... in McConaughey's otherwise perfect appearance. He looks exactly like his part - both redneck-wise (moustache, hat, clothing etc.) and HIV-wise (scrawny, pale, blood-shot eyes etc.).
But then there are his shiny white Hollywood teeth. Come on, folks, a rodeo cowboy from Texas wouldn't have those. They would be yellowish or at least less white than they are.
This is major nitpicking, I know, but I just think it would have been so easy to avoid.
Ha ha that was something that bothered me too !!
shareYour point is a good example (one of SEVERAL) of the little things this movie failed on.
McConaughey, due to his committment to such drastic weight loss, was so sure of an Oscar win that he and the director missed this detail.
It's truly a travesty that this movie, it's script, it's director, McConaughey, and Leto were lauded as much as they were.
They deserved the praise. It was a good movie. Leto and McConaughey are excellent actors.
Not knocking your response to my post. Like you, I believe everyone's entitled to their own opinion. If you'll note, I didn't criticize McConaughey's nor Leto's acting abilities. They are perhaps fine actors.
I do find fault however with their choice to have been a part of this movie. And I definitely question McConaughey's motives. Our opinions differ greatly on what a good movie it was.
I can't praise a movie that was so disrespectful to history, the early days in the fight of AIDS, and to a real man's actual character.
Can you elaborate on how it was disrespectful to history, the early days in the fight of AIDS, and a real man's actual character? I'm not trolling, trying to start an argument, or anything like that. I'm genuinely interested in what you meant by this. I love a good movie discussion. Also, unlike most people, I can have a civil, intelligent discussion even when I disagree with the person.
Sure. I've expressed this at greater length here in other posts so you might want to reference some of that if I'm too brief. But to sum it up, this movie was marketed as "inspired by true events" and is categorized as a biography.
The movie takes far too much license with the truth in order for it to claim both those descriptions. You can research numerous online sources to verify.
There were only three principal characters in the film, two of whom were entirely fictitious and the other (the only real one, Ron) was completely maligned. Ron's real-life doctor was a man. Ron was not homophobic, a woman-chaser, a bullrider, nor a complete heterosexual.
The real inspiration for the film was a very colorful article "Buying Time" which appeared in a supplement of The Dallas Morning News back in '92 shortly after the real Ron Woodroof died. The author of the article, Bill Minutaglio admits that he questioned many of Ron's claims, including his sexuality, and has gone on record as having said that he detected no homophobia from Ron.
Aside from containing very little truth, and maligning a man's true character and nature, the movie is disrespectful to the stories behind the real buyer's clubs during that emotionally and politically charged time. The buyer's club here in Dallas was not the only one nor the first one of it's kind. They were ALL started by desperate, scared to death, yet very brave gay men.
Thank you for that and I'll be sure to go read your prior comments. I did know that Ron was the only real character, I mean other than he obviously had a doctor. I knew Rayon wasn't real. Too bad because I just loved Rayon! ;) Now I did not know they portrayed Ron that inaccurately. I figured they took some license with him. I mean even movies that say "based on a true story" never tell the stories completely accurate. Hollywood always spices things up. So I wasn't naive about it when I watched this movie but I had no idea they took THAT much license! Interesting. Very interesting.
In case you or anyone else is interested, there is a really good documentary called We Were Here about the early days of AIDS. They interview 4 different people and they tell what it was like during that time period. Very informative and powerful documentary but also heartbreaking. I was around during the early days of AIDS and I remember it being talked about on the news. I believe I was in 7th or 8th grade. Everyone was scared to death. At the time this thing looked like it really was going to wipe us all off the face of the earth. It was scary stuff.
latebar:
I'd also recommend another documentary which is a good companion piece to the sad and contemplative WE WERE HERE---it's called HOW TO SURVIVE A PLAGUE,which is about the members of ACT UP, a group of hell-raising activists (some of them AIDS patients themselves) who spent years hollering at the government to actually do something about AIDS and to make some cures available for it, instead of ignoring it like Reagan basically did for some time. I came of age during that time, and recall hearing about them and seeing them show up and protest when Dan Rather was doing a news story on the Today Show or something like that. Both are excelelnt doc,though.
Yeah, those teeth lol... he was channeling Robin Gibb in some parts 😁
--------------------
Duty Now For The Future
There is a clause in his contract that states his teeth can't be altered, and there must be at least ONE scene with his shirt off.