This movie has some flaws, mainly related to covering tough issues and spanning a couple of years. But don't hold your breath for a better portrayal of AIDS in the early 80s from a NY perspective. One of The Normal Heart's notable successes is the casting. A lot of attention was paid to that, with very good results.
Ryan Murphy's magic touch. His stuff is not always flawless, but his casting certainly is!
share[deleted]
Hmmmm. Valid question. I think "spanning a couple of years" meant that the film compresses events of several years into, well, a movie. Most films that do that have a bit of a problem with it, and I think this one has a slight problem with it too.
As for "tough issues", there too I think the film oversimplifies a bit, and that's at least partly due to the run-time. It compresses several years of history into less than 2 hours.
I consider the above to be flaws, or quibbles. I don't think they negate the value of the film. Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly.
Larry Kramer was a very polarizing figure during the events depicted in the film. In a sense, the film endeavors to sort of burnish his reputation. Some of my friends have a problem with that but I think it's understandable and ok.
All things considered, the film covers an important part of recent history and, while not perfect, I think it's quite good and worth seeing for anyone interested in that history.