Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My initial reaction a long time ago was that it was overrated and undeserving of all the recognition and plaudits it got at the time. While I agree that it was not Best Picture material, after rewatching it, it is a perfectly good movie, particularly when you choose not to watch it simply on its merits as a film rather than viewing it as a film that you must see as good because it advances LGBT rights.
Oh okay. None of my criticisms of the film have anything to do with the advancing of LGBT rights, it's just that I felt the some of the courtroom material was kind of a little too melodramatic and not convincing, as well as some of the camera styles they went with that, I thought worked better for The Silence of the Lambs compared to this genre perhaps.
But I have no criticisms with it being groundbreaking with the LGBT rights material. One thing about the movie that got met thinking was the AIDS thing, cause is AIDS really as related to homosexuality as the movie suggests? In the movie, Denzel Washington's character says, this case is not really about AIDS, it's about homosexuals. But there are a lot of straight people who get AIDS, at least from stories I've heard through people I know in conversation, so is it really fair back then to call AIDS a homosexual disease particularly?
Oh okay. None of my criticisms of the film have anything to do with the advancing of LGBT rights, it's just that I felt the some of the courtroom material was kind of a little too melodramatic and not convincing, as well as some of the camera styles they went with that, I thought worked better for The Silence of the Lambs compared to this genre perhaps.
But I have no criticisms with it being groundbreaking with the LGBT rights material. One thing about the movie that got met thinking was the AIDS thing, cause is AIDS really as related to homosexuality as the movie suggests? In the movie, Denzel Washington's character says, this case is not really about AIDS, it's about homosexuals. But there are a lot of straight people who get AIDS, at least from stories I've heard through people I know in conversation, so is it really fair back then to call AIDS a homosexual disease particularly?
Yes. That's how it was in the 1980s It spread through the gay community like wildfire.
Not a lot was known about the AIDS virus in the 1980s. It was a "new" disease. People thought that you could get it by kissing, even a kiss on the cheek, or by sharing the same eating utensils or dishes. It was the time of Studio 54 with multiple partners and since gay couples didn't have to worry about pregnancy, they often didn't use protection.
Oh okay, I know it was a new disease, just didn't think it was known for being among homosexuals more at the time. But I might like the movie more on a second viewing and maybe I just need to warm up to it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
