The acting in this film was very good, both by McConaughey and Leto. But, I can't say that it pulled up any trees! What exactly impressed people? Physical transformation? Playing against 'type'?
The film wasn't gripping - far from it. I nearly packed in watching. It was 'worthy' source material but, somewhat boring.
I'm curious. What do you mean by 'worthy source material'? And are you referring simply to the acting or the film as a whole?
shareThe film attacked problems faced by American people needing healthcare, held to ransom by large pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. Bodies which were not wholly independent. Some would question whether that has changed! It revealed that some people did not have access to medical care, even though it was not the best, because they had fallen through the cracks!
It questions the antipathetic attitude towards gay people - men in particular - in American society, both yesteryear and today.
The source material is dynamite! The acting was very good. The film is a damp squib.
Yes, the chasm that's created between the free-market and regulation is something that the American health care system is still grappling with today.
I find it unimaginable that people are unaware that some don't have access to medical care. Saluting DBC for revealing that is giving the filmmakers far too much credit.
They've been quoted as having said that they were not trying to make a political statement with this film. I find that disingenuine.
The entire idea and scope of DBC is based upon a colorfully written article by Bill Minutaglio which appeared in a supplement to the Dallas Morning News back in 1992. (A matter of legal record in the life of the real Ron Woodroof)--the verdict and outcome of a court case--depicted within the movie allows the filmmakers their "inspired by true events" marketing angle.
Perhaps the film does "question the antipathetic attitude toward gay people-men in particular", but presenting a fictionalized version of the real Ron usurps whatever ground is gained.
DBC was purely a star-vehicle designed to produce McConaughey and Leto Oscars. Aside from their weight loss, there was nothing noteworthy in either of their performances. McConaughey is already an obnoxiously pretentious Texan. Playing one on scene can't be much of a "stretch".
The fictional character of Rayon, played by Leto, was just another tried-n-true Hollywood stereotype. Leto's performance (either hampered by ability or direction) lacked depth and authenticity.
The acting was very good. But I can't, for the life of me, understand why Leto got an Oscar. Daniel Bruhl should have got it for Rush. However, he was overlooked by Bafta and Barkhad Abdi got the gong.
McConaughey got the Oscar because of weight-loss/physical transformation/'worthiness' of the film.
I don't know what the 'real Ron Woodroof' was like. Because, this film didn't interest me enough to find out. '12 Years a Slave' inspired me to investigate Solomon Northup.
Neither MM nor JL were as impressive as Daniel Brühl in Rush! But they were good. Leto did a good job portraying the same character in different roles like the son when faced with his father. He was also very real and touching when he was about to die. Daniel Brühl definitely deserves MM and JL's Oscars, but in general they were both Oscar worthy. Like, look at 10 Oscar performances at random and tell me Jared Leto was the worst.
shareYou shouldn't get an Oscar for 'not being the worst'! Ha ha ha!
He didn't pull up any trees, as far as I'm concerned. But, that's just my opinion; that's what I'm voicing.
I didnt read all your stuff, mainly the title calling it "snorefest". I am a guy who loves scifi, horror, and action adventure. Something has to be exploding or guns shooting to keep my attention. This was on the other night and I watche it begining to end and I found it to be a very very good movie. Thats just me though.
shareI was constantly distracted by how McConnaugnhey looked. His weight loss was like another character in the film!
Also, the movie was way too long. We could have seen fewer airplanes taking off and landing and shortened it by a good 30 minutes. Never mind the drug use and gratuitous sex scenes that went on too long. We got it already; he had lots of wild and unprotected sex, did drugs, went to strip joints, and threw his money around. He was a reckless man. Contracting AIDS, finding a way to make money from it, and befriending a transgender man and a woman doctor didn't make him a hero.
I didn't care for this movie at all. It was very boring. I thought only Leto's performance was somewhat worthy of an Oscar. McConnaughy's performance, in my opinion, was highly overrated. I really don't think he deserved the Oscar when you look at who else he was up against last year.
shareI fell asleep watching it. He just kept buying and selling drugs - the story stagnated and went nowhere.
shareYes, because it was a thin script, primarily brought to screen by the greed for recognition and acclaim by Matthew McConaughey. It's based solely upon the skewed characterization of the real Ron Woodroof and scope of events portrayed within a colorfully written article that appeared within a periodical of the Dallas Morning News back in 1992.
share[deleted]
I almost fell asleep watching this fairly boring movie, but I managed to bail out before that point.
share[deleted]