CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
6.8/10
19 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
En una fiesta de cumpleaños en la Nueva York de 1968, siete amigos gays se enfrentan a sus verdaderos sentimientos y a verdades pasadas.En una fiesta de cumpleaños en la Nueva York de 1968, siete amigos gays se enfrentan a sus verdaderos sentimientos y a verdades pasadas.En una fiesta de cumpleaños en la Nueva York de 1968, siete amigos gays se enfrentan a sus verdaderos sentimientos y a verdades pasadas.
- Premios
- 1 premio ganado y 5 nominaciones en total
Robin de Jesus
- Emory
- (as Robin de Jesús)
Opiniones destacadas
As mediocre as it gets. Wow, they should have left well enough alone.
Those who think this is "good acting" need to understand the difference between acting and mimicry.
Jim Parsons barely transcends the character he plays in "The Big Bang," including his vocal intonations. It sounds like Sheldon - and that's no compliment. He barely has any change in intonation or volume in the entire play.
Enjoy it, especially if you're under 35, but don't confuse this with great acting or the reality of the original film, which was explosive when it came out. It's not that it's a failure, it's just that it is simply a scene reading, where actors sit at a table and just...read the lines. The essence of acting is to forget who YOU are and BE the character. By those standards, this is unexceptional.
As for those who deem it depressing,well, it was an accurate representation of the psyche of many gay men of the time: self-loathing. So many of the reviews come from people born after 1985, (or, for that matter, 1995), who have NO knowledge of what gay culture was like (except through books and excerpts of newsreels). I'd see these guys at parties in 1970 - and go the other way. The actors fail to convey the internal self-hatred of so many gay men of that time. The original movie surpasses this by the proverbial country mile, with tension so thick, especially after Harold arrives, that all the sadness, bitterness and self-loathing of the gay men of that era (and it REALLY was like that in the Metropolis' of that time, and especially New York, but also LA). Take it from the 75 year old.
I'm listening to it, as I type, and even without seeing the expressions of the actors, it sounds bloodless, as in "devoid of LIFE." Everyone except Quinto is a caricature of a real actor. Or even more, a real PERSON.
This is nothing more than a rehearsal reading. NO fire, NO authentic passion.
If you're going to do a re-make, do it right. This is not that re-make, but perhaps someone will get another chance to do it, although it seems so many reviews are contemptuous of their elders without having the slightest sense of what their elders had to go through. If that is the case, you have ZERO sense of gay history. Go read Larry Kramer's "Faggots," which is an accurate portrayal of New York gay culture in the '70s. The past can't be changed by those who don't understand it. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So this movie falls into the "condemned" category.
Those who think this is "good acting" need to understand the difference between acting and mimicry.
Jim Parsons barely transcends the character he plays in "The Big Bang," including his vocal intonations. It sounds like Sheldon - and that's no compliment. He barely has any change in intonation or volume in the entire play.
Enjoy it, especially if you're under 35, but don't confuse this with great acting or the reality of the original film, which was explosive when it came out. It's not that it's a failure, it's just that it is simply a scene reading, where actors sit at a table and just...read the lines. The essence of acting is to forget who YOU are and BE the character. By those standards, this is unexceptional.
As for those who deem it depressing,well, it was an accurate representation of the psyche of many gay men of the time: self-loathing. So many of the reviews come from people born after 1985, (or, for that matter, 1995), who have NO knowledge of what gay culture was like (except through books and excerpts of newsreels). I'd see these guys at parties in 1970 - and go the other way. The actors fail to convey the internal self-hatred of so many gay men of that time. The original movie surpasses this by the proverbial country mile, with tension so thick, especially after Harold arrives, that all the sadness, bitterness and self-loathing of the gay men of that era (and it REALLY was like that in the Metropolis' of that time, and especially New York, but also LA). Take it from the 75 year old.
I'm listening to it, as I type, and even without seeing the expressions of the actors, it sounds bloodless, as in "devoid of LIFE." Everyone except Quinto is a caricature of a real actor. Or even more, a real PERSON.
This is nothing more than a rehearsal reading. NO fire, NO authentic passion.
If you're going to do a re-make, do it right. This is not that re-make, but perhaps someone will get another chance to do it, although it seems so many reviews are contemptuous of their elders without having the slightest sense of what their elders had to go through. If that is the case, you have ZERO sense of gay history. Go read Larry Kramer's "Faggots," which is an accurate portrayal of New York gay culture in the '70s. The past can't be changed by those who don't understand it. As George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." So this movie falls into the "condemned" category.
I really enjoyed this film. If I'm honest it was my most anticipated film for September and let me tell you it was worth the wait.
The film is split in 2 let's say with the first hour of build up and character inductions and right on the hour mark the real events finally begin and I laughed so hard, Emory is by far my favourite character and Hank came a close second.
I love that the film tackled a number of things like depression, discrimination and the horrible truth of what it was like to be gay in the late 1960's.
Jim parsons gives an outstanding performance as he always comes through but the acting that stood out for me was Zachery's, his presence filled each scene he was in and he really played this character so well from the body language, emotion and dialogue.
The drama and comedy blend in so well together. I will absolutely return to this film over and over again.
A bunch of queens together in 1968 is still the same as a bunch of queens together in 2020. Full of gin and regret.
Love how this was shot and it was extremely emotional. Beautifully acted and I loved some of the directing choices and music choices. Respect to all the 'boys' they were all fantastic.
While the actors were all very convincing in their roles, and the art direction was satisfying, I still don't think I got the point of this film. So, regrets and arguments abound amongst a group of gay friends, how is this the fodder of film? Maybe I just don't get "slice of life" scripts. It kind of left me feeling empty.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaTuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells are a couple in real life.
- ErroresWhen Michael takes the Valium he lifts his bottle to his mouth with his left hand but lowers it with his right.
- ConexionesFeatured in The Boys in the Band: Something Personal (2020)
- Bandas sonorasHold on I'm Coming
Written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter
Performed by Erma Franklin
Courtesy of Brunswick Record Corporation
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How long is The Boys in the Band?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- The Boys in the Band
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productora
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 1 minuto
- Color
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta