IMDb रेटिंग
6.8/10
19 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
1968 के न्यू यॉर्क में एक जन्मदिन की पार्टी में, एक आगंतुक और एक खेल सात समलैंगिक दोस्तों के अनिच्छुक भावनाओं और दफ़न सच्चाई को उजागर करता है.1968 के न्यू यॉर्क में एक जन्मदिन की पार्टी में, एक आगंतुक और एक खेल सात समलैंगिक दोस्तों के अनिच्छुक भावनाओं और दफ़न सच्चाई को उजागर करता है.1968 के न्यू यॉर्क में एक जन्मदिन की पार्टी में, एक आगंतुक और एक खेल सात समलैंगिक दोस्तों के अनिच्छुक भावनाओं और दफ़न सच्चाई को उजागर करता है.
- पुरस्कार
- 1 जीत और कुल 5 नामांकन
Robin de Jesus
- Emory
- (as Robin de Jesús)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I really looked forward to watching this so-named "remake". Kudos for the production team trying to re-capture the pre-Stonewall atmosphere of the play. Unfortunately, the actors - and ultimately the director - are all victims of the current age where we gay men feel "comfortable" in our homosexual skins. There was not tension, no notion that the party as well as Michael's apartment was a space where the boys/"girls" could "let their hair down" due to oppressive mainstream attitudes about being gay. Furthermore, what was also lacking was - and I say this as a gay man who was in his prime during the 80s before the current LGBTQ "openness" was in full-swing - a sense of "competition", where gay men were always trying to "out-clever" one another with swipes at their identities. In this age of "Everyone needs to feel safe", gay men have abandoned - for better or worse - that self-deprecating attitude that united us back then. Yes - it's good that we don't embrace that attitude anymore - but it's deadly when you're trying to revive a gay play - in fact THE gay play - from the past/pre-Stonewall era.
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.
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.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाTuc Watkins and Andrew Rannells are a couple in real life.
- गूफ़When Michael takes the Valium he lifts his bottle to his mouth with his left hand but lowers it with his right.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in The Boys in the Band: Something Personal (2020)
- साउंडट्रैकHold on I'm Coming
Written by Isaac Hayes and David Porter
Performed by Erma Franklin
Courtesy of Brunswick Record Corporation
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is The Boys in the Band?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Các Chàng Trai Trong Hội
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि
- 2 घं 1 मि(121 min)
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें