Several times now I have stumbled across comments ( both in reviews and in television guides ) that the lead actor is straight. It is as if this is a comfort blanket for those in the audience who a ) do not want to confront a gay actor in the film, and b ) for those liberals who think how marvellous it is to see a straight actor being ' brave ' enough to take on the role. This is a recurring issue. James Ivory's ' Maurice ' was awash with it and so was ' Call Me By Your Name '. Given the discreet homophobia of both mainstream cinema and theatre it is not surprising Gay actors will not raise their heads above the parapet. The fact of having to explain an actor is straight is a sort of deadly homophobia in itself. Now for the film that I liked a lot. The acting from all of the cast was good but above all the direction was exceptionally good. The opening shot of cars scurrying about from a great height, like some sort of insect was a scary acknowledgement of how tiny we are in the scheme of things. This I believe occurred several times during the duration of the film and for me it was a revelation. Like an anthill we struggle with our histories, both political and personal, and how that very history is trodden on by the large feet of time. That alone made the film above the ordinary. The minimalism of the film also appealed with its Antonioni obsession with the sense of place around us mere humans, and the way we alternate between silence and noise. Of course there is a story, and for those who are interested in what has happened in Vietnam important, and the dislocation of a man who returns to a country he knew only to find he is more or less a stranger in a strange land. As for the homosexuality it is there, but despite a few brief scenes discreet. It is quite simply another aspect of the history of a character immersed in living in this great anthill called human life.

I've lived in the Far East for nearly 20 years so always look forward to movies based in that area.

I was so disappointed with "Monsoon". The acting and camera work were pedestrian and wooden. The actors almost looked as if they were being prompted with their lines at times. No emotion anywhere.

Where was the story? A hint of gay romance, a hint of politics, a hint of self discovery. It went nowhere and said little. And what kind of ending was that?

I guess the only marks I can give it are for the memories of places visited that it brought back to me.

Monsoon

Oh dear, a missed opportunity to say something or indeed anything!

The cinematography was ravishing but Vietnam itself was an ugly concrete mess, and any sophistication in Saigon was a pale copy of any New York bar.

The movie appeared to be about dislocation and regret having fled his "homeland" and childhood memories as a six year old boy with his family during the war. Why he had any regret remained entirely unclear.

The whole purpose of the visit by him and brother was the laying to rest of the ashes of his mother and father, but yet again it was never explained why this was necessary or even desirable as it was never inferred this was a dying wish by either parent.

We then had, perhaps springing from loneliness, a series of internet app liaisons, injected apparently as some form of titillation, this was a jaded cliche.

Every theme lay superficially on the surface and was never satisfactorily explored and then the movie fizzled out and ended.

Henry Golding is a fine actor but no thespian could raise this dead dog from the grave of oblivion.