Christopher Carter I had high hopes that this wasn't as bad as I was reading. Sadly it's as bad as I was reading. I had to read the plot summary to find out what the film was about and as the movie was acted out I only got two aspects of the summary, one that Erik was a documentary film maker and Paul and Erik were in a relationship. This is a film I would not recommend to anyone for any reason for there is nothing to learn from it. The premise is supposed to be the ups and downs of a relationship but for me the premise was more like two strangers that meet, fall into heavy "like" with one another and never quite stop being strangers to one another. Erik is clingy and cloying and annoying and Paul is cold and standoffish and, according to the plot summary, closeted but I didn't get any of that aspect. For them to fall into a relationship after meeting once off a telephone sex line, even though I know it can happen and has for many, this love at first sight thing between these two diverse and disparate characters is more than unbelievable.The purported good times between the couple really never materialized for me and so why they were a couple for as long as they were a couple just never made any sense to me.I felt no connection with these characters, actually none of the characters.All in all it is just not a film that I want to view again.

zif ofoz What a trip this flick is! Director/writer: Ira Sachs really brings to the screen a story about obsession and pernicious behavior between the emotionally needy Erik and the psychologically baleful Paul. In this story you will go through three stages in what you think of Erik - impatience, because Erik can't see the obvious before him with Paul, - sympathy, because Erik is obsessed with Paul and Erik is truly a nice guy while Paul is nefarious, - relief, when Erik finally get beyond his hang-up with Paul.This movie is all about Erik! You the viewer are taken through about eight years in Eriks life and his undefinable infatuation with Paul. We are never shown why Erik cannot break free of his emotional need for Paul and Erik is lost without him. But Paul, on the other hand, can live his self loathing life perfectly well without Erik. So I believe Mr. Sachs is asking us which character is the more needy of the two. Erik because he is empty without Paul or Paul because he needs his drug habit and to hurt those who care for him.Whatever! This is quite a good film if you concentrate on Erik due to the fact he is the central figure and we see his life only. The story opens and closes about him.

euroGary 'Keep the Lights On' tells how the romance between two men is damaged by the drug addiction of one of them. It has the feel of a short made for film school that's been stretched beyond reason to feature-length, featuring lots of conversations that contain little of substance, lead nowhere and resolve nothing. And the conceit it takes place over several years is betrayed by the characters having the same hairstyles and clothes (including underwear!) at the end of the film as they had at the beginning. Not even the younger of the two men (who looks very much like Mrs Sting, Trudie Styler) getting his bum out every twenty minutes or so could save this turkey, I'm afraid.

Sean Kurzweil As a gay man, I like to support films with gay characters and stories when I can. Oftentimes such films sacrifice writing and acting in order to titillate. This film avoided that pitfall and delivered a cohesive, relevant and tasteful product. The characters were gritty and weren't cardboard cut outs. Personally, I found it a lot more relevant than a recent art film I caught called THE MASTER. The central relationship in this film is between gay men but the film manages to touch on failing/toxic relationships in general and offers up some noteworthy and humorous ensemble performances. As difficult as it is to believe, these relationships exist in gay and straight life. It seems to me that the filmmaker decided it was important to hold up a mirror and show us reality and a real relationship gone awry instead of showing us that gays can have just as little sex and/or just as loving relationships as straight folk. We have enough sanitized and safe portrayals of gays on network TV. I found the performances to be interesting and the characters were dynamic. Each had a journey unlike the static characters in the aforementioned, lauded art film. Since this film was most certainly shot quickly and with a limited budget, I take my hat off to cast and crew. The selfishness, desperation, preoccupation, co-dependency and obsessive behavior depicted seemed right on point. I felt that the filmmakers unflinchingly and without apology depicted the good, the bad and the ugly of this relationship while tell a story about two individuals in love.