Don't get me wrong. I'm for same sex marriage and fighting AIDS. But, this film was nothing, NOTHING!!, new.
It's basically recycled material that was done so much better in The Philadelphia and Angels in America and Dallas Buyers Club.
This film takes it to the extreme. It's like watching that musical number in Team America: Everyone Has AIDS over and over and over and over and over again...
It was well acted though, I'll say that much.
And I'm gay and did't liked (I did liked Angels in America, Parting Glances, Torka aldrig tårar utan handskar, House of boys -so yeah my problem it's basically with this one-). I didn't even liked the acting, so I'm glad you found something good on it, the only that I sort of liked it, it's that it's not apologetic and it was honest, it didn't showed "the perfect ideal gay", so that's good on my book.
shareI'm not sure what "new" even means in the context of your post. (Or all the other threads you've started to say the same thing. Why is this opinion of yours so important to you that you have to state it multiple times?)
You've lumped some highly disparate films together and essentially equated them, based on ... what? That there are gay characters and AIDS features in the plot? Sure, 'cause we only need two or maybe three films at the most about young heterosexuals falling in love against a background of social disapproval, because beyond that they're all the same, aren't they?
Dallas Buyer's Club was about denial on both sides of the experience, Philadelphia was a pity-movie so straights could feel better about themselves and pretend they haven't treated gays like *beep* and if you think Angels in America is only, or even mostly, about gay people and AIDS then you seriously didn't understand it.
The Normal Heart isn't recycled material at all. It's about real people's lives.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
The Normal Heart is based on a play which opened in 1985. Remind me what it was recycled from again?
sharenot even close. dallas buyers club was totally different. this chronicles the lives between close friends and lovers, colleagues, adversaries... a much more intimate film. a much more emotionally charged film.
shareWell obviously that's your opinion, and it is perfectly valid. I just don't see why you have to start endless threads about it though - is it because you're not garnering the reaction you had hoped for?
Also - it's not recycled. The Normal Heart was written before any of those other works you mentioned. And Philadelphia itself was very much a recycled version of An Early Frost.
I saw this after Philadulphia, Angels in America, In the Gloaming and It's my Party before this so it seems recycled and clichéd to me.
I really saw this movie for Jim Parson and I hoped he'd really have a chance to break free from Sheldon Cooper. Unfortuntely, not only do I Sheldon Cooper here in this but there's not enough of him. He's almost wasted in this in this.
Anyway that's me.
it shone a growing spotlight on polio so thats new
share