I was surprised by how disappointed I was by this film. Most of the performances were overblown and there was a strange emotional disconnect.
Perhaps Ryan Murphy is too immature and too superficial a filmmaker for a project like this.
[deleted]
Wow. I had a completely different experience. I was engaged by every character and felt all the emotions along with them. I thought it was perfectly cast and that each actor brought all the right things to his/her part, each in their own unique way. Maybe it's because I remember those days or maybe I was just in the right mood when I first saw it. But every time I watch it I cry and there are so many specific moments that resonate that I've lost count. I guess it just comes down to different tastes for different people.
share[deleted]
I wasn't moved by the movie.
I think it was another effort of Ryan Murphy to talk about homosexuality as he does in Glee, American Horror Story and everything he does...
Why every gay movie has sex scenes on it? Is that necessary? I don't think so.
On the other hand, I think all the characters were, after all, very similar and flat. They didn't speak their mind a lot of times until it arrives a situation that make them lose control and take all the *beep* out.
That's my perception of the movie.
Interesting. Keeping in mind that this movie is based on a stage play that was written long before Ryan Murphy was attached to the movie project and depicting stories of real people in real situations, I'm not really sure it's fair to lay the subject matter at Murphy's door. Perhaps he was drawn to the project because of his interest in depicting LGBT people in a positive and present way.
I also think it's interesting that you point out the frequency of sex scenes in LGBT themed movies. I'm just curious as to whether it bothers you in straight films too because almost every straight film out these days has sex scenes, usually more than one. I do think it was necessary in this movie for two reasons. (1) to show the relationship between the two main characters and allow the viewers to see heir love story unfold and (2) because it is, after all, a story about the early days of the AIDS crisis and how sex figured into that. There was actually very little sex depicted in The Normal Heart and I think what was there was beautifully handled. Just my opinion.
The other thing I'm curious about is your statement about the characters not speaking their minds until they were frustrated enough to lose control. Which characters are you referring to? I thought most of them were very forthcoming. Certainly Ned and Emma particularly were in the habit of saying exactly what was on their minds the minute it crossed their minds whether other people wanted to hear it or not.
Anyway, I'm sorry you weren't moved by this movie. I understand that different films touch different people.
I agree with you bpoz.
This movie is based on real events. It's based on real people. I don't exactly see how you can over or under stage an actual historical time. I mean, to an extent, on the one hand you could compare Schindler's List (the Liam Neeson movie) to Schindler's List (the actual book) and say, well, they certainly added a small amount of audience manipulation. But at the same time, if you had actually been there and witnessed the holocaust...then perhaps you'd feel differently. I'm not of course claiming that I have witnessed neither the holocaust nor the AIDS crisis, I'm just speaking comparitively.
Also, I have to agree about the sex scenes. There is an exceptional amount of sex scenes in movies about straight romance/sexual encounters. In fact sex is almost implied in probably 80-90% of modern movies. Straight sex is even used in horror movies. And given that this movie is actually about a sexually transmitted disease, I don't see why the amount of sex scenes would be at all excessive. Actually, even if this weren't about a sexually transmitted disease...it still wouldn't be excessive compared to a straight movie...
This is just my opinion of course. Personally I was very moved by the film. I felt a deep sense of genuine chemistry among the actors and in the most "uncomfortable" scenes (i.e. Albert's death, Ned's monologue while taking care of Felix while he is sick and unable to control his bowels, etc.) I felt the most connection between characters because to me it felt like a real sense of humility and realness, because yes, this is what happens when someone gets AIDS and it's not pretty and it's not fun--ultimately it's scary and sad and for me, I suppose that's when I feel a big connection with a movie. During the most "human" scenes. The scenes where the actors are no longer depicting characters but actual people. When the characters become real people. When they gain their "humanity."
And I think that's an aspect that was extremely important when creating a film like this. I personally think overall it was done extremely well. Again, of course, this is just my personal opinion.
Wow. I had a completely different experience. I was engaged by every character and felt all the emotions along with them. I thought it was perfectly cast and that each actor brought all the right things to his/her part, each in their own unique way. Maybe it's because I remember those days or maybe I was just in the right mood when I first saw it. But every time I watch it I cry and there are so many specific moments that resonate that I've lost count. I guess it just comes down to different tastes for different people.
Or perhaps it is you (OP) "as emotionally FLAT as a pancake", and I don't mean this as an insult nor ironically. I just don't find any other explanation of how can someone stay insensitive watching this movie (unless one is homophobic, of course).
shareI didn't mind the casting, but the speechifying and overacting got old fast with me. This is another stage play that loses much of its impact onscreen, where a little nuance would have gone a long way. On the other hand, I found the scenery-chewing very entertaining, so it had an impact on me – just not an emotional one. 7/10 stars from me.
shareI read the play some years ago and had been looking forward to seeing it performed at some point, so I was really excited to hear that it was being filmed.
I was disappointed by the production, but I don't think the casting was a problem. In fact, I think most of the cast were fine for their roles. (Not sure Julia Roberts was right for her part, as much as I otherwise generally like her, however.)
I think a large part of the problem was in the failure to translate what was a stage play to the film format. Parts of the film, like in the opening scenes, had the realism of a good film production. But other parts felt still very much tied to the stage format, with that format's lack of realism. It seemed that they couldn't decide which way they wanted to go.
It seems that this was really Larry Kramer's baby, so he is probably more responsible for a lot of the key artistic choices in the production than anyone else.
i'm not totally impressed with ruffalo, but the screenplay was great, and the rest of the actors were fantastic. i cried throughout the entire film. i'm not seeing how it could possibly be emotionally flat. a very captivating film.
share