jaronb94

With fine actors including Alan Cumming, Zachary Booth, and Wilson Cruz participating, I expected a far better film. This is the director's first feature, and it shows. By turns maudlin, self-congratulatory and incoherent, the story purports to be an examination of how an aging gay man - who lived through the worst years of AIDS - now finds himself in a time in which his activism is under-appreciated. Unfortunately, as written, the protagonist (Sam) is self-absorbed and unlikable, a privileged New York artist who treats the hustlers he hires badly and who whines relentlessly to others that, for some reason, put up with him. He is, essentially, a narcissist that the filmmakers present as if he were sympathetic.

The conceit of the film is that Sam is not afforded by young, cute gay guys the respect and honor he deserves for having lost friends and loved ones in the eighties and for having participated in Act Up in the nineties. As a survivor of those times myself, I appreciate the work of activists, but I fully understand that what they accomplished should be gratification enough. Of course younger gay men can't understand what Sam went through. The whole point was to work toward a future when they wouldn't have to.

Sam is stuck in the past, as is the film. The protagonist seems to learn nothing, and watching his journey becomes increasingly frustrating.

One final point (and this truly bothered me): throughout the film, Sam voices particular venom toward the few non-white characters - a latino hustler he stiffs, a black artist who has replaced him in popularity, and the latino boyfriend of an old friend who the friend wishes to marry. This isn't quibbling; his behavior is pronounced and consistent, leaving the impression that, in his mostly-white world, people of color are people to be disparaged.

Why is a film with a plot no different from a Lifetime movie getting acclaim? Supposedly, the writing and acting are superior, making the simple story seem more weighty than it is. But, sadly, the screenplay's "touching" moments are self-conscious and precious. The pacing is slow and, at 137 minutes, way, way too long. The writer/director seems to have fallen in love with scenes that have nothing to do with moving the film forward. There is a great performance by an actor, but not by Casey Affleck, whose one-note performance is nowhere near Oscar caliber. Lucas Hedges is brilliant, almost bringing life to this moribund tale - but not quite. Lonergan takes us on a dreary journey with unlikeable characters, to a place not worth going to. To say this film is overrated would be an understatement.

This film is an attempt at a gay version of Richard Linklater's "Before" films, that follow two protagonists as they interact in real time. It has a lot going for it, including great production values, good actors, and dialogue that deftly engages the audience throughout. The problem, though, is that neither character is particularly likable, making it difficult to care about them. The primary character, Dean, lives a bourgeois life, facing obstacles ranging from having to transition to progressive lenses to deciding whether to fill the pool at his beautiful second home with fresh or salt water. He's a bit of a whiner, complaining that his graphic design clients set parameters and don't allow him to follow his "artistic" whims. He claims to be a Democratic Socialist, but his only apparent effort toward social justice is that he used to listen to NPR. He's a bit narcissistic and seems oblivious to his privilege. The secondary character, Alex, remains somewhat a cipher. We learn that he "has money" but not much more other than as it relates back to Dean. He's mostly a foil for Dean's angst, discussing things like whether Dean should trade his vacation desert home up for a better one at the top of the hill. In all, a good try, but I just couldn't care about these characters.