With 250+ reviews already, I'm probably not adding much to the conversation, yet I need a place to say it, so here it is.
I've seen the stage version, and I've seen the film three times. And I really do not see what the fuss is about. I've tried, but I don't see it.
It's not a bad film, and earned its 7/10 from me. It has good music, good acting, and acceptable effects.
But I have a big problem with the writing. I found it to be overlong, without delivering a clear message, and too much directed like a filmed play, rather than a serious film.
The angels in particular were among the most idiotic things I've seen in a long time. In a way, I guess that's appropriate, but just didn't fit with the rest of the film. If you edit all that out, I think you could get a better film. Of course, the title would have to go...
I also found that the use of Roy Cohn and Ethel Rosenberg didn't fit. Why put a real man as a lead in a fictional film? It's not responsible. There was no Joe Pitt, and he never worked for a 2nd Circuit justice. It all unravels from there. If you're in fiction, it's best to stay there. If you're in docudrama, try to stick to the truth.
Themes in this film are gay men and: AIDS, 1980s USA, Republicans, Mormons, the closet.
While I have seen better films on gay men and AIDS (In the Gloaming, And the Band Played On) and closeted gay Republicans (Outrage) I haven't yet seen a film that covers as much ground as this one, or that covers the 80s as well. On the other hand, I know there are many significant ones I haven't seen, and I do expect I'll find one better than this.
Anyway, I do admire the attempt, and the result is worth watching, although not great.
I've seen the stage version, and I've seen the film three times. And I really do not see what the fuss is about. I've tried, but I don't see it.
It's not a bad film, and earned its 7/10 from me. It has good music, good acting, and acceptable effects.
But I have a big problem with the writing. I found it to be overlong, without delivering a clear message, and too much directed like a filmed play, rather than a serious film.
The angels in particular were among the most idiotic things I've seen in a long time. In a way, I guess that's appropriate, but just didn't fit with the rest of the film. If you edit all that out, I think you could get a better film. Of course, the title would have to go...
I also found that the use of Roy Cohn and Ethel Rosenberg didn't fit. Why put a real man as a lead in a fictional film? It's not responsible. There was no Joe Pitt, and he never worked for a 2nd Circuit justice. It all unravels from there. If you're in fiction, it's best to stay there. If you're in docudrama, try to stick to the truth.
Themes in this film are gay men and: AIDS, 1980s USA, Republicans, Mormons, the closet.
While I have seen better films on gay men and AIDS (In the Gloaming, And the Band Played On) and closeted gay Republicans (Outrage) I haven't yet seen a film that covers as much ground as this one, or that covers the 80s as well. On the other hand, I know there are many significant ones I haven't seen, and I do expect I'll find one better than this.
Anyway, I do admire the attempt, and the result is worth watching, although not great.