This movie is a work of art on several levels. But art is intended to stir some emotion and it should be fairly obvious that what stirs one person's emotions will often leave another person searching for the exits. I'm pretty sure that in order to be stirred by this movie, the minimum requirements would be that you are gay and that you have an attention span longer than that usually available to the proverbial gnat ... the latter requisite might prove an insurmountable hurdle for many younger viewers who tend to prefer reality shows, MTV and mirrors.I know I would be unable to sit through over two hours of nothing but a small number of women interacting intimately no matter how beautiful they might be or how passionate. I very much doubt most heterosexual men, and maybe a majority of women, would be able to genuinely enjoy this film. That doesn't reflect negatively on the artistic merit of the film or the intellect of those reduced to fidgeting in their seats. "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," at least the second part, is not always the signature line for cretins. No one should tell us what art we must like or that what we enjoy isn't really art.While I lack the technical vocabulary to gush very meaningfully about the photography, I considered the use of varied backgrounds, light & shadow, focus, color and movement in this film to be amazing. Either the time & effort that went into the photography were monumental or the director and photographers are extraordinarily talented ... probably both.But the acting was the real art. Over two hours with virtually no dialogue sounds like a recipe for disaster, but quite quickly you realize that words would just get in the way and dilute the emotional impact. Every movement, every bit of body language and every facial expression spoke far more eloquently than words would ever manage. At times I was reminded of a ballet, where music and movement, not spoken words, can express emotions so elegantly.And at one point I definitely thought of opera, not least because Renee Fleming was singing an aria from Dvorak to accompany a beautifully photographed scene that might have gone well in Carmen or even Madama Butterfly.I've seen a lot of gay-themed films that had no shortage of pretty much standard Hollywood one-size-fits-all emotion, passion, sex and intimacy copied from the hetero romantic mold and played out as you would expect ... heavily reliant on dialogue and histrionics... but in this movie every nuanced hesitation, misgiving, conflict, indecision, fear, self-doubt and most importantly the driving force of love faultlessly and consistently performed by these actors registered in my gut. Their chemistry, amongst themselves and with the viewer, was amazing.For some people this movie will evoke goose bumps, tears and smiles. For others, not so much, but then the same thing can be said about most works of art.My first viewing was on my computer monitor, but I've ordered the DVD so I can see this (several more times) on a somewhat larger platform ... although I suspect it might lose some of the intimacy and passion if shown on a much larger theater screen.

I saw it last night and loved it! Some of the cinematic techniques were overused and at times it seemed the breakup was a bit drawn out....but having gone through a similar situation, I know can understand how hard it is to give up hope for a reconciliation with someone you really love~! The actors are just beautiful and the facial expressions of the three leads seemed right on the mark to me. I wish there was a bit more dialog between the guys but the long silences gave the viewer time to think and come to their own conclusions. I also liked the use of the mother who just wanted her son to be happy. Does anyone know if these families were considered middle-class in Mexico? The tee-shirts they wore seemed to indicate that each had done a bit of traveling...or maybe they were just gifts? Now, who knows about the DVD release in the US? Please email me if you have any info or [email protected]

Like João Pedro Rodrigues (Two Drifters), Mexican filmmaker Julián Hernández makes obsessively gay films – unlike Almodóvar, whose outlook may be gay but who has achieved almost universal acceptance through his varied milieus, intricately amusing plots and use of women in prominent roles (not to mention his general brilliance as a filmmaker, which neither Rodrigues nor Hernández has yet established). Hernández's sphere is even more narrow than Rodrigues', but more emotionally accessible and less odd. Influences include Cocteau, Pasolini, Wong Kar Wai and the Duras/Resnais collaboration of' Hiroshima mon amour, a line from which is quoted as an epigraph. Unlike Rodrigues', this filmmaker's few characters are not oddballs or obsessives but simply prettier-than-average middle-class Mexico City young men oppressed by love-longing. Like Hernández's previous feature A Thousand Clouds of Peace (2003) in its preoccupations but with higher production values, the subject is a young man whose love object eludes him. Two female characters are barely more than glimpsed in passing. We're examining a gay love affair and nothing else. These are students, but don't ask what their majors are. They spend more time in discos than in classrooms.As in the previous Hernández feature, plot and dialogue are minimized. There are voiceovers but the characters rarely speak. We get used to their miming their feelings. Gerardo (Miguel Angel Hoppe) picks up Jonas (Fernando Arroyo) in a playing field at the university and the passionate kisses and embraces and the sex begin right away. Then Jonas starts averting his face when Gerardo tries to caress or kiss him. And yet they're still regularly sleeping together. Gradually a third person enters the picture – Sergio (Alejandro Rojo), a slightly older man, a tall, dark, brooding fellow, even easier on the eyes than the other two. He has already watched the pair play hide and seek in the library stacks when he was installing a light bulb. Sergio has wanted Gerardo for a long time, or so he says when they finally get together after one of several encounters in a gay-friendly club – in this film, everywhere is gay friendly. Scenes take place either around the university, in the guy's rooms, or in a club; all problems other than love are minimized or eliminated. Except for some yellow filters, the photography is pretty, but straightforward. None of Wong Kar Wai's richly grungy pads here: the rooms are conventional middle-class housing, with tasteful prints on the walls and textbooks on the shelves, not palatial but posh for students' digs. The guys only have a few pairs of jeans, but they sure have lots of shirts.The message that the film conveys – and though it is too long, it's basic idea works; the scenes convey the desired feelings and the editing is seamless – at first is that two people never seem to love each other at the same time to the same degree in the same way.But the ending is a happy and romantic one. Once Sergio and Gerardo are a couple, Jonas begins to long for Gerardo again, and in the final scene, they've gotten back together.Broken Sky is more like a poem or an opera – or most of all, a dance – than a conventional film. It's a different experience. The mainstream audience would never put up with all this gay sex without dialogue or plot. Not every gay man will have the patience to watch these amorous comings and goings for the full 140 minutes, either. I'm not sure that the poetic voiceovers were necessary; and a third of them are lost to non Spanish-speakers because the white-on-white subtitles are illegible. They are a bit too poetic and general. The boys are too specific to be so generalized by the language. Needless to say, "the real world" is beyond the range of Broken Sky. But there's no denying that Broken Sky in its own way is unique and beautiful. The director achieves what he was clumsily groping for in his first one. He is using cinematic language in a way that it rarely is any more – he achieves the instinctive identification and emotional directness of the silent film. Broken Sky makes you think about the unspoken element in any relationship, the things that can never be communicated in words: in short, the world of eroticism and feelings. Hernández contributes to the effectiveness of his visual poem through excellent use of various musical accompaniments, a few notes on a clavicord, a string quartet – above all, a sweet pop love song – the lyrics of each lovingly translated in subtitles. It's as if Gerardo and Jonas were trying to live a pop song. And I guess that's what moony young gay guys do a lot of the time. There's even a coloratura operatic aria; considering the operatic tone of things, the filmmakers exercise great forbearance in using only one. Maybe this is "a new cinematic language," as was said of Antonioni's L'Avventura. For a while one can savor it, admire the naive sweetness of it. But can anyone read it? And can it say more than one thing?

I guess it's not surprising that this film received mixed reviews. I knew when I saw it that it would not be for everyone. I have to say though that I really loved this film and would gladly see it again, particularly to share it with someone I care for. I think you have to just sit back, relax and let this film wash over you. The best way for me to describe it is as a beautiful poem about love, particularly young love. It conveys all the thrill and excitement, the confusion and pain, the jealousy and longing...really all the emotions one experiences from first love. Rather than words, however, this poem is composed of pictures and music and ambient sound. Like a poem it isn't always straightforward, you don't always understand every moment, but the feelings that it evokes are strong and genuine, and it captures universals in a way that a more specific, narrative film never could. The director has said that the reason there is so little dialogue is that the moments he chose to capture were the ones between the dialogue; before the characters felt the need to speak, and after they had said all there was to say. What's amazing is how illuminating those moments are when one chooses to pay attention to them.In the context of this film I'm not sure what the phrase "gratuitous male nudity" means. Although I know it never happens in the U.S., in other countries people get naked. It's part of life. It's certainly part of the relationship that this film is all about, and to show it, unceremoniously, as part of the fabric of a life and a relationship can hardly be described as "gratuitous".I guess the best compliment I can pay this film is to say that I am still thinking and talking about it, weeks after seeing it. The camera work, the composition, the use of sound and music, and the contribution of the young stars, all contribute to the film's success. If you enjoy film-making as an art form, I'd highly recommend you seek out this film.