When I saw this advertised on Netflix, I was intrigued and excited to see a new LGBT drama especially one produced in the UK. I'm sorry to say that this turned out to be a complete disappointment from beginning to end. The cinematography is probably the worst I have ever seen in any film ever, so much so that in parts it makes the film unwatchable - the camera moving around aimlessly, getting too close and up in the actors faces, never settling down. Heads cut off, truly bad framing, focus issues... the list goes on.The only positive I can speak of is Daniel Brocklebank's performance, he really does try to make the best out of a bad show.The sound mixing is also so awful that at times I had to stop the film and rewind it just to try and make out what some of the actors were saying. The editing also has no ebb, no flow to it.. I've seen better from 1st year film students in college. It's am amiable idea for a script, but overall it's so full of cliche's and such bad dialogue I doubt most of it would have gotten past the writers room on any soap opera never mind a movie. I hate to be so negative about any other filmmakers work, I truly do but unfortunately with such bad choices and execution in terms of "Soft Lad" I really feel even at such a low budget it could have been something wonderful. It alas, is not.

Soft Lad is a (very) low-budget indie movie that dreams big and sadly falls short, mostly due to an over-reliance on melodrama and an unwillingness to let its characters breathe and grow.The story follows David (Jonny Labey), a young man about to start a promising career in dance, and the fallout of his doomed affair with Jules, his sister's husband (Daniel Brocklebank), culminating in news that will devastate an entire family.Labey gives a committed performance as the naive David, but there just isn't a lot of depth to it, and the often atrociously weak and clunky script limits things still further, displaying writer/director/producer Leon Lopez's tendency to restrict his characters to very well worn territory. The backstory of David's two-year "drunken mistake" with his brother-in-law is revealed via a massive and rather unbelievable info dump delivered to Stacey the Convenient Friend (Laura Ainsworth), whose friendship with David - strained by unresolved feelings - is a small glimpse of a more multi-faceted story, but still ends up as a predictable and tired detail. The other characters fare little better, with Daniel Brocklebank's Jules coming across more as a smarmy classist caricature than a villain anyone could sympathise with or truly care about, and the movie jangles with missed opportunities. There are moments where it almost seems like it will turn into a neat psychological drama, but be prepared to wave at those moments as they pass by, because sadly the story never embraces its dark side, neither fully exploring Jules' capacity for callousness or manipulation, or the selfishness that can motivate people in the name of love. There is a brave performance from Suzanne Collins as Jane, David's sister, though again she's let down by a poor script and very little support in the movie's climactic scenes, which descend into awkward melodrama. Craig Stein as Sam, David's new boyfriend, also makes a valiant effort, and choreographed the one dance scene we get to see: another symptom of the movie's disconnection with itself. Dance is presented as David's dream, but there's a massive missed opportunity in actually using it to convey the enormity of his struggle, or anything of his passion and individuality. The supposedly positive ending (pun totally intended) feels like a tacked on afterthought, and the whole movie feels unbalanced in the time devoted to aspects of different characters' struggles. Structurally and technically, Soft Lad is trying to be an indie movie punching above its weight, but its reliance on two dimensional characters and tired "gay issue" themes - closeted married men, HIV, poppers and hookups - that feel neither fresh nor original just results in a dull, clichéd experience... and I say that as someone who will generally overlook poor direction, writing, performances, or camera work in a low budget movie that honestly has something to say. Probably what I dislike most about this movie, though, is its erasure of bisexuality. Jules is presented as a married MSM, and for a few moments it almost looks like the movie will dedicate a little time to exploring his emotional conflict over his sexuality and identity (he claims to develop feelings for David; the first time he's fallen for a man), perhaps showing something of the delicate balance - and differences - between sexual and emotional attraction. Unfortunately, the only labels that ever get mentioned by any character are "gay" and "straight", and I was left with the feeling that, if the word "bi" had been whispered at all, it would have been in yet another cliché about predatory promiscuity. It's sad to see yet another opportunity wasted in this film, but it appears to be part of a pattern, and that's disappointing. Bottom line: if you're a soap fan who enjoys emotional drama and can overlook technical limitations, this might be up your street. It's certainly nice to see more British drama from the North that doesn't focus on a fetishistic view of "northern-ness", and a lot was certainly made of the tiny budget. Ultimately, though, there are so many more gay dramas out there that are just better in every way.

This has got to be one of the worst films I've seen. It is so badly made, I was actually shouting "this is so bad!!" at my laptop. The camera work is so bad it's annoying; I don't know what type of tone or feel they were going for but the result is a mess of awkward angles, moving pointlessly back and forth and getting in the faces of the actors with absolutely no sense of framing. The sound design is non-existent and the few attempts at scoring are generic 'sad'/piano music, that not only add absolutely no sentiment at all, they also sound really bad. And that also applies to dialogue as well, which makes the whole thing look and sound very amateur. The script is so bad I can't stop thinking how it got approved or how people thought this kind of writing is good! To sum it up, it goes like this: -I just feel stressed and tired from it all -Why? -I don't knowThe repetition of lines like "where is this coming from?" and "why are you being like this?" only makes things worst and adds to an already messed up and poor script that sounds so basic and forced and fake that makes the whole thing really annoying to watch.In terms of plot, after one or so hours of the character's emotional ups and downs, it boils down to the consequences of unprotected sex and the use of condoms, which in this day and age is just old news.The actors do try their best and they are some genuine moments that unfortunately don't last for more than a few seconds. Massively let down by a script that simply does not work, they end up trying to convince you how sad they are, or how confused with lines like...well, see above. I can go on and on as I still can't believe how badly made this is and how amateur it looks and sounds; OK, maybe they didn't have the biggest budget ever and I get that but still, that's not an excuse for the complete and utter lack of a convincing narrative, emotional investment and quality of film making.

Came across this film through social media and was interested to see soap actors in a feature film. To be honest I didn't have much expectation as a lot of the reviews had said this was typical soap plot lines but in my opinion the film tackles real issues and the cast delivered the story exceptionally well. Laura Ainsworth who plays Stacey was hilarious, she played the character so well. Suzanne Collins who I loved in Brookside was also brilliant. This film is set in Liverpool and was good to see a non London setting. Would Defo recommend this for soap fans! Incredible to think that this was made for less than £20k. Will be hoping to see more from the director!