I'm sure some might find this film "outdated", too depressing and pessimistic. But it must be taken into consideration that it depicts gay life and identity in 60s. If it had depicted them from a very 21st-century point of view, it would probably have betrayed the authenticity of the period. Here, the characters are trying to come to terms with their identity, to find their place in a society that mostly rejects and bashes them, and remain a closed group of friends despite their personal differences. It touches upon issues like beauty, aging, depression, self-rejection, self-hatred,relationships (romantic and friendly), religion, race as they all relate to gay identity. Nine characters all representing different aspects of gay identity, when brought together, present a comprehensive and multi-faceted understanding of being a gay man in the 60s. The acting is good and the roles really fit the actors playing them. (Matt Bomer is such an eye candy, I wanna see him more in movies!!!) The dialogue of often witty and sassy. I must admit that while the overall sassiness was quite fun for the first half of the movie, in the second half, where things get pretty serious and dramatic, it felt a bit cruel.
I have also seen the 1970 Friedkin version. What new elements does the 2020 one offer? It has scenes ourside Michael's house. The film opens with little scenes depicting each of the characters in their lives and contributing to character development from the start. During the phone call game, the film also has flashback scenes, which make the past memories somewhat more concrete. It also has a few sexually explicit scenes. Other than that, the story and dialogue are pretty much the same.
Lastly, we must not expect all queer stories to tell empowering, optimistic stories. Yes, this film is very dark and depressing, but it is just another prespective on life and individual experience. No queer character represents or talks on behalf of the whole queer community, nor do the characters in this film. They mostly manage to feel real within themselves, which is more important.
154 Reviews
An incredible cast and an incredible script.
SnobReviews3 October 2020
Funny, compelling, and emotionally resonant; "The Boys In The Band" shines and continues to inspire tons of viewers fifty years later.
In this drama based on the award-winning play, a birthday party takes place in 1968 New York, when a surprise guest and a drunken game leave several gay friends reckoning with unspoken feelings and unknown secrets.
An A+ cast lead by an incredible performance from Jim Parsons really puts the icing on the cake. Mart Crowley's screenplay is sharp, evocative and draws you in from the start. I'm a huge fan of films that take place in one setting and feature a killer script. "The Boys In The Band" is that film. There's no chance you'll want to steer away because you'll want to know what happens next. Even though set in the 60s, everything is still relevant today. It's an excellent look at gay men and the struggles they face daily. I really loved this film.
Follow @snobmedia for all reviews!
In this drama based on the award-winning play, a birthday party takes place in 1968 New York, when a surprise guest and a drunken game leave several gay friends reckoning with unspoken feelings and unknown secrets.
An A+ cast lead by an incredible performance from Jim Parsons really puts the icing on the cake. Mart Crowley's screenplay is sharp, evocative and draws you in from the start. I'm a huge fan of films that take place in one setting and feature a killer script. "The Boys In The Band" is that film. There's no chance you'll want to steer away because you'll want to know what happens next. Even though set in the 60s, everything is still relevant today. It's an excellent look at gay men and the struggles they face daily. I really loved this film.
Follow @snobmedia for all reviews!
Evocative of a particular time period
montymonvieux30 September 2020
I read the screenplay which was published in book form decades ago-maybe in the mid-seventies-and recall finding it depressing.
Just finished watching this new Netflix film and must comment on the terrific casting and production-the clothing and set design were as "spot on" as possible, but more importantly the acting was superb. Each character was distinct and believable. The setting was close and intimate, but not claustrophobic. In revisiting this drama decades after first reading the screenplay, I would describe it as sad, rather than depressing.
Fortunately the LGBT community finds much more visibility and acceptance today. This production clearly depicts self-loathing, repression and invisibility felt by some in the sixties. A good period piece with some light moments, but still very sad.
Just finished watching this new Netflix film and must comment on the terrific casting and production-the clothing and set design were as "spot on" as possible, but more importantly the acting was superb. Each character was distinct and believable. The setting was close and intimate, but not claustrophobic. In revisiting this drama decades after first reading the screenplay, I would describe it as sad, rather than depressing.
Fortunately the LGBT community finds much more visibility and acceptance today. This production clearly depicts self-loathing, repression and invisibility felt by some in the sixties. A good period piece with some light moments, but still very sad.
Who knows?
gsygsy1 October 2020
Perfectly cast and well acted film of a stagey stage-play. It's been opened out a little here and there, but since its claustrophobia is part of its power, I don't know that letting us out of the New York apartment in which it takes place is particularly helpful.
The play has historical significance, in that author Mart Crowley aimed at and succeeded in capturing the self-loathing of a then despised part of the American population. It was particularly galling that the gay community of New York City was treated with contempt at the time, given the central role it played in much for which the city was admired and famous for throughout the world. Within a year of the first production, the worm turned at the Stonewall Inn. The Boys in the Band is what life was like in New York before Out and Proud became an option. Twenty years later, the wider population, led by the American government, turned its collective back on gay people to devastating effect, casting the community adrift to face the AIDS crisis. That period's chronicler was Larry Kramer. who died just a couple of months after Mart Crowley in this year of pandemic, 2020.
So much for the historical gap. That between Crowley and Kramer as writers is largely one of dramatic self-restraint. Kramer had no talent for it, whereas Crowley seems trapped by it. THE NORMAL HEART is a prolonged howl of pain and anger, while THE BOYS IN THE BAND, its one moment of violence aside, is dedicated to sharp stiletto stabs. So many, that the overall trauma endured by this group of birthday party guests is submerged by slow-death melodrama.
The playscript, then, its truths notwithstanding, is creaky. That was just as true when the film with the original, off-Broadway cast was made in 1970 as it is here, with its 50th anniversary revival cast. What we do get, because all these actors know these roles inside out, is a detail and depth in performance that most Hollywood films never achieve, because film actors get so little chance to rehearse. But look here at Matt Bomer, in the under-written part of Donald, listening to everything being said with the attention of someone who is really in the room. Same with Michael Benjamin Washington, who is nuanced and truthful in another of the less flashy roles. Which is not to undersell those whose lines do flash: Jim Parsons, Robin de Jesús, and Zachary Quinto are all excellent, as are Andrew Rannells, Tuc Watkins, Brian Hutchison and Charlie Carver. Joe Mantello, no mean actor himself, directs what was undoubtedly a first-rate theatre production, but as a film it primarily has historical value, just as had producer Ryan Murphy's parallel project of THE NORMAL HEART. Historical, but not irrelevant.
I write this when to be gay in certain countries in the world carries the risk of a death sentence. In Poland, the rights of gay people are increasingly curtailed as the government finds it useful to find scapegoats. As is the case in Russia, too. I write this before the Supreme Court in the USA is likely to face a new direction. The battles may well have to start anew, and yesterday's historical document may need to become tomorrow's manifesto.
The play has historical significance, in that author Mart Crowley aimed at and succeeded in capturing the self-loathing of a then despised part of the American population. It was particularly galling that the gay community of New York City was treated with contempt at the time, given the central role it played in much for which the city was admired and famous for throughout the world. Within a year of the first production, the worm turned at the Stonewall Inn. The Boys in the Band is what life was like in New York before Out and Proud became an option. Twenty years later, the wider population, led by the American government, turned its collective back on gay people to devastating effect, casting the community adrift to face the AIDS crisis. That period's chronicler was Larry Kramer. who died just a couple of months after Mart Crowley in this year of pandemic, 2020.
So much for the historical gap. That between Crowley and Kramer as writers is largely one of dramatic self-restraint. Kramer had no talent for it, whereas Crowley seems trapped by it. THE NORMAL HEART is a prolonged howl of pain and anger, while THE BOYS IN THE BAND, its one moment of violence aside, is dedicated to sharp stiletto stabs. So many, that the overall trauma endured by this group of birthday party guests is submerged by slow-death melodrama.
The playscript, then, its truths notwithstanding, is creaky. That was just as true when the film with the original, off-Broadway cast was made in 1970 as it is here, with its 50th anniversary revival cast. What we do get, because all these actors know these roles inside out, is a detail and depth in performance that most Hollywood films never achieve, because film actors get so little chance to rehearse. But look here at Matt Bomer, in the under-written part of Donald, listening to everything being said with the attention of someone who is really in the room. Same with Michael Benjamin Washington, who is nuanced and truthful in another of the less flashy roles. Which is not to undersell those whose lines do flash: Jim Parsons, Robin de Jesús, and Zachary Quinto are all excellent, as are Andrew Rannells, Tuc Watkins, Brian Hutchison and Charlie Carver. Joe Mantello, no mean actor himself, directs what was undoubtedly a first-rate theatre production, but as a film it primarily has historical value, just as had producer Ryan Murphy's parallel project of THE NORMAL HEART. Historical, but not irrelevant.
I write this when to be gay in certain countries in the world carries the risk of a death sentence. In Poland, the rights of gay people are increasingly curtailed as the government finds it useful to find scapegoats. As is the case in Russia, too. I write this before the Supreme Court in the USA is likely to face a new direction. The battles may well have to start anew, and yesterday's historical document may need to become tomorrow's manifesto.
I don't think I got the point
michaelr-0721726 October 2020
While the actors were all very convincing in their roles, and the art direction was satisfying, I still don't think I got the point of this film. So, regrets and arguments abound amongst a group of gay friends, how is this the fodder of film? Maybe I just don't get "slice of life" scripts. It kind of left me feeling empty.
Wow!
cockezville1 October 2020
As a young gay man coming out before Stonewall, I saw the original movie and was blown away with the intensity and truth in this film. It was a pivotal movie that showed me the self hate that we all had during that time, and how that hate manifested in our relationships with self and others.
This revision of that film with a 2020 cast was every bit as powerful and poignant, with an excellent direction by Joe Mantelo. Thank God they did not try to modernize the film and kept the original 1968 time. Jim Parsons is just an amazing actor as is Zachary Quinto who captured Michal and Harold with intensity and focus. The whole cast was amazing.
In some ways the play has a certain dated feel but that does not distract it enhances. The Gay men's community has been a work in progress and Mark Crowley wrote this decades before liberation, AIDS, gay marriage, wrote this when being gay was a crime. Thank God we don't have to embrace the self loathing we did back then. This still is a difficult film for me to watch, very confronting, but definitely a gem of a production.Awards are waiting I am certain!
This revision of that film with a 2020 cast was every bit as powerful and poignant, with an excellent direction by Joe Mantelo. Thank God they did not try to modernize the film and kept the original 1968 time. Jim Parsons is just an amazing actor as is Zachary Quinto who captured Michal and Harold with intensity and focus. The whole cast was amazing.
In some ways the play has a certain dated feel but that does not distract it enhances. The Gay men's community has been a work in progress and Mark Crowley wrote this decades before liberation, AIDS, gay marriage, wrote this when being gay was a crime. Thank God we don't have to embrace the self loathing we did back then. This still is a difficult film for me to watch, very confronting, but definitely a gem of a production.Awards are waiting I am certain!
Fine Until You Forget About It a Day Later
sweidman-2801620 October 2020
"There's a nothing quite like feeling sorry for yourself."
Even with the stellar setup, The Boys in the Band misses a mark. I expected something but got a different story instead. The movie has an all-star cast with great performances, with the exception of two a little too over-the-top actors, and a story that should be a good time. What comes is strange tonal shifts and not enough emotion to care as much as we should. The experience of watching is fine but what follows is a mainly forgettable movie.
Even with the stellar setup, The Boys in the Band misses a mark. I expected something but got a different story instead. The movie has an all-star cast with great performances, with the exception of two a little too over-the-top actors, and a story that should be a good time. What comes is strange tonal shifts and not enough emotion to care as much as we should. The experience of watching is fine but what follows is a mainly forgettable movie.
Thoroughly immersed in this
rkelliott-653-5506171 October 2020
very homolytical, edible for everyone
ops-5253530 September 2020
I'm not into lgbtq+ stuff, i'm straight as a castrated cat, but viewing these kinds of films does weird things to me and the big question in the end, in a world of genderistic liberalism and a quick shift from gay to bi wont cost you a penny, is... why am i not gay???
well that was an existential sigh from a grumpy old man, but there are some very good gay feature movies that everyone either lgbtq+ or not should see in a life time, the most teardripping is'' torch song triology'' and , yes , the boys in the band is a good succesor. its clearly a theater stage play that has been adopted into a feature lenght movie, by netflix and others. its a good , allthough a bit slow on plotspeed, film that happens in 1960's new york, where gay and lesbians where treated as criminals, and the lock on the closet had not been oiled for years, so to many a life as gay was and still is a well hidden secret. this film shows you the archtypes of typical gays as people usually thinks they are.its almost like the 7 deadly sins, each and everyone has their own segments, but they are all sinners according to the laws and religion in this era of history.
its a 99% one location movie, it cant have cost alot to make, and the production do not share great extravaganza . but the caracters goes deep and youre feeling extremely sorry for everyone either you will or not. it has its funny moments too, and the comments and dialouges are good. and its enhanced by a cast of rather good looking male actors, that knows their proffesion very well.the choice of score are smitten by dark bourgeoistic cloaked jazzclubs environment, and its music every aging citizen will recognize
there are a lot that i would like to analyze and enhance in this review, but my limitation of birthlanguage do stop me from doing that in english, but one thing the grumpy old man thinks, its a recommend for sure...
well that was an existential sigh from a grumpy old man, but there are some very good gay feature movies that everyone either lgbtq+ or not should see in a life time, the most teardripping is'' torch song triology'' and , yes , the boys in the band is a good succesor. its clearly a theater stage play that has been adopted into a feature lenght movie, by netflix and others. its a good , allthough a bit slow on plotspeed, film that happens in 1960's new york, where gay and lesbians where treated as criminals, and the lock on the closet had not been oiled for years, so to many a life as gay was and still is a well hidden secret. this film shows you the archtypes of typical gays as people usually thinks they are.its almost like the 7 deadly sins, each and everyone has their own segments, but they are all sinners according to the laws and religion in this era of history.
its a 99% one location movie, it cant have cost alot to make, and the production do not share great extravaganza . but the caracters goes deep and youre feeling extremely sorry for everyone either you will or not. it has its funny moments too, and the comments and dialouges are good. and its enhanced by a cast of rather good looking male actors, that knows their proffesion very well.the choice of score are smitten by dark bourgeoistic cloaked jazzclubs environment, and its music every aging citizen will recognize
there are a lot that i would like to analyze and enhance in this review, but my limitation of birthlanguage do stop me from doing that in english, but one thing the grumpy old man thinks, its a recommend for sure...
Nice actors, no chemistry
nycruise-12 October 2020
I really looked forward to watching this so-named "remake". Kudos for the production team trying to re-capture the pre-Stonewall atmosphere of the play. Unfortunately, the actors - and ultimately the director - are all victims of the current age where we gay men feel "comfortable" in our homosexual skins. There was not tension, no notion that the party as well as Michael's apartment was a space where the boys/"girls" could "let their hair down" due to oppressive mainstream attitudes about being gay. Furthermore, what was also lacking was - and I say this as a gay man who was in his prime during the 80s before the current LGBTQ "openness" was in full-swing - a sense of "competition", where gay men were always trying to "out-clever" one another with swipes at their identities. In this age of "Everyone needs to feel safe", gay men have abandoned - for better or worse - that self-deprecating attitude that united us back then. Yes - it's good that we don't embrace that attitude anymore - but it's deadly when you're trying to revive a gay play - in fact THE gay play - from the past/pre-Stonewall era.
I LOVED it
jackgriffiths-297431 October 2020
I really enjoyed this film. If I'm honest it was my most anticipated film for September and let me tell you it was worth the wait.
The film is split in 2 let's say with the first hour of build up and character inductions and right on the hour mark the real events finally begin and I laughed so hard, Emory is by far my favourite character and Hank came a close second.
I love that the film tackled a number of things like depression, discrimination and the horrible truth of what it was like to be gay in the late 1960's.
Jim parsons gives an outstanding performance as he always comes through but the acting that stood out for me was Zachery's, his presence filled each scene he was in and he really played this character so well from the body language, emotion and dialogue.
The drama and comedy blend in so well together. I will absolutely return to this film over and over again.
Irritating
Gordon-1120 December 2020
Good
tobbejonsson4 October 2020
Great actors, especially Jim Parsons. I wish though that it should have been in present time. I know the original play is from 1968, but it felt a bit old. They could have modernised it, the theme is timeless and could have been today.
Good cast, but low energy - no comparison to Friedkin's version!
johnbthomasiii8019 October 2020
I wanted to like this film. No, I lie. I was dying to LOVE this film. After all, I was only 6 when the original came out and saw it for the first time at 22 on VHS. It was a revelation to me -and hilarious - and a "Debbie Downer" because it made me realize I was an outcast.
I've watched the original film at least once a year. I've bought it on VHS and on DVD.
Then I heard that a cast of well knowns from my era (even if a bit younger) were a huge hit on Broadway with it and it was being made into a movie. Well, sign me up!
I watched it the night it premiered! After all, it was going to be the really great actors (both Broadway and TV and film) performing roles they knew inside and out. It was going to be better than I could imagine.
Imagine my disappointment. I waited. I did. I waited. I waited and waited for it to get better. It didn't. It was as flat as the lasagna.
There was no energy. Oh, Matt Bomer was more than fine - in fact, he was a bit to handsome for the part of Donald, but he delivered a good performance, if not one with enough energy.
Jim Parsons was a somnambulist, sleep walking through the most intricate of the characters - Michael. No energy in the first half and zippo in the last half - he really was not much more than Sheldon Cooper outed. Shrill.
And Charlie Carver as Cowboy, well, he was far too innocent and no at all streetwise. No comparison to Robert LaTourneaux.
No. I think the problem with this movie was timing...Don't get me wrong all the actors in the 2020 version had impeccable timing. It's just that a lot has happened in the 52 years since the play premiered. Stonewall had just happened back then. Now, it is taken for granted by most. Being gay was dangerous and illegal in 1968. Now it's largely legal as is gay marriage and consorting with other homosexuals is not dangerous nor a cause to be arrested.
Being gay is mundane today. There's no excitement (unless you enjoy having your blood pressure go up watching a Trump rally). Hell, gay is just one of the letters in the acronym that defines us. And no one is merely "gay" any more. They are bisexual, gender fluid, Asexual, Polyamorous, etc. It's all quite tedious to me.
But I suppose equal rights means equal boredom. Because none of these actors ever lived in the era (as adults) where same sex love was not only a sin but a crime, they just can't channel the internal emotion necessary to pass along the energy that the original does. And to give Friedkin and the editor of the original their due - the original feels more like a film than a filmed play.
Good job guys, but I'll stick with the original.
I watched it the night it premiered! After all, it was going to be the really great actors (both Broadway and TV and film) performing roles they knew inside and out. It was going to be better than I could imagine.
Imagine my disappointment. I waited. I did. I waited. I waited and waited for it to get better. It didn't. It was as flat as the lasagna.
There was no energy. Oh, Matt Bomer was more than fine - in fact, he was a bit to handsome for the part of Donald, but he delivered a good performance, if not one with enough energy.
Jim Parsons was a somnambulist, sleep walking through the most intricate of the characters - Michael. No energy in the first half and zippo in the last half - he really was not much more than Sheldon Cooper outed. Shrill.
And Charlie Carver as Cowboy, well, he was far too innocent and no at all streetwise. No comparison to Robert LaTourneaux.
No. I think the problem with this movie was timing...Don't get me wrong all the actors in the 2020 version had impeccable timing. It's just that a lot has happened in the 52 years since the play premiered. Stonewall had just happened back then. Now, it is taken for granted by most. Being gay was dangerous and illegal in 1968. Now it's largely legal as is gay marriage and consorting with other homosexuals is not dangerous nor a cause to be arrested.
Being gay is mundane today. There's no excitement (unless you enjoy having your blood pressure go up watching a Trump rally). Hell, gay is just one of the letters in the acronym that defines us. And no one is merely "gay" any more. They are bisexual, gender fluid, Asexual, Polyamorous, etc. It's all quite tedious to me.
But I suppose equal rights means equal boredom. Because none of these actors ever lived in the era (as adults) where same sex love was not only a sin but a crime, they just can't channel the internal emotion necessary to pass along the energy that the original does. And to give Friedkin and the editor of the original their due - the original feels more like a film than a filmed play.
Good job guys, but I'll stick with the original.
Just Watch the Original
SouthernViews9 October 2020
I remember watching the original 1970 version of this movie. During and afterward, all I could think was, "Wow, what a bunch of bitter self-hating group of friends. The '60s were a horrible time to be gay."
When I heard they were doing a 2020 remake, I was curious to see if there would be a creative reimagining of the story, perhaps setting it in current times. Nope. Same '60s setting. Same unlikable group of people.
I get that this is an authentic look at life for closeted gay men in the '60s. Perhaps it's the wrong movie for these times, given the hate spreading across America. I'm sure some viewers will relate to these characters, having lived through that period of history. I struggled to find anyone to like or sympathize with, just as in the original version.
I turned it off less than halfway through. Why? Because, all I could think was, "Why did they bother? It's the same as the original."
I felt like I was Watching a play
joannmcali6 October 2020
Overall, I really enjoyed this movie. Jim Parsons was great, however I think he over-acted the part a little bit. I did not see the original play so that may be a good thing or that may be a bad thing. All of the actors were good and the music was great the subject was great I just felt like I was watching a play rather than a movie where everything is just a little bit over-acted.
Cutting Dialogue
MarshallZA3 October 2020
Good but Date
jamaisj-838-937324 October 2020
This is a great movie, but worked better when gays were taught to hide themselves and were full of self-loathing. This is an interesting artifact of a bygone era, and this would not have likely been green-lit today, and that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Sheldon finally gets to meet Spock
lee_eisenberg5 October 2020
Mart Crowley met Natalie Wood on the set of "Splendor in the Grass" and they became friends. During the years when they worked together, he used his free time to write a play about the homophobia that gays internalized in the years before the Stonewall Uprising. With funds provided by Wood (a friend of Hollywood's gay community), Crowley debuted "The Boys in the Band" in 1968, taking the title from a line in the 1954 version of "A Star Is Born". (full disclosure: I've never seen the play)
The play got revived in 2018 for the 50th anniversary, marking the first time that it had played on Broadway. The cast included Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto and Matt Bomer, with direction from Joe Mantello and produced by Ryan Murphy. And so now, they've brought it to Netflix. What a show! Everything about this movie is perfect. Obviously a lot of things have changed for the gay community since 1968, but it remains as important as ever to understand the self-hate that they had back then. Definitely see it.
Since Jim Parsons co-stars with Zachary Quinto, I like to think that means that Sheldon Cooper has gotten to meet Mr. Spock.
The play got revived in 2018 for the 50th anniversary, marking the first time that it had played on Broadway. The cast included Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto and Matt Bomer, with direction from Joe Mantello and produced by Ryan Murphy. And so now, they've brought it to Netflix. What a show! Everything about this movie is perfect. Obviously a lot of things have changed for the gay community since 1968, but it remains as important as ever to understand the self-hate that they had back then. Definitely see it.
Since Jim Parsons co-stars with Zachary Quinto, I like to think that means that Sheldon Cooper has gotten to meet Mr. Spock.
A bit disappointing
proupoupou22 October 2020
Didn't have any wild expectations but still I wasn't impressed. The quirky queer dialogues are fun at first but they become tiring after a while. There is a feeling of a theatrical play which is to be expected. Not all characters are developed and some appear too shallow and unnecessarily mean like Jim Parsons. The story is almost non existent too.
This movie can't compare with the original.
tonsojunk66624 November 2020
I anticipated this production for a long time. The actors were capable of great performances. Unfortunately as I watched the movie, I could not help but mentally comparing it to the original. That is what happens with remakes. The dialog is essentially the same. I did miss the lack of "Anything Goes" in the opening of the original. I can't say that the performances were bad, but they just were not up the quality of the original. There is, however, one exception. Zachary Quinto absolutely nailed the performance as Harold. He exhibited the intensity of the original character. For those who loved this 2020 movie, I would recommend that they also see the original. The biggest flaw was Robin de Jesus's performance of Emory. Cliff Gorman, who played Emory in the original, gave a stunning performance. Robin's might have been good, but was not nearly as clever. Unfortunately Gorman essentially gave up his career as he was "type cast" as gay. He was straight. Most of the actors in the original died of AIDS, a tragic outcome of those times.
A journey of "Happy-Fun-Comic" to "Dark-Sob-Drama" Birthday Party Ever
charanjeet15062 October 2020
How amazing it is that this story is basically about "What was it to be a Gay Man back in the 1968's" and it is still relavant to us in Year 2020. Coz, this talks about much more than that!!
Thank you Ryan Murphy!
Best Part: 1. The Ensamble cast: Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer, Andrew Rannells, Charlie Carvaer, Robin De Jesus, Brian Hutchison, Micheal B Washington, Tuc Watkins. All of them were fantastic.Everyone one got their respective shining moment in the film.
2. Dialogues: They were funny, mean, metaphorical, dramatic and what not! This is a dialogue driven film, and the dialogues keep you engaging.
3.Script, Screenplay and Narrative: The way you can see, how one hell of a "funny-happy-dancing" Birthday party gets turned into a "Dark-dramtic-realistic" aka one of the worst party ever....!!! This transition is amazing!
4. Authenticity: The overall look, costumes, art design, cinematography, everything was perfect.
5. Songs/Sound Tracks The songs during the film were so beautifully and smartly chosen and they just adds up to the flavor of overall narrative.
I wish the ending was more powerful.... but overall it was a great film. I could write a thesis on it lol
My Fav Scenes: 1. When Larry (Played by Andrew) pours his heart out during the calling game.
2. When Micheal (Played by Jim) brakes down in the end. 3. When Emory (Played by Robin) teaches everyone dance in the party
Summary: A journey of "Happy-Fun-Comic" to "Dark-Sob-Drama" Birthday Party Ever 9/10
Thank you Ryan Murphy!
Best Part: 1. The Ensamble cast: Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer, Andrew Rannells, Charlie Carvaer, Robin De Jesus, Brian Hutchison, Micheal B Washington, Tuc Watkins. All of them were fantastic.Everyone one got their respective shining moment in the film.
2. Dialogues: They were funny, mean, metaphorical, dramatic and what not! This is a dialogue driven film, and the dialogues keep you engaging.
3.Script, Screenplay and Narrative: The way you can see, how one hell of a "funny-happy-dancing" Birthday party gets turned into a "Dark-dramtic-realistic" aka one of the worst party ever....!!! This transition is amazing!
4. Authenticity: The overall look, costumes, art design, cinematography, everything was perfect.
5. Songs/Sound Tracks The songs during the film were so beautifully and smartly chosen and they just adds up to the flavor of overall narrative.
I wish the ending was more powerful.... but overall it was a great film. I could write a thesis on it lol
My Fav Scenes: 1. When Larry (Played by Andrew) pours his heart out during the calling game.
2. When Micheal (Played by Jim) brakes down in the end. 3. When Emory (Played by Robin) teaches everyone dance in the party
Summary: A journey of "Happy-Fun-Comic" to "Dark-Sob-Drama" Birthday Party Ever 9/10
It was ok, felt long
mr_bickle_the_pickle1 October 2020
I just watched and it and ehhhh. I mean I liked it at first, but after awhile I was growing tired. I get its based on a play and so its going to be "talkie" but I was really starting to feel the length. And I get its supposed to be this deep intimiate piece where each character reveal something about themselves, some dark truths but like the majority of the characters were just not very likable and they were all mean to one another. Like, why are these people's friends besides the fact that they're probably the only people they can be themselves with. But maybe that's the point.
Acting wise it was good. Jim Parsons does feel very Sheldon Cooper-y for a good chunk of the film, but I think definitely pulls some acting chops out there during the last 15-20 min.
I didnt hate it. I just felt that once Harold showed up, it started feeling less natural. And by that I mean that they felt like real people but then started feeling like characters in a movie. Their dialogue too snappy or too poetic etc. I dont know if Im really explaining myself well.
Acting wise it was good. Jim Parsons does feel very Sheldon Cooper-y for a good chunk of the film, but I think definitely pulls some acting chops out there during the last 15-20 min.
I didnt hate it. I just felt that once Harold showed up, it started feeling less natural. And by that I mean that they felt like real people but then started feeling like characters in a movie. Their dialogue too snappy or too poetic etc. I dont know if Im really explaining myself well.
Atrociously acted
tanzeel_abd8 August 2021
The acting was just atrocious with no subtlety whatsoever. Had to stop watching midway and watched the 1970s version instead. Its amazing how the same exact lines can be interpreted by two different sets of actors. Watch the orginal instead. You can feel the pathos in each line. This version is just a ham fest.
Okay but powerful
uncsbuddy9130 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I know that I should appreciate this movie more than I do. The oppression of the time period is not lost on me. The storyline was, in a way, quite clever. Obviously the acting was nothing less than perfection, given the cast. I've experienced that self-hatred and how difficult it is to live with. Even though I've been out since 2015 (I'm 29 as of the release of this movie), I still have to remind myself to not care what others think in my personal life. But, in the end, something about this movie was lacking for me. I know it was necessary for proper development, but it felt too slow for me.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
