While I think that everyone should see this film because of its vitally important subject matter, I feel that because of lax editing and meandering, incomplete story telling, it was much less effective than it should have been.<br /><br />As just one example, and I have been studying Nazi persecution of homosexuals, the movie briefly refers to a gay man's friend who was killed by German Shepherd dogs in front of 300 people. I read a similar account on the Internet (I suspect it was the same case), in which graphic details were given of the brutality of the crime, details which, if you heard or read about, you would never forget. To just gloss over this compelling tale in the manner the movie does is inexcusable. How can one understand the true horror when it is glossed over.<br /><br />Additionally, one of the major points of this film should be how many gay concentration camp victims were still treated as prisoners after the war, specifically because of Paragraph 175. It is barely a footnote in the movie. This is inexplicable to me.<br /><br />What is good is having a record of living survivors of gay detention during the Holocaust. It remains the reason for seeing this movie. But the narrative is very meandering and a few of the lingering close-ups of some of the survivors breaking down almost feels exploitative.<br /><br />Bottom line: because of the important subject matter and the live interviews the film needs to be seen. I just wish it had been made more coherently. A film with this type of material will always be powerful. It could have been far more so had it been made by better filmmakers.