User Reviews

This was an intense but powerful film. It's not always easy to watch but Samuel is clearly an exciting up and coming filmmaker with a strong voice. And I can't believe this was made as a student project - Very impressive! Looking forward to seeing what he does next!

I really appreciated the styling of the entire film, the editing was key, it felt somehow slow even though it only lasts less than 80 minutes.

It is frankly shocking that some users have rated this film a 10-star movie so far and it can be classified nowhere near a masterpiece but also nowhere near as trash from my perspective. The plot manifests itself clearly that the reckless sexual behaviour of the protagonist in using sex date apps would put him into the trouble easily and suffer from the consequences. The other disadvantage the film is generally to target gay audiences than the wide audience. The film was going to be premiered in London LGBT film festival in 2020 but was cancelled due the outbreak of Covid. The grade is 6 out of 10.

Cute young red head, bonus! Where are your friends, like even one your age online? I didn't understand, kid or not, why wouldn't stop behavior that puts him in danger. Interesting how staff turned blind eye and not shown. If this was grown adult, have at it with risks. The blue room was so off putting, big chunk of movie. For me anyhow not realistic, would never attend. The same glitter sequin outfit he wore over and over made me want him to be a kid shopping at mall for other alternatives. Not a movie to recommend or stay in gay collections.

Interesting story, although nothing knew, but lacking in execution. Beautifully shot but with long, boring scenes, often without dialogue, tempted me to fast-forward. Lost interest in the main character and his story half way through.

Ultimately, watching nicely shot scenes one after the other without structure or pace wasn't very satisfying. Strangely enough, the actor playing the main character's father was far too hot of a hunk to be a convincing caring father figure. He would have been more suitable playing one of his son's sex-dates.

The main reason why I stopped watching half way through was the obnoxious main character. Not sure if it was the character as such or the actor but I ended up hating him and wanting to punch him in the face. His arrogant demeanour and smug grin was too off-putting to continue with this snoozefest.

This is a very fine piece of film-making. It avoids many of the clichés of gay themed films, covering territory which is fresh and engaging. It's beautifully shot and edited, although the dialogue was delivered in a slow hesitant manner which was initially off-putting, but actually suited the mood of the film. It follows a very young gay man who unwittingly puts himself in some potentially dangerous situations. It is surprisingly successful as a suspenseful thriller, but quite unlike any thriller I've seen before, gay or mainstream. Being such an original and unusual approach to gay film, I'm sure it will polarise viewers (as is evidenced by some of the dismissive reviews) but for those who genuinely admire cinema, and are looking for something beyond coming-out stories and an endless supply of boy-meets-boy stories, this film offers a great deal. Very impressive; I'm looking forward to seeing more from this team.

Despite its pretentious title and its flashy, and gimmicky images this film ends up not only with an improbable ending, but with an intrinsic message that I found harked back to ' warning ' films like ' Boy's Beware ' made in the middle of the last century. The essence of this is to be aware of strangers and especially older ones who are going to corrupt you. It seems that our lead actor, who in my opinion gave one of the most shallow performances on screen, had ants in his pants to begin with, and could barely think in his classroom scenes because of the need for sex. At home he reads graphic sex books ( could he read a book with just text I wondered ? ) and being apparently 16 has the mentality of a sex hungry thirteen year old. And of course big cities being big cities he finds plenty of men, young and old who lust and sometimes actually care about him. Social media comes in for a bit of a thrashing here, which is simplistic to say the least, and his youngish father is too dim to work out what this son of his is up to. For those who want to see yet more orgies there is a ludicrous one in a blue room where our young juvenile can not only indulge himself to the full, but watch others behind plastic screens. What he is wearing while indulging I leave to the viewer to find out, but it is as equally absurd as the rest of this film. A 1 is generous. In no way would I describe this as New Queer Cinema, and I just wonder why it was made and who its target audience is.

Director Samuel Van Grinsven's first feature explores a 16-year-old's sexual encounters that turn awry, in coming-of-age turned into thriller Sequin in a Blue Room, which won the audience award last month at Sydney Film Festival.

Sequin in a Blue Room tells the story of Sequin (named after the crop top he always wears when having sex), a gay teenager looking for sex with older men. Sequin (Conor Leach) lives in Sydney and mostly spends his time on hookup-apps looking for potential fun, while his family and friends don't have a clue what happens when they're not looking. Van Grinsven's queer film is one for the ages and sketches a very modern tale of what it's like to grow up in the age of social media.

One of the main characters of the film isn't one in the flesh, but rather one on screen in the form of text and visuals. Chris Johns' motion graphics never become overpowering and guide us through the story that develops under Sequin's thumbs, scrolling through lists of nameless yet labelled headless torsos. Sex and fear go hand in hand, and that's just what thrills the young man, blocking whomever he's met just after each encounter.

The title cards which are very present in the film, count down to the ending of the story. But the one that sticks the most is its opening sentence - 'a homosexual film by Samuel Van Grinsven'. Editor Tim Guthrie and the director wanted to pay tribute to Gregg Araki's New Queer Cinema, where Van Grinsven got his inspiration from. The cinematography by Jay Grant is mostly spellbinding and pulls you in by his use of colour, neon lights and closeups.

Here is where newcomer Leach comes up in full force. This fresh face plays Sequin with such confidence, you'd say he is this character in real life. Face acting galore, giving the right amount of looks and smirks to tell his story without even making a sound most of the time. This queer coming-of-age story turns dark while Sequin looks for love in a hopeless place when attending a sex-party in the titular location. Being mesmerised by a young man (Samuel Barrie), a married man (Ed Wightman) he met earlier becomes concerned with Sequin's reckless behaviour and turns into a threat that won't go away.

Co-written by Jory Anast, we also get to explore the relationship between Sequin and his unsuspecting father (Jeremy Lindsay Taylor). The boy isolates himself indoors, to which his father becomes more and more concerned there's more going on than just puberty happening under his roof.

After screening at Sydney Film Festival, where it received the audience award for best feature, the film is now headed for OutFest in Los Angeles to then screen at Melbourne International Film Fest in August. I had the opportunity to interview Van Grinsven and have a chat about the film and his plans with it, don't expect this talented filmmaker to slow down anytime soon. He clearly knows how to blend different genres while making a narrative that isn't overloaded with dialogue. I can't wait to see what Samuel has in store for us, but saying I'm excited is an understatement. Sequin in a Blue Room is New Queer Cinema at its finest.

3/10.

The film is quite slow, confusing and a bit vague because the characters and the plot are not really explained to us, it could have been much better, BUT I think it would be worth watching because it has and sends a huge message. First, the awareness of the LGBT population is raised and that everyone has the right to love and sleep with whomever they want, to be their own, without anyone judging them. We accept people as they are and divide them only into the good and the bad. The second is that a sparrow is better in the hand than a dove on a branch. And the third is that we should always be what we are but not forget to walk the earth. I also really liked the ending.

SEQUIN IN A BLUE ROOM (2019) is a cold and emotionless film - like the lead character - that rarely captures the interest. The cinematography and score are stronger points but with a lead character like this it's not a world I care to revisit.

This is a really refreshing Australian made gay film, with a well written script, plot and great acting. I was pleasantly surprised with this film, since we don't see many Australian made gay films of this calibre. This film explores the theme of fantasy/projection/desire vs reality. The reviewer eelen-seth has already posted an excellent review of "Sequin in a Blue Room", so there's no need to repeat - I concur with what they said!

I highly recommend all young gay men watch this film, because there is a life lesson to be learnt in "Sequin in a Blue Room", in the age of digital sex. It's OK to have fun and explore new things in life, but remember to stay grounded at the end of the day, so you don't end up in the mess that Sequin did.

I'm looking forward to buying a copy of this movie for me collection, because I'll definitely be wanting to watch it again and again. Well done to the makers and actors in this film.

This movie was boring and had basically no story line. Please dont watch.

Australian cinema is unique. It has a rawness and nuance all of its own. It even transcends 'European' cinema which has its own feel. It certainly makes American cinematic efforts, apart from many indie films, look like cheap trash. This film is certainly for cinephiles. It will shock the average cinema goer in its brutal sexuality and probably disturb most viewers. If the explicit depiction of homosexual sex is likely to offend, this film is most certainly not for you. It is provokingly honest. If, however, you like a challenge and enjoy thought-provoking cinema this one is a stunner. Simply extraordinary.

Right from the start, I was not drawn to the faggy, pouty main character Sequin. I did not find him attractive at all and wondered what the pulling power he was meant to have was generated from. It can't have been from his looks or demeanour.

Then we have the pathetic attempt by the writer and director to make a "modern" film that has text and chat messages appearing on screen. Well, duckies, this is old hat. It's so passé that it is even appearing in mainstream cop series - it's been done for years.

What was with the stupid sequin-covered halter top? It seemed more a device to give the film its name than an integral part of the personality of the lad or of the plot. Are we honestly meant to believe that Dad would never have found it? In addition, it must have stunk seeing as it was used for all of his sweaty sex encounters! How on earth would he ever have washed it? It was flimsy from the start - we saw how sequins fell off it and obsessed the old guy. "Sequin" could never have put this in a washing machine.

Do schools honestly let pupils text and surf during lessons? And the teacher says nothing. Come off it.

That this boring mess won awards, both voted for by audiences and critics, says a lot for the paucity of critical thought amongst the current gay scene of spectators and creatives. While, for example, South American cinema is racing ahead with taut, interesting and relevant dramas for the most part, the anglosphere seems unable at the moment (unlike a few years ago) to come up with anything interesting at all. I have had several disappointments recently. But this one is really the pits.

The opening credits tell us that "Sequin in a Blue Room" is 'a homosexual film by Samuel Van Grinsven' which should be some kind of warning in itself. Any film that needs to trumpet itself as clearly as this one does also clearly feels the need to draw attention to itself and this one turns out to be an excruciatingly arty piece of gay soft porn as sixteen year old 'Sequin' cruises sex sites for casual one-off pickups leading him to the eponymous Blue Room, a 'no-talking, no-names' sex palace.

If it's Van Grinsven's intention to warn us about the dangers of cruising he obviously fails as Jay Grant's gorgeous cinematography makes it all look very enticing but neither is he interested in giving us any kind of story that we might engage with and apart from Sequin himself, (a pretty, prissy and far from likeable Conor Leach), there's really no one else in the film of any interest, (and even Sequin is a bit of a bore). If you're going to make a gay sex film at least make it sexy or provide a proper plot or characters we can get a handle on. Even at 80 minutes this becomes tedious very quickly.

Excuse me, but what was the point of this?

In this badly directed, zero-budget, amateurish mess, audiences will be left nonethewiser as to the film's original intentions by the time they reach the final credits because from beginning to end, the project never seems to figure out what it was trying to accomplish, in the first place?

I assume the creators were cynically attempting to show how (thanks to growing up within a heteronormative society) most members of the LGBT+ community are emotionally damaged in some way & those within it often perceive youth as desirable & thus, sex is weaponised by the old & young alike in a desperate attempt to maintain power (resulting in exploitative, predatory behaviours perpetrated by seemingly normal people, prioritising their own gratification - disproportionately affecting the young as they're inexperienced naivety results in boys attempting to play a grown man's game - resulting in many gay adolescents being chewed up & spat out, abused - continuing the cycle of generational trauma, inherited from one demographic to the next) or were they just shooting everything in slow motion (for 75 long, arduous minutes) with no clear plan & lensing what should've been respectfully depicted intimate sequences (considering the narrative makes it explicitly clear they're involving a character who legally wouldn't be recognised as an adult yet) like an overtly sexual, dated 90s music video?

Either way, irrespective of the initial concept they had planned, the shoddy execution of the idea culminates to form a finished product that is crass, voyeuristic & damaging to the public image of LGBT+ individuals.

Furthermore, what was the protagonist's journey? Seriously, how did he develop... Other than settling for someone he didn't like - consequently, thoughtlessly leading to more needless pain inflicted? Genuinely, what justification did they have for refusing to let the story question his own morally ambiguous actions & hold him accountable? Everyone featured here is hateful & immoral - not because they're promiscuous but they USE each other... And that's never even acknowledged? I get not every lead has to be likeable but you can damn well make sure they're sympathetic / relatable, at the very least. The ensemble are all utterly monstrous & devoid of basic decency.

As you can tell, I really, really didn't like this.