For a film well over two hours long would you expect it to cover a great deal of ground. The trouble is, the film doesn't use its time wisely. It is slow and ponderous, with many scenes, especially on the rugby field, pointless and adding little or nothing to the narrative.
But the film's main weakness for me, is that it fails to explain why the relationship between the two main leads develops as it does. I get the lustful eye contact across the room and the subsequent hot sex, but then it becomes increasingly mystifying as they both act like love struck but unsure eighteen years olds, instead of mature grown up men. The development of their relationship is supposed to be determined by their existing relationships with respective partners. But those relationships are not even properly described, so it becomes very difficult to understand many of their actions in any meaningful context.
The rugby club members, mainly one dimensional characterisations, appear to be a rather prudish bunch for a group of gay men. The film seems to have an obsession with "cheating" on monogamous relationships (even though one of them claims to be in an open relationship). It feels more like a Victorian moral tale than a genuine portrayal of gay men, especially as everyone ends up unhappily and riddled with guilt.
It reminded me of the film Brief Encounter in its portrayal of a doomed affair by two partnered people, riddled with guilt about having a good time with each, whilst putting up with unsatisfactory partnerships just because that was the "right thing to do". In From the Side has the same moral code as Brief Encounters. It is as if nothing has changed in the last eighty years. In From the Side is not a liberated or liberating film. It is a throwback to another time when people were expected to conform to the status quo, whether it was right for them or not.
Voir plus 
