a high school movie, not something to be proud of. My suggestion for the creator; centre on one plot, pay more attention to their acting talent than their bodies and be more assertive with your actors when it comes to direction. For the rest of us - if you can sit through the entire movie without wanting to scream, throw something or roll your eyes, I will be surprised.

ekeby I gave it six out of ten stars, half of which were A's for effort. The basic premise is entirely plausible, but some of the subplots are pretty silly. Circumstances revolve around an ad agency and its owner. If you've ever worked in an ad agency, and I have, this is kind of a comic book idea of what that would be like. None of it rang true for me. The photo shoot scenes were also painfully amateurish.Nevertheless, two of the lead actors eventually won me over. The guy who plays the Australian hustler does an extraordinarily good job--very understated--with a difficult stereotype: the hustler with a heart of gold. Pretty Woman is referenced early on, but when we meet this guy, the level of trust we have for him is nothing like we instantly feel for Julia Roberts. He's slightly menacing, clearly hiding something. Through the course of the film he gradually reveals his gold heart, and it's done at just the right pace. It was a surprise to learn he's not Australian--the accent had me fooled.The guy who plays his love interest also does well, even though he struggles with some impossible dialog in his office scenes. The guy who plays his boss is the weakest link in the chain. His performance is in that close-but-no-cigar category. Acceptable, but not much more. The other performances are a grab bag, quality-wise.Is it worth renting? If you're working your way through the LGBT oeuvre like I am, yes. Keep you expectations low and you won't be disappointed.