Dallas Buyers Club

Miguel_Sanchez

tunguska wrote: »

Yeah that was it. I kind of got glimpses of what was going on but didnt get the to see the full scene.

It was done very nicely, very brief but showed him remembering and realising what he'd done.

gucci

lukin wrote: »

Yes but nobody said to him at the start "Jeez you got so skinny, what happened to you?" so the viewer was led to believe he was like that all the time and the weight loss was not due to his illness.
A minor gripe, it was still a good movie.

Yes, but he was also a mans man, an all american texas hard nut, hustling , gambling,chewing tobbacco, figiting, hard drinking and doing drugs and doing hard labour, living alone in a trailer park. So he was probably never too healthy anyway?I couldnt have pictured him as a guy carrying any weight anyway!
And which one of his "friends" were gonna ask him that?For me, if someone asked him that, it wouldnt have really fitted with the over all movie feeling.

mrsdewinter

Boulevardier wrote: »

Excellently acted, particularly by Mc Conaughey.

However, it drags a bit towards the end and there is at least one anachronism - I'm pretty sure the word homophobic (used here in the supermarket scene) did not exist in the 1980s.

Actually I wondered about the use of some other modern phrase - something like, 'I hear you', something I never heard before about 1997.

johnny_ultimate

Was so-so about this. Impeccably acted by McConaughey (can't recall such a radical career renaissance) and the tale hits on some interesting themes and contexts - it's fascinating to see how AIDs and HIV victims were so misunderstood and even ridiculed, not too long ago. But as a film it's pretty conventional biopic affair, whizzing through a lot of time and events at the detriment of characters and pace (think Leto was particularly left behind at times, to the film's determent). The last half hour especially felt strangely unsatisfying, lacking strong thematic or character resolutions and instead rushing through a few haphazard epilogues. Nothing particularly memorable about the way Valleé puts it altogether, either.

I think much of it is interesting just because the story itself is quite dramatically potent, with the film itself lacking in many respects. What isn't lacking is McConaughey's screen presence, however, and he ensures Woodroof comes across as a complex - sometimes endearing, sometimes unlikeable - individual forced into extraordinary cirumstances.

Baze

I would agree with all your points there johnny, but only to a degree, as I still feel it an excellent film in spite of the issues you raised. Seen it a second time now and liked it more on that second viewing than the first but I did too feel frustrated that they hadn't taken more time to dot their Is and cross their Ts, so to speak, as if they had, this could so easily have been a masterpiece.

It's such a likable film though, that I think you are almost willing for it to be all that it could be as you watch it, or at least that's how I felt watching it and when it doesn't, and you feel an imperfection here or there, or notice a flaw, you almost want to pretend not to notice it and just hope the next scene picks it all back up and puts it right back on track.. which at times happens, but at others, yeah sure, it's not to be and yes, it does feel a touch haphazard as a result.

The fact though, that it was all shot in 25 days, with hardly any rehearsals, or even read throughs, makes me forgive it and them, for that. Might be generous to excuse all that you highlight, on those factors, but from what I've read since seeing the film and the interviews I've watched of the director and McConaughey (who produced it also) it does seem that this really was a small window they had to shoot it and get it made and I'm just amazed they got anything even close to what they did considering that. If you haven't seen much of the those interviews, they are well worth watching as they really do paint a picture of how close we came to never seeing this film being made at all.

Just also watched the following 'behind the scenes' clips which I found very interesting and thought worth posting.

Hard to believe it was all shot using only one camera.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rk30VmNuRI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTrOuO4SLOA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRko6ZjVsDQ

AnonoBoy

Baze wrote: »

Hard to believe it was all shot using only one camera.

Not too surprised by that. Two cameras can help speed up shooting in certain scenes but it can be a hinderance too - limits lighting possibilites, makes booming trickier etc.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Was so-so about this. Impeccably acted by McConaughey (can't recall such a radical career renaissance) and the tale hits on some interesting themes and contexts - it's fascinating to see how AIDs and HIV victims were so misunderstood and even ridiculed, not too long ago. But as a film it's pretty conventional biopic affair, whizzing through a lot of time and events at the detriment of characters and pace (think Leto was particularly left behind at times, to the film's determent). The last half hour especially felt strangely unsatisfying, lacking strong thematic or character resolutions and instead rushing through a few haphazard epilogues. Nothing particularly memorable about the way Valleé puts it altogether, either.

McConnaissance :pac:

Baze

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Not too surprised by that. Two cameras can help speed up shooting in certain scenes but it can be a hinderance too - limits lighting possibilites, makes booming trickier etc.

Meant 'hard to believe' in that it doesn't seem that way having watched it.

Sure, it saves time in one way, but it also means having to shoot some scenes multiple times, from multiple angles. Having at least two cameras means you have the possibility of getting a multiple shot scene captured naturally, but with only one camera, that can't happen.

Take the restaurant scene for example. That would have to have been shot from at least two directions and so, what we saw in the film can not have been captured 'as it happened', it would have had to have been edited together from at least two different takes.

Which of course happens all the time, just meant that I wouldn't have thought that method was used in this film based on the fact that many of scenes that would have required multiple shots being spliced, didn't appear to be so and that they only had 25 days to shoot it all and so assumed that they would have used at least two cameras for that reason alone, if nothing else.

Choccie Lover

Corholio wrote: »

I agree with this, while certainly not faulting his performance it's definitely not out of this world great. Leto has always had a sort of feminine look, as weird as that is to say, so it didn't take a whole lot to get that look IMO. Not faulting his performance, but like you say, a bit over rated.

Yeah, have to agree with you on that point about Leto. That was exactly how I felt.

Mc Connaughey, on the other hand, was exceptional...... I've only ever seen him in rom-coms, so this was a real surprise!!!

Irish Aris

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Was so-so about this. Impeccably acted by McConaughey (can't recall such a radical career renaissance) and the tale hits on some interesting themes and contexts - it's fascinating to see how AIDs and HIV victims were so misunderstood and even ridiculed, not too long ago. But as a film it's pretty conventional biopic affair, whizzing through a lot of time and events at the detriment of characters and pace (think Leto was particularly left behind at times, to the film's determent). The last half hour especially felt strangely unsatisfying, lacking strong thematic or character resolutions and instead rushing through a few haphazard epilogues. Nothing particularly memorable about the way Valleé puts it altogether, either.

I think much of it is interesting just because the story itself is quite dramatically potent, with the film itself lacking in many respects. What isn't lacking is McConaughey's screen presence, however, and he ensures Woodroof comes across as a complex - sometimes endearing, sometimes unlikeable - individual forced into extraordinary cirumstances.

Thank you Johnny, you described my feeling perfectly. It felt rushed towards the end, things happening too fast with no apparent connection.
I found the film quite interesting. Ron Woodroof came across as a mixed bag of a person-sleezy, a bit unlikeable in the beginning, but more human on the second part of the film.
McConaughey and Leto are the biggest assets of the film. I found Leto's portrayal of Rayon very natural. As for McConaughey, I agree with Johnny's comment above.

Evan DietrichSmith

MagicMarker wrote: »

Jared Leto is a shoe in for best supporting imo, he completely steals it.

Lads lads lads....no offence ..but please.....it's shoo in.

Like if the cat is about to chew on your best steak.. shoo cat, shoo !

Unbelievable that this stuff is still going on.

Charlie19

Evan DietrichSmith wrote: »

Lads lads lads....no offence ..but please.....it's shoo in.

Like if the cat is about to chew on your best steak.. shoo cat, shoo !

Unbelievable that this stuff is still going on.

Have you any thoughts on the movie?

Evan DietrichSmith

Charlie19 wrote: »

Have you any thoughts on the movie?

Yes. Great movie, loved it.

hfallada

If you read some of the articles on the huffingtonpost they were very selective of the information of Woodroof

Seedy Arling

Really liked this movie. Found McConnaheyhey to be charming and sad. The bit where he

broke down in the car and was contemplating suicide was really rough. It was fairly fcuking hopeless and dark.

quarryman

hfallada wrote: »

If you read some of the articles on the huffingtonpost they were very selective of the information of Woodroof

Can you elaborate?

Da Shins Kelly

Finally got around to watching this. I was a bit 'meh' about it overall too. It's a compelling story, and a very sad one, but I didn't find it all that amazing as a film. As others were saying, the pacing felt off - racing through events and time at a frantic pace - particularly towards the end after

Rayon's death

. I didn't find it particularly striking or memorable visually either.

However, Matthew McConaughey is fantastic in the lead role. It's a complex, multi-layered character that manages to be repulsive and thoroughly dislikable one minute, and completely admirable and sympathetic the next, and McConaughey really brings it to life.

Jared Leto does well in his role, and it's a very showy role, but I wasn't blown away by it like everyone else has been. I found the character to be a bit of a cypher really.

candy-gal1

Have seen this twice, and tbh I felt it took the second watch to really get into it, thats where it will leave you feeling very angry and pissed off which can be a good thing for a movie like this.

Jared Leto is completely perfection in this though, amazing performance!

WayneScott

quarryman wrote: »

Can you elaborate?

it is not very accurate re Woodroof. People who knew him said in reality he was not a gay hater and was said to be bisexual. He was not as rough/aggressive either. The doctor characetr is also a composite and the infoe re AZT is not completely accurate

AnonoBoy

WayneScott wrote: »

it is not very accurate re Woodroof. People who knew him said in reality he was not a gay hater and was said to be bisexual.

But from a story telling point of view it's more satisfying to watch a man learn the error of his ways as he battles against a terminal disease.

You gotta have a character arc.

AnonoBoy

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Jared Leto is completely perfection in this though, amazing performance!

He's come in for a lot of flak from the trans community for his portrayal of Rayon though.

WayneScott

AnonoBoy wrote: »

But from a story telling point of view it's more satisfying to watch a man learn the error of his ways as he battles against a terminal disease.

You gotta have a character arc.

i was just explaining to quarryman
who asked hfallada to elaborate. the real Woodroof was not like that

WayneScott

krudler wrote: »

McConnaissance :pac:

McConaugheyGate

AnonoBoy

WayneScott wrote: »

i was just explaining to quarryman
who asked hfallada to elaborate. the real Woodroof was not like that

Oh yeah I know that alright. Just explaining why they'd have made the changes for the script.

WayneScott

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh yeah I know that alright. Just explaining why they'd have made the changes for the script.

i know why they'd have made the changes for the script

candy-gal1

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He's come in for a lot of flak from the trans community for his portrayal of Rayon though.

Wow, really?! Im very surprised by that as I thought he did a great job as transgender tbh, and didnt seem OTT or too crowdpleasing

Links234

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Wow, really?! Im very surprised by that as I thought he did a great job as transgender tbh, and didnt seem OTT or too crowdpleasing

It's true, some trans people are quite annoyed about his performance and are pretty vocal about it, and that's for two reasons. First being that a lot of people felt that the character was just a complete stereotype, and not having seen the movie myself yet (been itching to, but haven't been able to afford the cinema lately), so I can't comment about that. The other reason being that an actual trans person wasn't cast in the role.

The thing you have to understand is, in both of these criticisms, it's not about Jared Leto.

These are general criticisms that always come up whenever someone who isn't trans gets cast as a trans character. It was the same when Chloe Sevigny was cast in the show Hit & Miss, I actually know trans women who auditioned for that role, so it wasn't that they couldn't find anyone. I actually think Chloe Sevigny is fantastic in that show, even if some of it is a bit stereotypical and there's some downright surreal moments, it was great. But there are some really terrific trans people acting today, Harmony Santana or Laverne Cox just for example... the problem an awful lot of people have is that trans actors don't get cast in regular roles, and when trans roles come up, don't get cast in those either. Think about it, how often do you see a trans person playing a trans character in movies or TV? Orange is the new Black is one of the very, very few examples.

So you have to understand, this isn't anything new, or really anything specifically about Jared Leto. This is an old argument that's been going on for ages, it just seems like Leto's the focus of it because this is the latest example, and the popularity of the film if giving the criticism more exposure than before. But it's just a general criticism.

Hope that helps you understand why some trans people are miffed!

Da Shins Kelly

I find it kind of odd that they didn't get a trans person to play the role too. I'm sure there were plenty of capable trans people who could have done it.

AnonoBoy

WayneScott wrote: »

i know why they'd have made the changes for the script

Ah fair play to you. Good man. Well done.

Gamb!t

It was a good watch but I dont think it is a movie I will watch a few times.
McConaughey was brilliant in it.