I’ve expressed similar sentiments before regarding movies designed to justify certain viewpoints. I don’t object to their existence; cinema certainly provides a platform for expressing political, social, and moral perspectives. However, they aren’t usually my preferred form of entertainment, especially because they often cater to audiences already sympathetic to the ideas being presented, while also attempting to persuade others. This film falls into that category, specifically concerning homosexuality. While there's been an increase in films addressing this topic—some with skill and a balanced perspective that allows for individual thought rather than dictating opinions—this one isn’t among them. Films like “Dallas Buyers Club,” “Philadelphia,” or even “Milk” effectively portrayed the importance of protecting the right of homosexuals (and all citizens) to live their lives without facing condemnation, provided they adhere to the law. This film doesn't reach that level. The narrative centers on two young men from difficult backgrounds in the London suburbs. After escaping an abusive home environment, Steven finds refuge with Jamie’s mother. Their growing closeness eventually leads to a sexual relationship, which creates complications as their connection becomes increasingly apparent to those around them. Essentially, it's another film depicting homosexual characters existing within a kind of urban setting characterized by crime, substance abuse, and a decline in traditional values. The story suggests that their relationship is somehow pure and innocent—or at least, that’s what the filmmakers are trying to convey. I wouldn’t mind the portrayal of this social decay if the storyline were compelling, but it isn't: it feels overly sentimental, melodramatic, and relies heavily on clichés, all presented with a rigid adherence to themes of prejudice and shame surrounding homosexuality. The film maintains this tone throughout, attempting to manipulate our emotions and guide our thinking. Glenn Berry and Scot Neal are actors I was unfamiliar with, and whose careers haven’t flourished. Their current whereabouts are unknown, but based on what I've seen, they don't seem to be acting anymore and haven’t achieved significant recognition. This might be attributed to a lack of charisma that hindered their ability to carry the roles in this film. Linda Henry delivers a more effective and capable performance, though she can't single-handedly redeem the movie. Considering it’s an independent production with budgetary constraints, criticism on a technical level feels unwarranted. It manages adequately given its resources; however, nothing stands out as particularly remarkable or exceptional.

Source on TMDB