Avaliações de usuários

...showing the story of two teenagers through to their early 30s. Both the book and movie were unknown to me, so I came at this without expectations. This movie succeeds with material that is very familiar--if not overly familiar--to gay men like myself. That in itself is quite an accomplishment.

What starts out as a simplistic story of high school romance becomes an epic tale spun out for 127 minutes. I was surprised by the honesty of the story, and surprised that the two lead actors could seamlessly--and convincingly--go from teenagers to adults. It is not easy to take everyday events and stitch them up into an epic. This movie does that, and it does it well.

If I had known the plot in advance, I probably wouldn't have gone near this film with a 10-foot pole. I'm glad I didn't know because I would have missed a really good movie.

If you're young and gay and want to get an accurate look at what life was like for us in the '70s and '80s, this is the movie to see. For Americans, that it's set in Australia is irrelevant; the story was the same.

Having seen a rather heavy-handed and pretentious play version of 'Holding the man' a few years ago, I had trepidations about seeing the film. I need not have worried as Neil Armfield's direction brings a truthful and touching reality to Timothy Conigrave's memoir. The slightly non-linear structure to the storytelling brings a cautious prescience to the audience that J.B. Priestley would be proud of, highlighting the sombre future awaiting our ill-fated protagonists. There are a few insightful parallels throughout the movie that deftly highlight the truths hidden between fact and fiction – there's a harrowing mirroring of grief portrayed in an audition to the agonising reality of death that will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. The cinematography and music are judiciously time-specific as we travel through three decades with the characters. Each time-frame is beautifully evoked by film styles of the period and there's an accompanying soundtrack that is gloriously nostalgic. Both of the lead actors, Ryan Corr and Craig Stott, are perfectly cast as Tim and John respectively – each bringing a depth to these characters that makes them feel like family. The supporting cast are also superb; particularly Anthony LaPaglia, Camilla Ah Kin, Kerry Fox and Guy Pearce as the boys' parents. Special mention to Sarah Snook as their friend Pepe who resides on the periphery faithfully and staunchly. Also, there's a superb cameo from Geoffrey Rush as Tim's drama teacher at NIDA. It's graphic in places as it holds a powerful light over the passion of love and the bleakness of illness but the film is all the better for that; it shies away from nothing. Many fans of the original memoir should not be disappointed with this long-awaited adaptation and I am sure that if Timothy Conigrave was alive today, he'd be proud of this achievement in prolonging the legacy of his much-loved book.

As with most films adapted from the book, you'll only get half the story in a movie. The acting is superb and the story relatively faithful to the original novel but it has some flaws. Namely, I found the mixing up of dates confusing. They didn't really need to jump back and forwards, I'm not sure why they did that. There is a lot of sex with spunky guys which will get on the wrong side of any homophobes or the conservatives but it is a neccessary part of the story as it depicts a lot of how the gay male community interacts (I'm gay, I can vouch for this). Ultimately it ends in tragedy and is quite a moving film but having been one of my favourite books, I will always prefer that to this.

This was a decent movie, but doesn't really capture the full essence of the book. Perhaps with a bigger budget it could have used better locations to give us a better sense of the era, but it all feels a little flat. I adore the book and felt really connected to Tim and John while I was reading it, I feel that the documentary 'Remembering The Man' does a better job of giving that same feeling of connection.

I was given the book by a friend from Australia in about '97,I have read it countless times through the years.

I never thought anyone would be able to bring the story to the screen, as Tim had written a remarkable story.

Finally seeing the movie, I can only say that it does indeed do the book justice. No movie can wholly compete with a brilliant and beautifully crafted book, the best it can hope to do is convey the story and the spirit of the book - this movie does just that.

I fell in love with John and Tim all over again, 19 years later. The love they shared, the pain they endured both John's physical and Tim's emotional came back to me as emotionally as it had in the book. (I wept through the end of the book) Was my emotional response a reaction to the movie on it's own, or in part to the memory of the book? I do not know. I do know that Craig Stott's portrayal of John was, for me, spot on, as was Ryan Corr's portrayal of Tim. The story, the spirit and the essence of these two beautiful men is definitely captured and resonate through this film.

I had the rare opportunity to finish reading this extraordinary book for the first time and see the film in the same day. I have to say, the film left me rather disappointed for a variety of reasons. As with all book to film adaptations, there are always difficult choices to be made, scenes to leave out, areas on which to focus at the expense of others. The nature of the the film, the jumping around of time periods rather than being a linear edit seemed to serve very little purpose, if any film would have been more emotionally resonant as a linear story, this is it. The wonder of the book is how naturally it plays, the love story is emotionally resonant because it seems so familiar.

There is no buildup to that love story here in the film, we know so little of the characters (who, let's be honest, as many people have already stated are played by actors too old to be convincing or able to convey the same sense of discovery and adventure that the book describes)that the love story falls flat. The actors have some wonderful scenes, but the dialogue is far too forced and stage-like at times to hit home. A much simpler approach would have had so much more emotional impact.

The unique and incredible love story, and the particular setting of 70s/ 80s Australia should have been the main focus, more time spent focused on the early years could have made the events of the later years so much more impactful. A lot of it felt almost movie of the week type stuff, generic and anonymous. There are obviously very difficult choices to be made by a director and writer in adapting any book, let alone a memoir so incredibly intimate and honest, but so many times in the film I found myself frustrated, wondering "Why didn't they spend so more time on THAT?" A lot of the characters seem like afterthoughts, even the two main characters at times unfortunately.

I finished the book with tears running down my face, and finished the film with a sense of frustration and disappointment. Judging from other reviews on here, it seems that the movie had made an emotional impact on many, and that is wonderful. I was very much hoping to feel the same. I was moved by some parts, but left largely cold by the experience. At least the book is there to read again(and again).

I wasn't searching for a movie about aids. The subject usually gives me a very uneasy feeling. I don't want to remember those days when some very good friends of mine died in agony in front of my eyes. I was quite young back then, and did I really understand what happened? No, when you're young life looks endless. So when this movie, unexpectedly for me, because I had not read anything about it, brought up the aids subject, I had to take a deep breath. But the movie is so well executed that it is much more than an aids drama. This movie is a piece of human history and every high school student should see it. I am in my 50s and now aids is something of the past, thanks to great medicine. It cuts through my heart that young men like ones in this film had no chance at all. Especially in the 80s gay liberation wasn't that far, and so much human needs have been denied to these men. Thank god society has improved on these levels, and it only could by telling these important stories.

It is ten years since the release of Brokeback Mountain (2005), now widely acknowledged as a landmark film for the LGBT movement's long struggle to be heard on the big screen. It was one of many cinematic high-points on the wave of such films that started twenty years earlier. The film industry has changed since then; the genre of 'queer cinema' is now almost mainstreamed and the days of depicting all human relationships as heterosexual are gone. There are many more battles to be won, but the film pioneers have done the hard yards. This history is important because any current film that goes over old ground without offering something new risks being outdated upon release.

Respect for queer cinema does not necessarily lead to respect for all films produced under its rubric. Despite direction by the acclaimed Neil Armfield, Holding the Man (2015) is a disappointing film. Based on the 1995 memoir by revered gay rights activist Timothy Conigrave, the film version struggles to avoid soapy melodrama and corny humour. It's a low budget production about the illicit love that started between two schoolboys in the 1970s and continued for 15 years until the AIDS epidemic took its toll. Ryan Corr plays Tim and Craig Stott plays John, actors who in real life are around 30 years of age. Despite their talent, they are glaringly unconvincing as teenagers. The inevitable lack of acting authenticity through poor casting is insurmountable and it undermines the film. While sex scenes can play an important expressive role in the portrayal of all relationships regardless of sexuality beyond a certain point they become gratuitously exhibitionist.

The few genuinely sensitive moments in this film cannot overcome a disjointed narrative arc, unconvincing acting, repetitive sex scenes and an awkward mix of humour and pathos. The desire to pay homage to Conigrave's book may have constrained the film, but good adaptations are not straitjacketed by the source text. They go beyond it to show visually what was imagined by the author, contemporising it for today's far more open-minded audiences. I really wanted this film to work, but for me it just didn't.

I am just as speechless as I guess the audiences would have been after watching the movie. I probably haven't cried this much since my boyfriend passed away because of AIDS as I did today. Tim & John are a wonderful couple. The days, months, years they spent together, the ups & downs they went through and finally the last days of John with Tim was heart-wrenching. I don't have words to express my feelings and thoughts. I just want to thank Neil Armfield to have made such a wonderful movie and to all it's cast and crew. I couldn't stop myself from giving a review to this movie. I think it's not justifiable that this movie has earned 7.3/10 wherein it should be a 10/10.

Kudos to everyone. Cheers!!!

I am a bit of a hard ash when it comes to rating and reviewing movies, and this movie hit all of the marks for me. It was sublime, and had me literally sobbing toward the end.

Being from America, I was not familiar with the book or the story, and in fact, only got the movie because of the cover art. I wasn't really looking for a movie that dealt with the early days of HIV/AIDS, and in fact, tend to steer clear of them because they are usually done so poorly, but HTM deals with it not only realistically, but with great humanity. In the end, the movie isn't about the disease, but the love these two men shared.

And what a love it must have been. Most of us could only ever hope for a love like that, and never actually find it. In that regard, it reminds me of Bridegroom. Both of those films leave you with the hope that fairy tale love really can exist in the real world.

Director Neil Armfield, who was at the charity screening of 'Holding the Man' I went to tonight, took a huge undertaking when he decided to direct the film of Tim Conigrave's autobiographical novel (A memoir that was an ode to Conigrave's lover and partner John Caleo). As Conigrave's book became such a well loved novel, and later a successful and highly regarded stage play. And now I am proud to say a very powerful and moving film.

The film 'Holding the Man' is filled with scenes that have such a strong emotional truth to them. Particularly for a gay man like myself, who experienced those years in the 80's and early 90's when AIDS took the lives of many friends and acquaintances; and when fear and ignorance of AIDS, and towards gay men, was the norm rather than the exception. However the centre of Conigrave's memoir was a love story that lasted 15+ years, and Ryan Corr (The Water Diviner, Banished, Love Child, ) and Craig Stott bare all in brilliant performances. Corr as the loud and opinionated Tim, and Stott as amiable and quiet John create an amazing chemistry on screen, and one that will earn them universal praise. However the great performances also extend to a roll call of top Australian acting talent that includes Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce, Anthony Lapaglia, Kerry Fox and Marcus Graham among many others. With a film spanning the 70's, 80's and 90's, it also has a great soundtrack of hits from the era.

Tim Conigrave died 10 days after writing 'Holding the Man', He probably had no understanding what a huge impact his book would have had on so many people across the world.

Read the book and go see this great Aussie movie.

It is a story who you feel, scene by scene, in profound way. It becomes personal. It is admirable crafted and impressive acted. And it is alive, not a case, not a sad love story. But just pure life. To say more is difficult not exactly for the fear about spoilers but because , like a sort of liquid , it moves in yourself. A liquid of states , emotions, truths and levels of a powerful and unique connection. It is easy and fair to define it as a beautiful story of love, or inspired - precise chronicle, to admire the role of actors in secondary roles or to see it again.knowing than it is more. Yes,no doubts, it is real important is to see it.Just for feel it.

I'll say from the outset as a gay male I wanted this to be great and elements of it were, so I'm not coming from a perspective of critical indifference. I read the book when it came out and so knew what I was in for, all in all I must say the film was pretty faithful to it and didn't shy away from its most confronting or gruelling contents. I wondered beforehand whether it would or not and was impressed that it dealt with all the heaviest stuff head on, and did so well. The movie also gave me insights that my imagining as I read the book didn't, which I found illuminating and very interesting. I am from Melbourne, Australia where most of this story happened, so am familiar with its locales and some of them are of personal significance to me, so there is some overlap. There were many very strong elements in this film and as with Woody Allen's 'Irrational Man', it should have been great. The historical, social and cultural details of the mise- en-scene, costume, dialogue and even inflection were incredibly accurate, having lived through them myself, and lovingly, painstakingly recreated. Strong performances abounded, with standouts being Craig Stott who gave an incredible performance as John Caleo on par with Meryl Streep only less gimmicky, and that of the actress who played his mother, who gave a beautiful, nuanced performance. The film was for the most part very watchable, with warmth, drama and humour. Its filmmaking basics were very strong. Unfortunately, director Neil Armfield and/or producers went for an overlay of somewhat cheesy, narrated-by-crowd- pleasers pop songs that spelt out the emotions episodically and in a too obvious, simplistic way sometimes. Some of these songs and moments worked and were very touching, but evidently they were aiming for the youth market and it didn't work for me. Second of all, the film is of a genre satirised on Shaun Micallef's Mad As Hell as 'Reflecting Your Comfortable Middle Class Life Back To You And Validating It', Micallef's alternate title for such Aussie schlock as 'Packed To The Rafters', from whence came Ryan Corr who played Tim Conigrave, perhaps tellingly. I would have loved that kind of thing in my twenties, not knowing any better, but now it makes me want to reach for a bucket. And it's not cynical, bitter old age, it makes for dramatically inferior melodrama in my opinion. These two in my view major flaws really marred 'Holding The Man' for me and while professional filmmaking abounded and there were many fine elements, sadly these two errors almost dragged it down into prime time soap opera fare at times, 'Home and Away'. The excellent TV series 'Puberty Blues' which covered the 70's in a similar fashion managed to avoid such pitfalls, was a serious drama and a lot of fun, and managed to achieve art in my opinion. I have a reverent amount of respect for the blood, sweat and tears that go into a movie production, especially when there are some fine elements and great performances, so I don't like to criticise, but due to these elements I could only give it this lower rating.

We saw it last night and I was crying within the first five minutes!!!!

I've read the book and absolutely loved (and hated) it. It was such a powerful book for that time in my life and slapped me silly with the raging emotions it evoked within me.

I loved it so much because of the story telling, the characters, the connections and the relevance to my life as a young sexually active man coming to terms with his sexuality. I hated it because it made me cry so bloody much and I fell in love with both of them and it was so gut wrenching. It touched me in a way I will never forget and the film does that experience justice.

The acting is spot on and the chemistry between the two is perfect. It was an interesting choice to use the same actors for the early school years, but given the importance of the connection between Tim & John I and understand why this was done and I don't think it hurts the film in any way. The surrounding cast is equally exceptional and Anthony Lapaglia's performance was wonderful.

This is an exceptional love story that is released at the perfect time, when marriage equality and same sex relationship rights is at the forefront of society again.

I was told this movie is great and I finally got around to watching it. I don't know what happened! I couldn't make it past the half hour mark. I really wanted to give it a chance but it just wasn't working at all for me. I was expecting to witness some kind of gay classic but it felt totally odd and wrong to me. Now that I think about it, I shouldn't be surprised that my ex enjoyed a film like this - given his questionable taste in cinema.

The main thing for me was that the two lead actors just look WAY too old to be playing high school boys. Combine that fact with incredibly awful hairstyles and mediocre acting and the whole thing just comes off as ridiculous and comical. I honestly think this was miscast from the get go. I couldn't stop thinking that Tim comes across as a kind of perverse Willy Wonka figure with John as the innocent child being lured into the factory for candy.

The film probably develops into something more but I'm afraid the characters just were not established well enough for me to be invested in their arcs. Such a shame and I'm honestly shocked! I'll give it a 4 just based on the assumption that it gets better in the second half of the film.