Amazon.com essential video

A sensitive yet humorous adaptation of the stage play, this 1970 film directed by William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) is one of the first films to openly address gay issues in a matter-of-fact style that largely avoids stereotyping. Shot on one set and featuring a birthday party as the festive setting, a group of friends assemble to celebrate, reminisce, and discuss their lives and the travails of being gay, even as one friend insists he's straight. The night turns from a light celebration to a sometimes-vindictive ordeal of revelation and betrayal, as each man in turn must confess his true feelings. Performed by the original cast of the stage production, the film may feel dated to some, but it still manages to be truthful and entertaining as it explores a subject that to this day is not often addressed. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (42)

'I don't understand any of it... I never did' ... Michael
Mart Crowley's 'The Boys in the Band' is a minor masterpiece of American cinema that was also instrumental in thrusting gay life and issues into the American mainstream.

Based upon the 1968 Off-Broadway play, this 1970 film adaption by William Friedkin retains all of the stage cast and most of the dialogue. The story is simple enough, Michael Connelly is throwing a party for his friend Harold when an old college roommate, who is presumably straight, arrives and throws the party into turmoil. Michael, who clearly has had a drinking problem, hits the bottle again as a result of the conflict. Kenneth Nelson gives a brilliant performance as Michael who is quickly unravelling with every drink and who begins to tear down his friends one by one. The party climaxes in a 'truth' game which proves oddly cathartic to everyone but Michael.

Many issues have arisen over the years with 'The Boys in the Band'. Were these men mostly stereotypes? Is this work still relevant to gay life? What does it say about where we are in light of where we've been?

Your answers to these questions may well depend on your age. For myself, when first viewing this as a 22 year old in 1987, I found it amusing but ultimately sad and upsetting. A dozen years later of being out in gay life, I have come to learn how masterful this work is and that while times have changed in many ways for the better, many of the issues that the 'boys' were dealing with back then are still being dealt with today. Issues of religious and societal intolerance and the attempt to forge a positive gay identity in an often hostile world are still very much with us today.

I believe the reason 'The Boys in the Band' is so humorous is that the camp humor of that time was largely a coping mechanism of sorts. This is black humor at its best, showing us the brutal honesty of a situation while exposing the many absurdities in it at the same time.

In the end Michael states 'I don't understand any of it, I never did.'... food for thought...

Also: Pick up a copy of '3 Plays by Mart Crowley'. The story of Michael Connelly pre and post "Boys in the Band" is powerfully explored in these two additional plays. (Read the forward 1st!)

A "Must" for all Gay Men
As a friend once put it, the first time you see it (usually in college or freshly minted out-of-the-closet) you're horrified because it is full of self-loathing queens. The second time, in your twenties or after a bit moving in the stream of gay life, you're into it because it's campy and fun. The third time, once you've been around a block more times than you can remember, you love it because it's TRUE! While certainly not to be included in any catalogue of PRIDE-ful moments (and as such was the source of great controversy in the 1970s), this is a film that touches on crucial aspects of gay identity that have remained fairly constant in the post-Stonewall period, a series of questions: sexual and emotional fidelity, pride, self-hatred, fraternal destruction, and gay friendship. Or, another way to put it and to borrow Adrienne Rich's phraseology, "lies, secrets, and silence." The telephone game is the dramatic high point of the film (don't try this at home kids, unless you're three sheets to the wind and have an old rotary phone in the garage!), underscoring the complicated histories gay men bring to their desires. For others, this is the low point of self-loathing, but I find the actors rescue the scene with tenderness and emotive power. For me, the saving grace of the film and its central message is the denouement of Harold's committment to his friendship with the hideous lush Michael, who, after suffering a night of Michael's Gin and Ton witticisms honed to a razor sharp edge while languidly flipping through "The Films of Joan Crawford" (a nice touch), and after reading him within an inch of his life, tells Michael, with real feeling, "Call you tomorrow." And who can't appreciate friendship like that? With this, the film brings to the fore the essence of gay survival, which is friendship, and for that is worthy of viewing and LOVE (and a DVD).

What I am Michael...
Exquisite movie--beautifully directed and smart acting by the cast. It's as if not more timely now than it was then.

Leading 20th Century Work
I think "Boys in the Band" is one of the best plays of the 20th century. It's far, far more than a bunch of self-hating queens camping it up. For one thing, look at how succinctly the playwright develops his characters with just one line: "Cheese it. Here comes the socialite nun!"

A better way to think about the play is as a tragedy concerning the emotional life of Michael, who exemplifies so many of killer competitor types of the 20th century.

When Harold says to Michael, "You're a sad and pathetic man. You're a homosexual and you don't want to be," he's making a larger point that what Michael is really afraid of is his own humanity, not just being seen as a big fairy.

An Important Film on Humanity - Gay or Not
Mart Crowley will always be remembered for this gem of a film (based on the stage play) because of its evocative and dead-on treatment of humanity, particularly that of gay men.

The movie, like the stage play, is set in a New York City apartment. Seven gay men (and one gay prostitute) are going to be attending a bithday party hosted by Michael. As the film opens, we are visually introduced to the main characters. We then see Michael's smart and proper apartment and know that he is preparing for the party. Michael's weekend boyfriend Donald arrives and they talk about everything from anxiety attacks to financial woes to the effects of alcohol.

Suddenly, everything is turned on its head as Michael gets a very odd and uncharacteristic phone call from his college roommate, Alan. Alan is in town and wants to meet up with Michael, but Michael isn't sure that Alan should arrive in the middle of a birthday party for gay men. Alan breaks down and begs to see Michael. They agree on a quick drink and Michael and Donald explore how they are going to handle a straight man at a gay party.

Thinking the doorbell is Alan, Michael opens it to find that Emory, Hank and Larry have arrived. He tells them what is going on and then Bernard, another guest, arrives. Michael demands that everyone play it cool and straight while Alan is there.

As the party gets underway with appetizers and music, Michael gets a phone call from Alan expressing regrets about his breakdown and suggests they get together for lunch the next day. Michael is relieved and the party starts to flow even better.

Michael, Bernard, Emory, and Larry begin a dance routine they learned on Fire Island and don't hear the doorbell. When Hank answers the door, it isn't Harold, but Alan, who has dropped by unannounced. He sees Michael and the other men dancing and there is a grand uncomfortable moment as the party comes to a screeching halt.

Alan and Michael talk and then as Alan gets ready to leave, a fight ensued between Alan and Emory with Emory ending up with a bloody face.

The rest of the movie is a very real, very poignant look at human nature. There is an attempt to expose someone in the closet, a look at fidelity within a gay relationship, the fear of growing old and a wonderfully crafted discussion on the nature of beauty.

Although all of the actors in the film are excellent, Cliff Gorman as the effiminate Emory steals the show. (Gorman, incidentially, would go on to portray Lenny Bruce in the stage play "Lenny" and would receive high acclaim for his work only to be replaced by Dustin Hoffman for the movie version.)

What makes the film work for all mature audiences is that the character portrayals are seemless. We can all see some of our own faults in at least one of the characters.

The only drawback is that this film is not yet out on DVD, although it should be!

If you get a chance to see this film, do so. It is a very fine piece of film that deserves all the acclaim it gets. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

A superior, made-for-cable film, this Home Box Office adaptation of Randy Shilts's chronicle detailing the emergence of AIDS in America and the fight against bureaucracy and society for a cure is a taut, outrageous, and affecting true-life drama. Matthew Modine (Birdy, Married to the Mob) is featured as a doctor with the Centers for Disease Control at the time when the first reports of a disease plaguing the gay community were heard. Modine and his colleagues embark on an investigation that resembles a compelling detective story as they try to track the source of the disease and discover a cure. Their efforts are thwarted by an ambivalent government and a turf war between French physicians and a celebrated American researcher (Alan Alda) who seems to place his own glory above the dead and the dying. Featuring heartfelt performances from a stellar cast including Richard Gere, Glenne Headly, Anjelica Huston, Steve Martin, Ian McKellen, Saul Rubinek, and Lily Tomlin, this impassioned film stands as an impressive and important document of one of the darkest eras in modern human history, and a tribute to the spirit of those who sought to save lives. --Robert Lane ... Read more

Reviews (34)

Pulling on your emotions
This made-for-HBO movie definitely transcends the "disease of the week" genre that it's part of. Based on the book by Randy Shilts, it chronicles the struggle of science vs. politics vs. morality in the early days of the AIDS crisis. Our point of view character is Dr. Don Francis (Matthew Modine), a passionate young scientist with the Centers for Disease Control. He and his colleagues, both at the CDC and France's Pasteur Institute, seem to be the only ones who remember that there are real people dying of this mysterious disease. Dr. Robert Gallo (Alan Alda)is one of the few human "villians" of the piece, more interested in writing himself into the history of the disease than in helping anyone. Two other notable performances are those of Lily Tomlin as the tough, no-nonsense Dr. Selma Dritz) and Ian McKellan as Congressional aide Bill Krause, who as part of San Francisco's gay community, is in the epicenter of the crisis.

Watching this movie, I got very angry. The blood banks, for example, were more worried about money than lives. One of the best scenes in the movie is where Dr. Francis stands up at a meeting and screams at reps from the blood industry, "How many dead hemophiliacs do you need?" before they do something about it. (That was a reenactment of a real outburst, not a fictional event.) An end title tells us that "By the time President Reagan made his first speech on AIDS, 25,000 people had died." Between events like these and Gallo's blatant scientific misconduct, it's hard to avoid being incensed.

The acting is excellent, especially Modine and Alda, who even look a little like the men they're playing. Modine brings an incredible amount of passion and frustration to Dr. Francis. I especially like McKellan's character, an older gay man who is not a stereotype. Several familiar character actors show up as supporting players, and some very famous faces (Steve Martin, Richard Gere, Phil Collins, Swoosie Kurtz, and Anjelica Huston) make cameo appearances.

If you're looking for something light and fluffy, this is not the movie for you. If you want something that will make you think, with some fine acting and a realistic script, this is for you. (Watch this, then go read Shilts' book.)

An eye-opener!
Having gotten poliomyelitis in 1953, I see comparisons between the two diseases. People with AIDS suffered prejudice and lack of information of how the disease is passed just like those who got polio. There was isolation and fear with both. Polio killed as did AIDS, but Polio was not necessarily a death sentence as was AIDS (at least at first). Polio children were often pitied,especially if they were crippled. But, much money was raised from the public sector by the National Foundation to pay for braces, operations, etc. The story of AIDS is as tragic as the disease itself. It is a gripping story that everyone should know. This movie shows clearly how it happened and why money was hard to get. It certainly kept my attention throughout. All the actors did a wonderful job with their respective roles. Even Alan Alda was convincing as Dr. Gallo, the researcher. (Alda was a polio survivor.) Lily Tomlin was wonderful as was Matthew Modine, and all the rest. My advise is not to watch this movie on the same day as you see Tom Hanks' "Philadelphia" (another great movie). At least for me, I can only take so much injustice in one day. I now want to read the book by Randy Shilts.

And the Band Played Good.
'And the Band Played On' is an excellent film about the true story of the discovery of the AIDS virus from the late 1970s' into the 1980s'. It has an All-Star cast that bring delight to the screen. More interesting than 'Philadelphia'.

Lies and lying liars who tell them!
I actually got this from a blog from Dean's World (Dean is a liberal) who nailed the problem with this movie:

"Reagan had an excellent record on gay rights issues--to the extent that anyone at that level of office in that day and age could be said to have such a record, anyway, since he had publicly supported gay rights measures and, while he did ally with some conservative Christian forces, never once backed any anti-gay legislation and was always personally gay-friendly. While it's true that there were things his administration could have done better about the early AIDS crisis, this is true for just about everyone in the 1980s--gay rights activists, local and national elected officials of both parties and at all levels of government--responded poorly. If any of you saw that execrable HBO movie And The Band Played On, you should be aware that it gave a horribly politically slanted accounting, but the book it was based on, And The Band Played On by Randy Shilts, was a much fairer and more damning book. Shilts would never have approved that attrocious movie. The book is must-reading, for Shilts (who was gay, lived in San Francisco, and himself eventually died of AIDS) documents in excruciating detail how local government officials, gay rights activists, judges, and career civil servants in many cases conspired to keep the plague from being recognized and to prevent government from even getting involved. Shilts was unsparing in his indictment of everyone at all levels and in both parties, and if he was sometimes harsh on the Reagan administration, he was usually even harsher with others, including gay rights activists he personally knew and who were responsible for preventing government from taking direct action to stop the plague in its tracks.

It's great reading. And a good supplement, by the way, is David Horowitz' autobiography Radical Son, because in the last half of the book Horowitz talks about how he befriended Randy Shilts and saw himself how radical left-wing gay activists fought tooth and nail to prevent government from taking any action to stop the plague or even recognize that a plague was spreading. And how gay men who tried to act against it were often attacked as liars and traitors and sellouts to "the fundamentalists." It's powerful reading.

Oh, and by the way, there is also a consistent rumor floating around parts of the gay community that the Reagan administration wanted to put AIDS victims into concentration camps. Just so you know, that too is a myth.

It's remarkable what some people think they know that simply isn't true."

What about region 4 in Australia?
I have just ordered this DVD movie thru Amazon. Unfortunately, in Australia, this movie is not available to purchase for private sale in either a DVD or VHS format. This is not the only movie that is unavailable down under, but was the first on my list to purchase thru Amazon. That says it all. ... Read more

Reviews (27)

A movie that's--sadly!--still one-of-a-kind
When it was released in 1982, MAKING LOVE was publicized as the first film from a major Hollywood studio to take an honest look at homosexuality. Today, even in our more tolerant social climate, the movie remains just about the only film from a major Hollywood studio to take an honest look at homosexuality. MAKING LOVE is a compassionate, sensitive examination of one man coming to discover, and accept, that he is gay.

Zack (Michael Ontkean) and Claire (Kate Jackson) are a young, attractive and successful married couple; he is a physician and she is a television producer. They have just bought a new home and talk about having a child. But Zack begins to question his sexual identity and to close himself off from his wife. Then he meets Bart (Harry Hamlin), a sexually adventurous gay man who forces Zack to come to terms with his sexual feelings.

Although MAKING LOVE is nearly twenty years old, the only things dated about the movie are the clothing and hairstyles. There have certainly been other Hollywood movies that deal with homosexuality (PHILADELPHIA, IN AND OUT, etc.). But most of these movies seem oddly hesitant to address difficult issues or deflect them by using humor. By contrast, MAKING LOVE presents with complete honesty a man learning to accept that he is gay, along with all of the conflicted feelings and painful choices this involves.

Barry Sandler's script is outstanding. It employs a device that today has become an annoying cliche: characters sharing their inner feelings by directly addressing the camera. But in this film, the device really works, thanks to honest writing and performances.

All three lead actors are excellent, giving us portraits of believable, imperfect human beings who nonetheless try to do their best with the situation that confronts them. A special word of praise must go to Kate Jackson. Certainly Jackson's TV work (CHARLIE'S ANGELS, SCARECROW AND MRS. KING) never gave her the chance to play such an intelligent, fully-rounded character. Jackson is excellent and in a few scenes is so thoroughly convincing that she breaks your heart.

Arthur Hiller's direction is understated and eloquent. And Leonard Rosenman's musical score is superb. His score helps us to recognize the movie for what it is: a tender and bittersweet love story. For example, early on there is a scene in which Zack has a painful meeting with a cancer patient and, distraught over his inability to help her, goes cruising for a sexual partner. Rosenman's musical score helps us to see that Zack's act is not cheap or sensational but instead is an attempt by a lonely, confused man to find emotional connection.

A movie of exceptional quality, MAKING LOVE should be much better known. I recommend it to anyone who is looking for an intellegent, compassionate presentation of the many emotional issues surrounding coming to acceptance of homosexuality.

Getting to the HEART of the matter!
To say this film is still groundbreaking would be a stretch, but it still hits home. In 1982, theater goers were either exiting quickly or more wisely, staying to marvel at this film's honesty and heart and its winning performances.

Kate Jackson, Michael Ontkean and Harry Hamlin turn in a powerhouse effort in this Authur Hiller film about a career successful married couple, Claire and Zack Elliot (Jackson and Ontkean) who must face the reality that their union is not all it seems. After eight years of marriage, Zack's repressed homosexuality begins to surface. Enter handsome writer Bart Mcguire (Hamlin), who innocently meets Zack in the ordinary circumstance of a doctor's visit. Bart has been around the gay scene for some time, and is quite happy in his world of one night stands and conquests....or is he?

How all this unfolds is great viewing. "Making Love" has it's soap opera moments and is somewhat dated, but the performances and overall writing and direction overcome these slight flaws. Handsome Ontkean is dead on as the confused yet well intentioned Zack. Whatever spoken or written about this film hurting Ontkean's career is trivial, this remains his best work to date. Hamlin is almost distracting in a role that was obviously well researched complete with subtle mannerisms. Kate Jackson turns in one of her best yet tender performances in a film that remains a cornerstone in gay cinema.

WHERE'S THE DVD???
This movie has always held a special place in my collection. It reminds me of growing up and coming to terms with life. The performances of Kate Jackson, Michael Ontkean, Harry Hamlin and Wendy Hiller are emotionally charged. Some may say it's an outdated film, but it never fails to bring a tear to my eye when the main characters come to accept their past and how their lives have evolved. I'll never forget seeing it at the theater.
I remember when Zack and Bart kissed, some girl in the audience
laughed out loud. For me, it was a very touching moment and that laughter really bothered me at the time. Thankfully, people are more accepting of gay relationships now.
I am hoping that the studios will provide this gem on DVD soon.

Honey, I'm Gay
A silly soap opera about a young doctor, happily married to a beautiful woman who discovers that he's gay. The homosexual theme is handled gingerly and with sympathy, but the story is overly sentimental and comes off as trite and naive. The happy ending fails to touch the heart.

A worthy early effort
When released in 1982, director Arthur Hiller's "Making Love" was a bold venture for its time and critcally panned, probably more for its risky content than its acting. Between her TV gigs as one of Charlie's angels and Mrs. King to a Scarecrow, veteran actress Kate Jackson said she would have offered to pay for the role of a TV executive married to a doctor, played by former "Rookies" co-star Michael Ontkean. But with his wife so tied up with her work, husband Zak begins to explore a long-buried curiosity about a same-sex encounter. He finds it in studly writer Harry Hamlin, then a new face on the acting horizon. With his same-sex desires and preference unleashed, Zak has to come clean with wife Kate, and the climactic scene in which Zak confesses his homosexuality is carried with appropriate emotional shock by both Jackson and Ontkean. By today's standards, the film may seem dated and irrelevant, but it was hardly so at the time. A good script is bolstered by good acting and singer Roberta Flack's haunting theme song that was a chart-buster in '82. Beyond the film's obvious topic, it also renders a subtle lesson in the need for honesty. ... Read more

Amazon.com

Talk about dated: This limp 1976 comedy, based on a flop Broadway play, deals with a pair of middle-aged African-American parents (Redd Foxx and Pearl Bailey), who are aghast to discover that their window-dresser son (Michael Warren) is gay and are ready to disown him for it. Though it's still a viable subject, it's treated here with a smirky sense that homosexuality is some kind of dirty joke. What's interesting is that, years later, the most sympathetic character is the son's stereotypically swishy boyfriend (Dennis Dugan). Shot on video and transferred to film, the movie is most noteworthy for the opportunity to see the late Pearl Bailey (if only in the final 20 minutes) and to watch the late Redd Foxx (in reality a hilariously filthy stand-up) in a sterilized PG setting. Foxx, at the height of his Sanford and Son fame when this was made, has an exquisite sense of timing and mock outrage; he actually puts some bite into the toothless jokes.--Marshall Fine ... Read more

Reviews (5)

Absolutely Atrocious
When Ben (Red Foxx) discovers his wife Beatrice (Pearl Bailey) has run off with his own brother, he rushes to his son Norman (Michael Warren) to unload his tale of woe--only to discover that Norman has a secret lover: the effeminate Garson (Dennis Dugan.) Needless to say, Ben does not take it well, and numerous complications follow--including Ben's attempt to get Norman over being homosexual by fixing him up with a hooker (Tammy Dobson.) Unfortunately, this description of the movie sounds a great deal more entertaining than the movie itself.

Originally written for the theatre by Ron Clark and Sam Bobrick, NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? was an absolute disaster on the New York stage. To give the play its due, I actually saw it staged in the 1970s as a commuity theatre production--and while no one would accuse it of being anything other than a shallow farce, the cast played so broadly and in such drop-dead manner that it proved quite amusing. It is a pity the cast of this film didn't do the same. This is an atrociously performed motion picture. Red Foxx, one of the most hilarious comics of the 20th century, is about as funny here as yesterday's wash, Michael Warren (who later appeared on the television series HILL STREET BLUES to much better effect) competes with Foxx to see who can give the worst performance, and Pearl Bailey is not far behind; truth be told, only Dennis Duggan, Tammy Dobson, and a cameo by Wayland Flowers have any spark--and sadly, that is only in comparison with the rest of the cast.

Not only is the film badly performed, it looks bad. According to film lore, this was the first big screen effort to be filmed in videotape, which was then transfered to celluloid for project purposes--and believe me, it shows. The film has the look of a bad 1970s sitcom right down to the painted skyline seen through the windows of Norman and Garson's apartment. Some films are so bad that they become funny, but NORMAN... IS THAT YOU? isn't one of them. I can sum up my reaction to this film in two words: miss it. Don't buy it, don't rent it, don't touch it with a ten foot pole. Just back away slowly and then run like the blazes.

a trip out film
this film is a trip.Redd Foxx&Pearl Bailey are good together.this film deals with issues head on.it's a funny film.it was cool seeing Tamara Dobson in it.

"One out of ten..."
Redd Fox has been left by his wife (Pearl Bailey) for his brother. Basically the plot but a whole lot more. Enter the sudden knowledge that his son has a nelly white lover (who cooks a mean prune dish), a WILD neighbor who is none other than Wayland Flowers and MADAME! A hooker dressed like Sheena of the jungle and some funny performances by the leads...and you have a cute movie! One of the few movies that shouldn't offend, (so what if the son is a window dresser? ) Besides..Wayland Flowers does part of his stage act with Madame!

excellent comedy timing
Redd Foxx portrays stereotyped father who discovers his son is gay. He is not only distraught over his son being gay but the fact that his live in lover is white. Superior comedy timing and Pearl Baileys' interaction with Redd Foxx is terrific.

Camp to the max
Kudos to Redd Foxx for taking this tired play and making it into a delightful little movie. Despite being a low budget production and the acting being a tad choppy, the story of the gay black son's coming out is handled with utter sensitivity. Norman's other half is a total scream. Don't miss the scene with the hooker. Hilarious! ... Read more

Reviews (291)

'The Rocky Horror Show' Movie
There is one reason why everyone should see "The Rocky Horror Picture Show": it is the best cult film ever made. There are also three reasons why everyone should want to watch it: 1) It is one of the only 'R' rated musicals in existence. 2) It has strong science-fiction overtones. 3) It is very funny. The movie starts Barry Bostwick and Susan Sarandon (before they were stars) as the recently engaged Brad and Janet. However, they are upstaged in nearly every scene by Tim Curry who plays Frank N. Furter, the mad doctor. The cast delightfully performs many memorable songs including "Over at the Frankenstein Place" and, of course, the "Time Warp". To fully enjoy RHPS, one must not be closed minded or the picture could prove to be quite offensive. Don't think it's gratuitously violent- it isn't. Merely, the situations the characters find themselves in could shock or appall overly sensitive viewers. If you think you won't enjoy RHPS, going to a midnight screening might be your best bet. The live audience participation will guarantee you a good time, despite your opinion of the actual film. So overall, RHPS is quite a good adaptation of Richard O'Brien's original concept, which always honors its roots on the stage.

DVD = Perfect format to truly experience "Rocky" at home
I loved going to "Rocky Horror" when I was in college, but watching on home video just wasn't the same. I'm probably committing heresy but there's a reason why this sci-fi, horror, B-movie satire, rock musical didn't really make it big until theaters started showing it as a midnight movie and fans started attending in costume and talking back to the screen. The 25th anniversary DVD, with several audience participation options, really is the next best thing to being there.

For the uninitiated, "Rocky Horror" tells the story of two clean-cut American youths, uptight Brad Majors (Barry Bostwick of "Spin City") and Janet Weiss (Susan Sarandon of "Dead Man Walking") whose car breaks down on a dark, deserted road in the middle of a storm--the classic beginning to many horror movies--and who seek help at a nearby castle. Castles, as Rocky fans know, don't have phones! What this castle has instead is a cross-dressing mad scientist Frank-N-Furter Tim Curry, in perhaps his finest performance), two very creepy servants, Riff-Raff (Richard O'Brien, who wrote the musical) and Magenta (Patricia Quinn), and various other hangers-on, including lovers Columbia (Little Nell) and biker Eddie (Meat Loaf). Brad and Janet walk in on a party celebrating the creation of Frank-N-Furter's muscle-bound boy-toy "Rocky." Bed-hopping chaos soon ensues, until the servants reveal their true identities and take control.

Punctuating this wacky plot are some of the wildest rock-musical songs ever written. In addition to the classic "Time Warp," there's O'Brien's salute to cult-classic B-movies, "Science Fiction Double Feature," Meat Loaf's "Hot Patootie," and Sarandon ode to sexual self-discovery, "Toucha Toucha Touch Me!"

So much for the "Rocky virgin" portion of the review... What makes the DVD so exceptional is the chance to experience "Rocky Horror" at home nearly like you would in the theater. The DVD has the option of turning on the audience screen comments as well as another option for viewing members of the Rocky Horror Fan Club performing select scenes before returning to the main movie. For those less familiar with audience participation, the DVD can prompt when to throw toast, toilet paper, rice, etc., light a match, put your newspaper on your head, etc.

The second disc contains fascinating interviews with cast members, where fans can find out about their reaction to starring in this cult classic. Meat Loaf's description of not realizing what "Rocky Horror" was going to be about and running out of the theater when Tim Curry entered wearing fishnet stockings, spiked heels, a merry widow, and a leather jacket and singing "Sweet Transvestite" is hysterical. Patricia Quinn talks about how her fondness for the opening song, "Science Fiction Double Feature" made her want to take the role even though she hadn't read the rest of the script. What? Don't remember Quinn singing that number? In the stage versions she did, but the song got reassigned in the film version--and Quinn makes her feelings about that QUITE clear. Sarandon makes the interesting observation that "Rocky Horror" probably kept a lot of art house theaters in business over the years, since they could count on good revenue from the midnight movie, even if the latest regular-hours offering flopped. In Bostwick's interview, however, the actor sounds a bit like William Shatner giving his anti-Trekkie diatribe on "Saturday Night Live."

The only disappointments on the DVD are that the outtakes really aren't that interesting and actor bios aren't provided. I would have liked to see what else the "minor" cast members did after Rocky, but that information is limited to a few lines in the companion booklet. Also, some of the audience-participation comments are nearly impossible to understand because fans are talking over each other. But then that's part of the modern-day theater experience. Even Sarandon noted in her interview that talking back to the screen has gone from the more unison catechism approach to a loud free-for-all.

What seemed so risqué and shocking a few decades ago seems much more innocent today, but it was great when it all began and it's still great! If you've never ventured into the theater to experience "Rocky Horror," this is the best way to experience it at home.

Mesmerizing film.
This is a very outrageous movie. The rock is the background to tell us a horror movie but also spiced with sex , ransvestism and above all a splendid tribute to the movies specially King Kong .
One couple strands in an old house full of weirdos . This movie (here between you and me)could have inspired for Tim Burton in Beetle juice .
In this decade there were great visuals films too . Sherman built a magnificent story absolutely free , intelligent and sarcastic, irreverent and bitter . You might state that Fellini's influence (dressed of english manners and clothes) is present all along the film .
Inmediatly after its release this one acquired the status of cult movie.

The original is still the best!
Don't bother with the play, or the music from the play. The original is still the best. Nobody can fill the shoes of Sarandon, Curry, etc. They originated the roles and have been associated with them for far too long for anyone else to come in try to change them so many years later and attempt to redo them. Stay with the best.

Those Gold Shorts!
Ahhhhh...Rocky had such a lovely outline showing in his gold lame shorts. ... Read more

Reviews (14)

COVERING NEW TERRITORY
'Female Perversions' is a difficult film to enjoy. It's confronting, cold, claustrophobic and on the whole disconcerting. But if you're the kind of viewer who enjoys being challenged, and appreciates films that don't pander to the lowest common denominator, then you'll love this. At last a film that reveals how patriarchy operates! Not simply by pitting women against men, but by pitting women against each other. Tough questions of intimacy between women are raised and explored in all sorts of ways: between sisters, between lovers, between a mother and a daughter.

The presence of Tilda Swinton in any film is enough of a recommendation for me - if you're not already a fan, then this could be the film to convert you. She manages to guide the viewer into some pretty dark territory - oftentimes very surreal - but it's a compassionate and uncompromising performance.

I wouldn't say this film is for everyone, nor does it qualify as 'light entertainment'. But I do think this is an important film that both men and women will appreciate. But be warned, if ever a film had a adult themes, it's this one: the adult world is revealed in all its ambivalent glory here, so keep this vid for after the kids have gone to bed.

Pretty Lame
Every once in awhile I like a little dose of film noir. Throw in a dark setting with some creepy characters and I'm good to go. But FEMALE PERVERSIONS fell short of the genre: it was just plain weird. Let's face it, if I wish to be confronted by surreal, one-dimensional people with absolutely no clue I can go to a professional wrestling match. Or go visit my attorney, take your pick. Yet this flick is even more meaningless than Dewey, Cheatum & Howe (my lawyer's firm), and its subsequent perversions are more demeaning than they are perverted.

What's with the lead character in this movie? Tilda Swinton, a most fragile-looking beauty, is miscast in the lead role as a successful, aggressive attorney up for a judgeship by the Governor. She looks like a porcelain doll, and as we get to know her we find she's as unstable as the book shelf I put up the other day in my living room. She's plagued by some demented fantasies. . .or illusions. . .that supposedly have been repressed since her childhood, and for whatever reason she's into razor blades. Her boyfriend gets miffed so she has an affair with a woman. Why? She likes M&M candy. Why? Her fantasies include an overweight woman covered in mud. Why? She sleeps in a hammock. Why? She takes a bath with her sister. Why? She drives a really ugly Turbo converter. Why, oh why?

Don't ask me. I don't know. Or care. Incidentally, Amy Madigan and Frances Fisher head a supporting cast of equally troubled souls. If there is some feminist symbolism to be culled from FEMALE PERVERSIONS it's lost on me; all I saw was a montage of mumbo jumbo. So what to do about my appetite for film noir? Ah, yes: a Three Stooges movie. That should do it.
--D. Mikels

"Perversions are never what they seem to be."
In the film "Female Perversions" Eve Stephens (Tilda Swinton) is a young, ambitious lawyer. She's hoping for a judgeship, when her private life turns sour. Eve's resentful sister (Amy Madigan) is picked up on shoplifting charges, and Eve's boyfriend is making grumbling noises. Under the pressure, Eve begins to hear voices and experience debasing fantasies.

Tilda Swinton is an interesting actress. Her facial features have a blank androgynous look, and she can handle extremely challenging roles ("Orlando", for example). At the beginning of the film, Swinton seems almost unrecognizable. Her glam looks fade as the film wears on, and this is both appropriate and interesting.

I have this nagging suspicion that there's supposed to be a deeper meaning to this film. A quote from psychoanalyst, Louise Kaplan appears across the screen at the beginning, and less-than-subtle phrases appear without rhyme or reason during the film (on Eve's pillow and on a bench). These phrases hint at some message about the roles women are forced to accept in society, and, indeed, that is the premise of Kaplan's book "Female Perversions"). However, the message, if there ever was one, is buried deeply in this film. The film seems to play with idea of being part soft porn, and many of the scenes were gratuitous, hideous, and grotesque. All of this titillation weighs the film down and perverts the plot. Bizarre fantasy sequences are pervasive and annoying. If you want to spend two hours watching neurotic, stunted, and rather uninteresting characters abuse themselves and each other (peppered with the occasional naughty scene involving fancy lingerie), then perhaps this film is not entirely without purpose. I, for one, am a Philistine in this instance and loathed the film. I would recommend avoiding this pretentious stinker at all costs--displacedhuman

Female Perversions
At times it was very hard to follow, but I believe that is actually what the writer intended. It was entertaining and of good quality. Not really my cup of tea. I like a more upbeat storyline.

Spend your time with a good film -- this isn't it
This self-important piece of cinematic twaddle achingly strives for artiness. Instead, it achieves only confusion and irrelevance.

"Female Perversions" would make an excellent study for a cinematography class about how NOT to make a film. It was poorly conceived, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed and poorly edited. Even the audio engineer didn't get it right: the audio track is low level and sometimes muffled.

The angst that oozes from the lead character rides like a thick, noxious fog through the film. Plot situations are never fully explained or developed. The disjointed dialogue often stops and starts seemingly at will. The sex scenes are never fully consummated and are as interesting as Dr. Ruth on Valium.

Spend your money on something more meaningingful and entertaining than this dog. ... Read more

Amazon.com

One of the sweetest films to emerge from Europe in the 1990s, Alain Berliner's Ma Vie en Rose is the story of an innocent little boy, Ludovic (played with noncloying directness by Georges Du Fresne), who wants to be a girl. Convinced that he's the product of misplaced chromosomes (he imagines the mix-up in one of many delightful daydream sequences), he sets about righting the mistake by wearing dresses and high heels and experimenting with lipstick and makeup. The otherwise friendly suburban neighborhood becomes horrified by the gender confusion, though tellingly the cruelest blows come not from the teasing classmates but intolerant adults: one scene recalls the torch-and-pitchfork angry villagers from a Frankenstein movie. Ludo tries hard to be butch, but he can't deny his nature, especially when he meets a kindred spirit: a little girl who gladly trades her dress for his pants and shirt. This bittersweet mix of innocent fantasy and childhood cruelty has its moments of sadness and crushing misunderstandings, but the overall tone is loving, filled with tenderness and culminating in acceptance and togetherness. As the family stumbles and struggles to come to terms with Ludo, they find something special within him, an innocent conviction so powerful and pure that it's infectious. Ludo may not grow up to become a girl as he hopes, but his belief is so strong it's hard to deny him the possibility. This films reminds us that, to a child, anything is possible. --Sean Axmaker ... Read more

Reviews (90)

A small gem
A heartwarming comedy. The story of a boy age 7, who is confused as to whether he is a boy or a girl. He has a penchant for wearing his sister's dresses and playing with dolls. The boy, played by George Du Fresne is very endearing and radiates innocence, which remains despite hostility towards him from other members of his community due to his unusual dressing habits. The film has a similar type of charm to another French film 'Amelie', The lead characters in both films are quintessentially good and kind. Hollywood rarely, if ever makes films like this. When attempts are made they usually fall into the trap of too much sentimentality, too little understanding of the outsider, the oddball and the quirky.

The film is subtitled, but there is something poetic about the French language and the viewer assimilates the background dialogue as if by osmosis. In fact I could probably watch this without subtitles, despite understanding very little French, simply because the scenes and characters are so visually captivating. The film is topical as well, with the rise of the far right in France comparable to the bigotry that the main character faces from his community, due to their strict conservative values.

( review by Melchizedeck )

Adverse sexuality in society (Ma Vie en Rose)
Ma Vie en Rose is a provocative film about a young boy that urns to be a girl and the struggle that he and his family go through in order for him to find himself.

The young boy, Ludovic, feels so strong that he is a girl that he goes to extreme lengths to prove his sincerity. He wears dresses, make up, and watches a show that is equivalent to America's Barbie. He prefers to play with dolls than army men and dances over playing sports. Though Ludovic is anatomically male, everything he does is expressed as female. He even tries to kiss another boy. This action does not make him gay. Because he believes so sincerely that he is a girl, all of his actions seem normal to him.

The neighbors have a different idea of what Ludovic is. They call him "bent" and ban him from their homes and families. At first, Ludovic's parents are accepting and allow his behavior, but as it intensifies, they begin to worry and send Ludovic to a psychologist, who can offer little help.

Ludovic then goes to stay with his grandmother, the only person that accepts him for him. His parents are forced to move to another town after Ludovic's father loses his job, most likely because of Ludovic's behavior. After this move, his parents start to try and accept Luovic, but with little results and Ludovic starts to try and act more like a boy. Things seem to be going well, until a neighborhood girl has a costume party and forces Ludovic to switch costumes with her. Ludovic's mother flips out and tries to hurt him. When she is pulled off of him, she wanders the streets until she sees a 'Barbie' billboard. The billboard helps to show her what Ludovic is really like, a sweet, confusioned little boy looking for guidance, and she holds him for the first time since the problems began.

These reactions to adversity, in terms of sexuality, are faced regularly by a wide range of people. The film tries to portray them to the extreme, and does it well, making this movie on the edge of new generation of film.

Magnificent
I have never seen a more beautiful and innocent movie. Everything is realistically displayed through the eyes of a 7 year old boy, Ludovic. He believes himself to be a "girlboy" because god accidentally dropped his X chromosome into the trash which ultimately turned Ludovic into a boy. The movie is heartwrenching, but remains completely innocent. The whole atmosphere is innocense. I cried so hard while watching the movie. As the film progresses, Ludovic becomes less himself, choosing things based on other people's judgements than his own. He begins to become more timid, introverted, and tortured. His spirit is killed by everyone around him, especially his mother who supported him in the beginning. His mom cuts his hair; an asset that made him feel more feminine, making him vulnerable. The most painful scene to watch was when Ludovic went down the stairs to go outside due to the havoc his sister and brothers were causing. His mother sneered at him and asked "Where are you going?" ludovic answers that he is going outside to take a walk because his siblings are too noisy. His mother glares at him and says without any heart "It's not our fault we had to move" referring to the fact that Ludovic's "girlboy" tendencies made the neighborhood turn on the family. Ludovic stares at his mother for a second, then nods gently and leaves. His sadness really resonates. Ludovic is all alone, and no one cares. His brothers allow him to be beat up in his presence by the soccer team. His mother continually bashes him verbally saying that he ruined everyone's lives, and that everything negative was his fault. it's disgusting what society can do to such an innocent, loving boy. But it's real, and that's what is sick about the world.

i recommend this movie to everyone. you'll love it. this is the environment we let people survive in. it's disgusting how much negativity is pushed upon the fragile shoulders of little 7 year old Ludovic.

Ma Vie En Rose
What do you call a girl who would rather play sports than color? What about a girl who prefers shorts to dresses? Some might answer "normal" while others will answer "a tomboy." Nevertheless, tomboys are a common phenomenom who are fortunate enough to have no social stigmas attached to them. Find a boy who prefers to dance and wear dresses, however, and you are dealing with a sick child with homosexual tendencies. The double standard is both apparent and completely unfair. Ma Vie En Rose examines the role of sexual stereotypes in today's culture while showing how certain elements in society encourage conformity and inhibit diversity.

Seven year-old Ludovic is a boy who wants to be a girl. He likes to wear dresses and talks of marrying another young boy by the name of Jerome. Ludovic's family, who have recently moved into a new neighborhood, are embarassed by Ludovic's actions and struggle to suppress his transexual yearnings. Though Ludovic's actions are surprising to viewers, it is still more interesting to examine the panopticon his family is part of. Ludovic's father, Pierre, does not know how to best cope with his son's tendencies. Ludovic's sometimes embarassing displays of femininity threaten to derail his father's career, as Jerome happens to be Pierre's employers son (yikes!).

Those who assume that Ludovic is gay have missed the point of this film entirely. Sexuality isn't even an issue, especially at Ludovic's age. Ma Vie En Rose isn't concerned with Ludovic's eventual sexual orientation. The film is careful to keep its focus within childhood. Ludovic likes to wear dresses and makeup. He associates these things as the traits of women, and for this reason, feels he needs to marry Jerome. In an idealistic world, Ludovic would be able to enjoy these things without giving up on his masculinity. In the real world, however, Ludovic must unconsciously choose sides. He chooses the "feminine" because the restrictions of socialization give him no other option. This film is a bright (so bright in its use of color, it would make Barbie sick) and intelligent film which instead of asking why, asks why not?

Plaintive and dishearteningly honest
The representation of what is fantasy versus "real life" in this film serves to highlight the perception of how the transgendered main character, named Ludovic, comes to clash with the Parisian perception of what it is to be "bent." In doing so, Ludo brings his adoration of the barbie-esque Pam, his family, his friendship with neighbor children to clash with their societal vision of how gendered children should act. Some of his attempts to understand how a boy or girl should act play out as a comedy of errors with tragic results, have a significant negative impact on Ludo's life.

This film orchestrates commentary on the way in which the genders are impressed upon children via the media and cultural indoctrination; the way in which the female is surveyed by the masculine decision makers and how women affect their world through presence and men affect the world through action (surveyors/surveyed).

In summary, this is a difficult picture to watch without internalizing the strife the transgendered child evokes, and is a surefire way to heat up some discussion on the topic. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Jeremy Irons gives another superb and underrated performance in M Butterfly, an elegant adaptation of the Broadway hit by playwrightDavid Henry Hwang. Irons plays a French diplomat in China in 1964 whofalls in love with a star of the Beijing Opera, not realizing that theentrancing performer holds secrets that will ruin his life--that thesinger is a spy for the Communist government is only the beginning of thediplomat's troubles. Though M Butterfly may seem like a departurefor director David Cronenberg (best known for horror and science fictionflicks like The Fly and Scanners), the themes of desireand self-deception fit comfortably into his oeuvre, alongside hisadaptations of difficult novels like Naked Lunch and Crash.M Butterfly, like the more popular movie The Crying Game, isa cunning examination of love and denial. Also featuring John Lone (TheLast Emperor). --Bret Fetzer ... Read more

Reviews (16)

Tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history
This 1993 film is based on the true story of French diplomat, Rene Gallimard, who carried on an affair for 18 years with Chinese opera singer Song Liling. Later, he was arrested when it was discovered he was passing diplomatic secrets to the Chinese government through his lover. However, there is a twist. Song Liling was actually a man, not a woman, and supposedly kept this fact from Gallimard through all this time.

Jeremy Irons is cast as Rene Gallimard. John Lone, who was actually trained in the Beijing opera and who played the title role in The Last Emperor, is cast as Song Liling. He is not a convincing female but I feel this was the director's intent. The story is, after all, about Gallimard's blind obsession in his desire for the perfect woman. Both Irons' and Lone's performances are magnificent. Both are tragic and sympathetic characters caught up in history.

The theme is also about the role of men and women as well as Communist China and the cultural revolution. Great cinematography and setting brings us to the heart of China which is going through its growing pains. Deception and betrayal are everywhere, not just between the two leading characters involved in the romance.

I was unprepared to like the video as much as I did. It did not do well at the box office, I knew the theme in advance and felt it would strain my belief system. However, I was swept away in the story and the excellent performances and had no trouble overlooking its flaws. Of course the author took dramatic license and created a ending that played like an opera, but who is to blame him; the story itself just cried out for theatrics.

Recommended as an interesting departure from the ordinary.

Cronenberg and Irons: Masterful
A bit of a departure for horror/sci-fi director David Cronenberg, but nonetheless one of his best films. Jeremy Irons plays Rene Gallimard, an accountant for the French Embassy in Beijing, who becomes infatuated with a Chinese diva (Song Liling), played by John Lone. After a passionate and scandalous affair, Song leaves Beijing, supposedly pregnant with Gallimard's child. Years later when he is arrested for espionage, Gallimard is forced to confront the fact that not only was his lover a spy for the Chinese ministry, but a man. Some people find John Lone's inability to completely pass as a woman problematic, but as Cronenberg explains: "I didn't want an unknown who was incredibly female and almost undetectable. I wanted a man. When Gallimard and Song are kissing I wanted it to be two men. I wanted the audience to feel that... M. Butterfly for me is about transformation.." For me, it's a brilliant exploration of the nature of curiousity and desire that necessarily ends tragically. The devastating notion that you can give up your entire life for something that is not true, that it's possible to fall in love with an idea, an image, a masquerade. Cronenberg abounds in his insights to imperialism, gender performance and the human capcity for transformation. Still, above all is the emotional intensity of this film, his best (in that regard) to date. Beautiful cinematography and exquisite acting, earns five stars for the closing scene alone. Highly recommended.

Breathtaking
I don't think anyone could have done justice to writing the screenplay to M Butterfly (based on David Henry Hwang's stage play) than Hwang himself. While it is a bit of a departure from the 1988 play based on the true story of a French diplomat who falls in love with a Chinese opera singer and the disastrous outcome of their affair, as a film it could not have been done otherwise.

Jeremy Irons, a wonderful actor no matter what role he plays, makes for an astounding Rene Gallimard. Less sarcastic than John Lithgow, who created the role on Broadway, Irons gives new depth and intensity to the frustrated, naive accountant. The dramatic depth to John Lone's Song Liling is equal to Irons and equal in departure from BD Wong's somewhat giggly Broadway portrayal of the Chinese diva.

A great deal of "s" words can be used to describe David Cronenberg's film, the top of that list including subtle and sexy. The tone is set, mostly, by the score--which includes traditional-sounding Chinese music and variations of Puccini's Madame Butterfly (especially the recurring theme of "Un Bel Di")--and the scenery (shot in the Far East and Budapest). The ubiquitous soft red and gold tones add to the seductive, nearly erotic edge of the film, all of which culminate at the end.

I don't want to give any of it away, mainly because when I saw the movie I had already read and seen the play, and there is so much more meaning to realize the end with Rene, but I will say that it is moving to the point of tears. Not necessarily because of the outcome, but more in how the actors play it and how the director has realized it. If you have ANY interest in purchasing this film (especially if you have any experience with Hwang's stage play), by all means buy it. It won't disappoint.

Who's French??
Yet another spectacular tale of love and maddness with a Freudian twist by the great David Cronenberg. There are some slight flaws with the film such as a cast portraying French people, none of which sporting French accents. But I suppose thats better than trying to do a French accent and it being inconsistant. All-in-all though, a really great, really strange (though not as strange as some of his other work) surprisingly poetic movie. Definately a must see for fans of Cronenberg and Jeremy Irons alike.

Moving
Considering that it was a Cronenberg movie, I found it surprisingly normal and accessible. I also found it thoroughly engrossing and much more emotionally satisfying than I's expected, given some of the reviews. Jeremy Irons gave his usual pitch-perfect performance; perhaps this film was something of a warm-up for his playing Humbert Humbert in the similarly themed Lolita. However, I was blown away even more by John Lone. He wasn't as convincing as a woman as he might have been, but that really wasn't the point, and when you see his transformation to his true persona at the end of the film, the sheer contrast, and the conviction to both the performances, should prove just how talented he is.
Overall, I found an unexpected treasure here; what from the box could have been a overwraught weepy sex-drama was actually intelligent, emotionally truthful, and well made. ... Read more

Amazon.com

In Common Ground director Donna Deitch (Desert Hearts) uses three stories to explore attitudes toward homosexuality in the fictional small town of Homer, Connecticut, over a period of almost half a century. "A Friend of Dorothy's" tells the story of a girl who returns to Homer in 1954 after leaving the Navy.When it emerges that she was discharged after being arrested in a gay bar, she is ostracized by everyone except the owner of a local diner, a woman who has her own reasons for wanting to help Dorothy to escape. "M. Roberts" is set in 1974, when a gay teacher (Steven Weber) has to decide whether to jeopardize his career in order to help a troubled pupil who has been targeted by homophobic bullies. Finally, in present-day Homer, "Andy & Amos" follows the preparations for a gay wedding. While protesters gather on the town commons, Amos's father (Ed Asner) has to choose between long-held prejudices and his love for his son. Thanks to a Harvey Fierstein script that combines sexual politics with humor and believable characters, this is the most successful part of Common Ground. Ed Asner's gradual realization that his son's monogamous, long-term gay relationship is more conventional than most heterosexual marriages is deftly handled, achieving a balance between message and drama that the other stories lack.

Despite the credentials of their authors (playwrights Paula Vogel and Terrence McNally) the first two segments feel more like lectures than stories. Their impact is weakened by clumsy dialogue (Dorothy's mother actually says, "I have no daughter") and stereotypical characters. The film's message is an important one: the road to equality is built upon the struggles and sacrifices of past generations. Unfortunately Common Ground is too uneven to deliver that message with the force it deserves. --Simon Leake ... Read more

Reviews (19)

Lived this life
As an openly gay man who was routinely beaten in high school, served for eight years in the Air Force and has enjoyed a wonderful committed relationship for sixteen years - this movie rang totally true.

The kids today have no comprehension of what we suffered and how those who came before us suffered. They can't even being to comprehend that being gay once meant prison, commitment to mental institutions, being outcast, unemployable, and being open to blackmail. Our lives were on the fringe and police abuse and exploitation were the suffrance.

In the 1950's it was routine to have to pay off police - who could arrest you at any time. Vice cops routinely patrolled streets and areas where gays frequented, looking to make an arrest - on the basis of a glance held too long. Usually, the arrests meant severe beatings. The arrests usually mean the loss of a job, losing your apartment and losing your family.

This film does a good job of laying out how underground we had to be in order to survive - being a Friend of Dorothy's meant a hell of alot more, just to survive. It was in many respects our underground railroad.

Our freedoms didn't come because the hostile elements in society gave up. We have them today because every generation made the world a little bit more tolerant. Every generation pushed a little bit harder. Every generation suffered so we would have it better.

For our straight friends, this is a testament to their willingness to help us change the world and to embrace civil rights for all. Above all else, this film is a valentine and a caution to all of us that our current civil rights can be upended and we can return to the world of the 1950's.

A good collection of stories betrayed by bad filmaking
I hate to have to disagree with so many positive reviews, but I really couldn't stand this movie. If Jonathan Taylor Thomas, my personal crush, weren't in it, I'd have shut it off after the first twenty minutes. The script is awful, with scenes lending more to groans than tears, and the whole thing is just awfully trite. There is no strong message, no interesting metaphors, no aesthetically pleasing filmography...it's just a really long, really boring excuse to say "we're here, we're queer, and we're oppressed!"

But if you, like me, enjoy drooling over Jonathan, then just fastforward through the first 45 minutes and you'll be all set. It's awfully frustrating, though, to see him portray a gay character when he's not, declaredly, gay. I can only dream!

Loved it, loved it, loved it.
Great film.

However, I couldn't help but notice what an UGLY OLD HAG Margot Kidder has turned into! YIKES! I could hardly stand to look at her. LMAO

Excellent and Timely
Unforunately, this video is still very relavent today. Contrary to Mr. Diamond's comments - LGBTQ youth are still beaten and murdered today and are four times more likely than their straight peers to commit suicide (Mass. Youth Behavior 2000). I was harassed severely in high school and had to transfer due to physical threats. To say that youth today do not know what it was like is just plain wrong. As an active member of several queer youth organizations trust me, we know and we are grateful. But we have our own issues that maybe you are ignoring Mr. Diamond.

This movie is moving, and hey, JTT IS HOT!

Mark Snyder
20 yrs old.

One of the best
I felt this film was very well made and acted. The stories are powerful and informitive. I would buy it again if I didn't already own it. A fantastic look at the change of acceptance over about 40 years in one small town. Lots of exceptional actors doing exceptional acting. This will entertain and can be used as a learning tool that is tactful and otherwise done in very good taste. ... Read more

Reviews (25)

Stark yet poetic rendering of Williams' last masterpiece
This is arguably the last of Williams' great plays. On Broadway Bette Davis essayed the role given to a gusty, gutsy Ava Gardner in the film- a role Bette Midler would be ripe for today. The day scenes are shot quite starkly, grainily, realistically. The night scenes are shot in a luminous/poetic style. John Huston's direction contrasts these characters' realities with their dreams - the essence of Williams' writing. Burton is excellent as is Gardner, but the finest work is that of Deborah Kerr in her last great performance as Hannah Jelkes, a woman who has put her own life aside to aid her dying grandfather, "the world's oldest living poet," in completing his last opus. Her scenes with Burton and Gardner are exquisite.

Totally Excellent !!
Great play ... Great acting ... Great direction ... although nobody won Oscars. Who cares? John Huston wisely filmed this in stark black and white reflecting its somber tone. Burton gives the performance of lifetime as Shannon at the end of his rope, and Kerr is fantastic, as always, imbuing a tender role with even more humanity. T. Williams' play, one of the best from America's best playwright, has everything. Conflict, strong characterization, wisdom, and of course humor. Some of the coarseness of the play has been excised (Shannon's), thus making him a more sympathetic character, but this does not hurt the movie. Huston sticks pretty much to the actual play, except for the ending, which was not in the play. However, this does not really hurt the film. Anyway, buy this film and enjoy it again and again. Your life will be richer for it.

WAY Behind Schedule
THIS MOVIE IS SO BEAUTIFULLY FILMED IN BLACK AND WHITE, IT LITERALLY CRIES OUT FOR A CRISP, CLEAN, SHARP DVD TRANSFER. LESSER MOVIES ARE ALREADY OUT ON DVD, WHILE THIS ONE SEEMS CONDEMNED TO LANGUISH IN THE ETERNAL MURKINESS OF VHS....A VIEWING EXPERIENCE TANTAMOUNT TO DRINKING DON PERIGNON OUT OF A DIRTY TIN CAN. TSK TSK.
PUT IT OUT ON DVD; IT DESERVES TO BE SHOWCASED IN GORGEOUS QUALITY. WE ARE ALL WAITING!

Where is this LONG OVERDUE DVD???
This is truly one of the most amazing films you will ever see!!!It touches on "The Truth" and something much bigger/more acknowledging than perhaps we as human beings can understand in this lifetime-and does so with a magnificence and grace much more effective than almost anything I have ever seen. Although released in 1964, the messages of tolerance to other people, restoring faith, rising above our own potential self-destructivness, and MOVING ON WITH LIFE couldn't be more poignant for todays audience (perhaps even more striking and PRESCIENT!!). I agree with one previous reviewer- that it is comparable to the emotional depth/intellectual magnitude of a Bergman but perhaps much more easily digestable for a "pop-cultured" American audience-and that is truly unusual if nonexsistnat for an American Hollywood-type film. And Yet all the magic ingredients of A Hollywood Moneymaker are here...BIG STARS: Richard Burton, Ava Gardner, and Deborah Kerr (all of whom in my opinon deserved Oscars for their performances here), DIRECTED BY ONE OF HOLLYWOODS BEST/MOST SOUGHT AFTER DIRECTORS: John Huston BRILLIANT AND SMARTLY WRITTEN BY ONE OF THE BEST AUTHORs/ and POPULAR PLAYWRITES EVER!: Tennessee Williams. Their looks like there will be a 2005 re-release of this film but they NEVER LIVE UP TO THE ORIGINAL and I also agree that with one reviewer who states this is a film that was meant to be seen (and is much stronger) in its original black-and-white. I WILL NOT, (and I repeaat NOT)BUY the 2005 rerelase but I would however, dish out BIG MONEY for the original 1964 release of this film on DVD. This is truly one of the most powerful and worthwhile films you will ever see with performances by all players that are equally as strong!!! SO I REPEAT, WHERE IS THE DVD OF THIS BRILLIANT 1964 GEM??? MGM-PLEASE GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER!!!

A wonderful story. Great acting

Format: Black & White
Studio: Warner Studios
Video Release Date: November 18, 1992

Cast:

Richard Burton ... Rev. Dr. T. Lawrence Shannon
Ava Gardner ... Maxine Faulk
Deborah Kerr ... Hannah Jelkes
Sue Lyon ... Charlotte Goodall
Skip Ward ... Hank Prosner
Grayson Hall ... Judith Fellowes
Cyril Delevanti ... Nonno
Mary Boylan ... Miss Peebles
Fidelmar Durán ... Pepe
Emilio Fernández ... Barkeeper
C.G. Kim ... Chang
Roberto Leyva ... Pedro
Eloise Hardt ... Teacher
Gladys Hill ... Miss Dexter
Barbara Joyce ... Teacher
Billie Matticks ... Miss Throxton
Betty Proctor ... Teacher
Liz Rubey ... Teacher
Bernice Starr ... Teacher
Dorthy Vance ... Teacher
Thelda Victor ... Teacher

If you have failed to see this film, you have missed a good one. Burton plays a defrocked Episcopal priest, Rev. Shannon, who was locked out of his church because of "sins of the flesh."

Taking a job with a tour-bus conductor, billed as "reverend," he runs afoul of a young girl, Charlotte Goodall) (Sue Lyon) who has designs in his skivvies. Her protector, Miss Fellowes (Grayson Hall) has her own designs on young Miss Goodall, and is intent on getting Shannon fired from his "bottom of the barrel" job. Enter beautiful Ava, a widow friend who owns a lush tropical resort hotel.

You will love this film--especially the poetry (Cyril Delevanti).

Joseph (Joe) Pierre

... Read more

Amazon.com

Glenn Close won an Emmy for her portrayal of Margarethe Cammermeyer in this 1995 made-for-television film. An army medical officer in line for a career promotion during the Bush Administration, but suddenly faced discharge proceedings after admitting to being a lesbian, the real-life Cammermeyerbecame a focus of national attention on the issue of gays in the military.This sensitive production focuses on Cammermeyer's decision to fightinstitutional bigotry and the way her family and that of her longtimepartner, Diane Divelbess (Judy Davis, who also won an Emmy), rally to supportthese good people. The script by Alison Cross captures the sad irony of doingeverything right--serving one's country, taking care of the people in one's life--yet still being treated like a pariah for entirely irrational reasons.A bit of dismissible controversy arose about a discreet kiss between theprincipals, but for the most part this film is designed to win over thehearts and minds of a broad audience with its sheer humanity. --Tom Keogh ... Read more

Reviews (10)

A true life story which was long overdue....
Factual content, about an extraordinary military officer and a woman (Margerithe Cammermire), who balanced family and career. A decorated Vietnam Veteran who, (like so many before her), was publically ridiculed, spit on and forced to leave her Army, her longtime career as an officer. Colonel Cammermire was put on "trial" like a common criminal when in fact she had committed no crime other than to love another woman. I liked this movie because it told it like it is, and has been for the past several decades for gay military people. "Serving in Silence", covered a lot of content in just two hours. Gena Davis did a good job as Cammermires friend & lover, but Glen Close carried most of the film all by herself. This was a groundbreaking film and I hope to see many more like it.

P. O'Brien

Honest, touching portrayal of lesbians.
Some of the movies I have seen depicting lesbians are sometimes a little difficult to relate to because being "a lesbian" is completely what the film is about. This story is different where what is unfolded is a story about people. Not just the two women who have a loving relationship with each other, but their families, the support and understanding that their family offers. The fears that are real also are portrayed very honestly; Fears of being rejected, fears of losing everything. Working hard, loving your family, loving your life, really making a difference in people's lives and enjoying your work brings respect and admiration to individuals who have these attributes. This story shows, how none of that matters to the Army and some close-minded folks. The hurt that results from such homophobia made me cry as well as the struggles and triumps. I could do nothing but think of this story for days.

This movie is for everyone. Not just gays and lesbians. Not just for family and friends of gays and lesbians. It is a ground breaking movie with love, honesty, and understanding being the main motivation for characters in this story.

Modern Joan of Ark in B.D.U.'s
I thought this movie was fantastic. It was well made and the story was well told. The acting was great!
I may speak from personal knowledge of the Army's lack of willingness to grow and allow change, even when they are proven wrong. The service is one of the last hiding places for legal discrimination. This movie told the story with good attention to detail and realism. Glen Close did an outstanding job and I was impressed with the supporting cast.
If you want to know the truth or just enjoy a great movie buy this video.

What happens when you come out?
A dose of reality. She is booted out of the army after faithfully discharging every duty ever given her and just because she tells the truth about her feelings, even though at the time she is still married to a man, she gets court marshalled. Margarette should serve as both an warning and an inspiration to all of us. Oh yeah, she does get the girl in the end.

Conduct Unbecoming... not
It is to the US Military's everlasting shame that they saw fit to persecute and expel a true decorated American war hero. War hero? Well what would you call an Army Nurse (24th Evac., Long Binh) who worked tirelessly to save the lives of teenage soldiers in an insanely busy surgical unit, where the word "Incoming" could mean more than the next influx of wounded.

The movie understatedly captures how Cammermeyer (Bronze Star)and her nursing staff, and their Red Cross sisters (the Red Cross women still have no Vet status) risked their lives on a daily basis, never knowing when the next mortar round or 122mm rocket would slam into their Evac hospitals or MUSTs, or as with the 6th Convalescent Center at Cam Ranh Bay, when the VC sappers might attack directly.

As a reality check, the first member of the Army Nurse Corps to be killed by direct enemy action was 1 / L Sharon Ann Lane, who died when a Russsian-made 8 inch diameter rocket struck Ward 4 of the 312th Evac at Chu Lai.

8 Army Nurses died in Vietnam.

That a true blue American woman, like Cammermeyer, who had given so much to so many should be driven out of the service that she loved because of something so pathetic as her orientation is perhaps the greatest indictment of a system that is full of double standards.

Close and Davis were simply magnificent, and the only way in which this movie goes out to shock is by accurately telling this true tale of unimaginable injustice. The only obscenity lay in the outcome of the hearings.

There have always been (...) in the military. Always. And there always will be. I was not one of them. I just don't like it when the bad guys win.

There's a special place in Heaven for the women who served in Nam. All 15,000 of them. Vets every one.

Courage knows no race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.

Col. Cammermeyer is presently researching a Don't Ask, Don't Tell project. Best of luck ma'am. ... Read more

Amazon.com essential video

Blake Edwards's delightful Victor/Victoria may be one of the last of the great, old-style movie musical comedies--it is so good, it was turned into a hit Broadway stage musical years later. And both versions starred Edwards's wife Julie Andrews (the former Mary Poppins) in the title role--as Victor and Victoria. She's a down-and-out singer who hooks up with a flamboyantly gay theatrical veteran (Robert Preston), and together they become the toast of 1934 Paris by dreaming up a provocative nightclub act in which Victoria assumes the identity of a man in drag. So, in other words, Andrews plays a woman playing a man playing a woman ... and that's only the beginning of the sexual identity confusions that provide the fuel for this splendidly classy slapstick musical farce. (Yes, it's all those things.) James Garner, as a Chicago club owner, finds himself strangely besotted with this stylish, androgynous creature--even though he thinks Victor/Victoria is a man. Legendary Hollywood composer Henry Mancini (a longtime collaborator with Edwards) won his last Oscar for the score; Andrews, Preston, and Lesley Ann Warren, as Garner's cheeky girlfriend, were also nominated. Musical highlights include Victor/Victoria's sizzling "Le Jazz Hot" (in which Andrews shows off her incredible vocal range); another showstopper for Victor/Victoria, "The Shady Dame from Seville"; Preston's witty ode to "Gay Paree"; Warren's hilarious burlesque number, "King's Can-Can"; and a charmingly casual yet elegant side-by-side number, "You and Me," done in a small club by Preston and Andrews in tuxedos. --Jim Emerson ... Read more

Reviews (75)

Sheer delight
For my money this is Blake Edwards' most enjoyable movie. I've viewed it perhaps a dozen times, and its combination of a peerless cast, fine songs, supremely witty script and sure-footed direction make this a real gem that I will never tire of watching.

Robert Preston (in a role originally intended for Peter Sellers) practically steals the show as Toddy, a gay nightclub perfomer in 1930s Paris. Preston's vitality and charisma ma