Los chicos de la banda

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.

I'm sure some might find this film "outdated", too depressing and pessimistic. But it must be taken into consideration that it depicts gay life and identity in 60s. If it had depicted them from a very 21st-century point of view, it would probably have betrayed the authenticity of the period. Here, the characters are trying to come to terms with their identity, to find their place in a society that mostly rejects and bashes them, and remain a closed group of friends despite their personal differences. It touches upon issues like beauty, aging, depression, self-rejection, self-hatred,relationships (romantic and friendly), religion, race as they all relate to gay identity. Nine characters all representing different aspects of gay identity, when brought together, present a comprehensive and multi-faceted understanding of being a gay man in the 60s. The acting is good and the roles really fit the actors playing them. (Matt Bomer is such an eye candy, I wanna see him more in movies!!!) The dialogue of often witty and sassy. I must admit that while the overall sassiness was quite fun for the first half of the movie, in the second half, where things get pretty serious and dramatic, it felt a bit cruel. I have also seen the 1970 Friedkin version. What new elements does the 2020 one offer? It has scenes ourside Michael's house. The film opens with little scenes depicting each of the characters in their lives and contributing to character development from the start. During the phone call game, the film also has flashback scenes, which make the past memories somewhat more concrete. It also has a few sexually explicit scenes. Other than that, the story and dialogue are pretty much the same. Lastly, we must not expect all queer stories to tell empowering, optimistic stories. Yes, this film is very dark and depressing, but it is just another prespective on life and individual experience. No queer character represents or talks on behalf of the whole queer community, nor do the characters in this film. They mostly manage to feel real within themselves, which is more important.

I read the screenplay which was published in book form decades ago-maybe in the mid-seventies-and recall finding it depressing.

Just finished watching this new Netflix film and must comment on the terrific casting and production-the clothing and set design were as "spot on" as possible, but more importantly the acting was superb. Each character was distinct and believable. The setting was close and intimate, but not claustrophobic. In revisiting this drama decades after first reading the screenplay, I would describe it as sad, rather than depressing.

Fortunately the LGBT community finds much more visibility and acceptance today. This production clearly depicts self-loathing, repression and invisibility felt by some in the sixties. A good period piece with some light moments, but still very sad.

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 a young gay man coming out before Stonewall, I saw the original movie and was blown away with the intensity and truth in this film. It was a pivotal movie that showed me the self hate that we all had during that time, and how that hate manifested in our relationships with self and others.

This revision of that film with a 2020 cast was every bit as powerful and poignant, with an excellent direction by Joe Mantelo. Thank God they did not try to modernize the film and kept the original 1968 time. Jim Parsons is just an amazing actor as is Zachary Quinto who captured Michal and Harold with intensity and focus. The whole cast was amazing.

In some ways the play has a certain dated feel but that does not distract it enhances. The Gay men's community has been a work in progress and Mark Crowley wrote this decades before liberation, AIDS, gay marriage, wrote this when being gay was a crime. Thank God we don't have to embrace the self loathing we did back then. This still is a difficult film for me to watch, very confronting, but definitely a gem of a production.Awards are waiting I am certain!