MovieChat Forums > The Birdcage (1996) Discussion > Let's be honest, this really doesn't hol...

Let's be honest, this really doesn't hold up after all these years.

posted 10 years ago by VidaBoheme
25 replies | jump to latest

Don't get me wrong - I was a big fan of this movie when it first came out. I thought that ANY LGBTQ representations on film was progress in 1996. And the dinner scene for its time was risqué and button pushing. The movie is really built around Nathan Lane who oftentimes is very funny, but also very grating with all the screaming. I mean, he LOSES it after the car horn goes off. Come on.

There are definitely some funny moments (Hank Azaria, *beep* the shrimp, Hackman in drag). But just moments. I recently bought this on blu-ray and watched it again and I was struck at how much the film feels dated. The actual "funny" lines just don't hit the same way they used to and the film has lost a lot of its "edginess" over the years. Why in the world is it rated R?!! It is so tame now.

The worst thing of all though is the son Val. He is absolutely the biggest douche and I find it hard to suspend disbelief that Armand and Albert would put up with him. After all, wasn't Val raised by two gay men? Around tons of gay people? In Miami? Sure, he comes around at the end, but he put the two people that raised him through hell. And why? Because his straight (too young) marriage to Ally McBeal was more important than his true family? Ugh.

Finally...Bob Dole is not gorgeous. ;-)

[–] Cinemaskype 10 years ago

Like "Will & Grace," it doesn't hold up, it's dated. And that's a good thing.

[–] Cinemaskype 10 years ago

Like 1997's "In & Out" and "Will & Grace" it doesn't hold up, it's dated. And that's a good thing.

[–] tolbs1010 10 years ago

The original poster is correct, except I would say the film wasn't good when it was released either.

Shallow writing, stale gags, and the only good performance is by Robin Williams (surprisingly understated). OK Hank Azaria is pretty funny too.

The characters are cliched stereotypes and the comedic set-ups are too ridiculous to be truly funny.

The original is done with more wit and skill. Blame Mike Nichols and Grant Heslov for the lameness of this remake.

[–] patrick-413 10 years ago

Speaking as someone who just saw this movie after all these years (I know!) I think it "holds up" pretty well! I was laughing almost nonstop through the whole thing, and the Lane/Williams/Azaria chemistry was perfect throughout. The son was the weakest part for me - WAY overdone in the douchebag department. And the fiancé was a complete zero in terms of personality (not the actress's fault, I think; there was just nothing for her in the script). But overall I loved it! Great cast, witty dialog and snappy directing make this comedy that worked well for this first-time viewer.

[–] sohrmn 10 years ago

I think that they needed to give Val some sort of story arch, to show ; how homophobia can manifest it from a liberal and also so his statement at the end about who his real mother is, has meaning.

Val - in different ways - represents the closet that gay men were expected to live in. We see the homophobia of the Conservative U.S. Senator - channeling a bit of Pat Buchanan - but we also see the homophobia of Val. I think that was the idea.

I seen a fair number of deleted/extended scenes on the broadcast edition of the film, but they didn't make their way to the DVD.

[–] timw-254-400540 10 years ago

I just showed it to my friends who haven't seen it and they loved it. This comedy is not like the Seth Rogan movies. It's actually in some ways more reality-based and it most certainly has a lot more heart in it. It's rare to see a comedy these days where you actually care about the characters or feel their pain.

[–] Michael71 10 years ago

Actually just saw it and I felt the opposite if anything it does hold up after all these years, a lot of the issues are still relevant today more than ever, if anything the film was a bit ahead of it's time I think.
Things like clubs for transvestites are probably more common now and political "scandals" will always be an issue.
Also the comedy still holds up too.

[–] baileythedog 10 years ago

The worst thing of all though is the son Val. He is absolutely the biggest douche and I find it hard to suspend disbelief that Armand and Albert would put up with him. After all, wasn't Val raised by two gay men? Around tons of gay people? In Miami? Sure, he comes around at the end, but he put the two people that raised him through hell. And why? Because his straight (too young) marriage to Ally McBeal was more important than his true family? Ugh.

This is definitely the worst part. However, the comedy is a farce and requires absurdity to push the plot forward. At the end of the day, the son and his fiancee are bland and relatively unimportant to the dynamics other than they push the families together to confrontation. The misunderstandings and deceptions at play between the two families is still funny no matter how much time has passed.

Having watched this recently I realized that conservative GOP senators haven't really changed one bit, despite the fact the rest of the world has moved on with respect to gay marriage and any number of other issues mentioned in the film. That was kind of a depressing realization.

Though I agree there's no reason it should be rated R, other than language.