paulcreeden
Joined Mar 2000
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Ratings361
paulcreeden's rating
Reviews271
paulcreeden's rating
I understand some of the negative reactions to this film by gay reviewers here. Our stories are still relatively rare in major media. So each story gets taken as representative of all of us. That's wrong. BUT the truth is that gay men often have delayed adolescent experiences if they come from an oppressive straight environment into gay life. Drugs, booze, experimentation are all parts of discovery for many gay men. And the acceptance of an adopted gay family is the safety net that keeps them from spiraling out of control. I think this humble film does a good job of explaining that segment of the young gay male experience. Its failing, perhaps, is trying to be too polished or artsy at times.
Engaging story line, cast, setting and art direction. So enjoyable. I paced my way through it rather than binging it. It is entering another world on many levels. The interplay between Spacek and Simmons is wonderful. The slow build of suspense leads to a powerful climax. Hope Season 2 is being planned. I'm in.
I am a fan of history/period drama. I liked "Downton Abbey". I am fairly well read on East Coast aristocracy since I am a native Bostonian. I have visited many houses of The Gilded Age and The Victorian Age in America. I think the visual production values are very good.
The casting/direction/writing for the aristocrats is all wrong with the exception of Ms. Baranski and Ms. Nixon. Why are the old aristocrats written to be so much real and human than the social upstarts, the Russel family? The gay live-in relationship of the Van Rijn/Adams partners is quite unlikely in that period.
The portrayal of Stanford White as a wimpy, middles-aged sycophant in his behavior toward the upstart Russells is also bad writing. White was a dashing rake (in his 20s-30s in the 1880s), noted for his ego and bravado. This illustrates the problem of throwing in real historic characters without doing proper research.
Perhaps this production shows the growing disrespect for our real history, lived by real people? Perhaps Julian Fellowes confused which side of the Atlantic his production was portraying?
The casting/direction/writing for the aristocrats is all wrong with the exception of Ms. Baranski and Ms. Nixon. Why are the old aristocrats written to be so much real and human than the social upstarts, the Russel family? The gay live-in relationship of the Van Rijn/Adams partners is quite unlikely in that period.
The portrayal of Stanford White as a wimpy, middles-aged sycophant in his behavior toward the upstart Russells is also bad writing. White was a dashing rake (in his 20s-30s in the 1880s), noted for his ego and bravado. This illustrates the problem of throwing in real historic characters without doing proper research.
Perhaps this production shows the growing disrespect for our real history, lived by real people? Perhaps Julian Fellowes confused which side of the Atlantic his production was portraying?
Recently taken polls
1 total poll taken
