"Tom of Finland" is the at times a disturbing and hilarious biopic of extraordinary, bold, brave era defining gay artist Touko Laaksonen. A sort of scatter-gun cover-all script does not detract from the essence of life that superficially and externally was seen as being something akin to "high illustration pornographer" but at its core was more about an uncompromising right to self-determination. Chapeau to the Finns who as part of their 2017 celebrations of independence, put this man's extraordinary life and this film up there with the likes of Sibelius in the country's centenary cultural repertoire. There is no denying Laaksonen's (and arguably the) talent for art and in life. Despite a sense that the writers have tried to cover too much touching on everything from Post war PTSD, AIDS, and the post war oppression of homosexuals, the director (Dome Karukoski ) has done a good job in turning a subject matter of potential distraction (the art itself) into the vehicle of a craftsmanship that deserves respect and as tool (if you'll forgive the pun) of an era impacting human rights advocacy.

Film about Touko Laaksonen a gay Finnish man who fought in World War 2. He returns home with serious PTSS. He finds the only way to battle it is drawing men in leather and in various sexual positions. He also meets and falls in love with adorable Vali (Lauri Tilkanen). However homosexuality was against the law in Finland back then. The film chronicles how Touko invented the Tom of Finland name and got his work published.

Well-done film with good direction and it moves quickly. However there are two serious liabilities here. One is Laakksonen. He's terrible in the title role. He never EVER reacts to anything. He always has a blank look on his face so I didn't know how to take his lines. By contrast Tilkanen is great as his lover. I kept wishing the movie was about him! The second liability is the script. It goes swinging all over the place. We're given no clue of what era it is and what's going on. Very frustrating. Other that I liked it but those are two huge problems.

I'd been meaning to watch this film ever since it was released as I find the subject matter very interesting and intriguing. There is a lot of potential for a good movie here, which is such a shame. It had me interested for Maybe the first half an hour (especially the Finnish boys tumbling in the muddy lake, delicioso) and then suddenly the film becomes a big pointless mess.

The acting of the Americans in the latter half is pretty bad and their characters are not developed at all. The scene where they come in I really started to hate the movie and it felt like a different and poorer film had started. The film overall seems extremely superficial in nature and personally as a gay man I find it does nothing really helpful to explore gay issues and characters. Actually they seem to celebrate being vapid.

I'm sure the real Tom of Finland had an extremely complex and fascinating story to tell, why not here ??? This idea that homosexuality was universally embraced in California I find a bit hard to swallow. Maybe I'm historically ignorant but it felt unbelievable, silly & borderline insulting to suggest the police were that gay friendly.

The relationship between the main character and his sister could have been interesting but it's wasted opportunity. That conflict should have been explored seeing as it was so obviously introduced as a major part of the story. I couldn't find any explanation or justification for her Change of attitude. All of a sudden it's just different. Did somebody else write the second half of this film??? The contrast between Tom of Finland's erotic and violent drawings with a film that seems sappy & saccharine is quite offputting. I want a movie that reflects the power of his drawings. This movie seems to be portraying his artwork as something gentle and loving and life-affirming. It really doesn't fit. There was a VERY lame joke in the hospital scene which made me cringe! I almost turned the film off at this point! Who wrote this awful awful script?

I give a 4/10 because the first half of the film has some merit and I was somewhat emotionally engaged in the beginning. But it really bombs in the second half. I would love to see this subject matter handled in a more gritty way. Something to do justice to the legacy of the man instead of this feeble attempt.Underwhelmed!