Hellen I like the storyline of this show,it attract me so much

2hotFeature one of my absolute favorites!

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Gideon24 The Boys in the Band was the ground breaking 1970 film, based on Mart Crowley's play that was probably the first mainstream theatrical film in which most of the characters are homosexual. Despite some extremely dated elements, this film was important in that it did not present all gay characters as flouncing fairies, though that stereotype is definitely represented here. What this film does do is present homosexuals in all shapes, sizes, colors, and degrees of masculinity.The film takes place during a birthday party thrown by Michael (Kenneth Nelson) for his friend Harold (Leonard Frey) with a short guest list which includes Michael's best friend Donald (Frederick Combs), a former trick with whom Michael eventually became BFF's. Hank (Laurence Luckinbill) and Larry (Keith Prentice) are in a committed relationship, though Hank seems a little more committed than Larry. Cliff Gorman is hysterically funny as the flouncing fairy Emory and Rueben Greene plays his gal pal Bernard, the only non-Caucasian party guest. Things get sticky when an old friend of Michael's from college named Alan (Peter White) shows up unexpectedly, who may or may not be gay and may or may not know about Michael and may or may not be attracted to Hank. Michael also initiates a vicious party game that turns really ugly and brings some long bubbling resentments to the surface.William Friedkin's masterful and in-your-face direction is a big plus here and the performances are uniformly first-rate down the line. Sadly, several of the actors in this film, who were gay in real life, are no longer with us, a sort of underlying message that the film still seems to send today. I also liked the fact that this film, like 1982's Making Love, addressed the fact that being married has nothing to do with sexual orientation. We learn that Hank was married and left his wife to be with Larry and Alan's confusion about it is kind of aggravating.If you have an open mind and looking for something a little different that has a significant spot in cinematic history, check this one out.

Dalbert Pringle If The Boys In The Band (TBITB, for short) was really supposed to be an accurate depiction of what happens at a party consisting of only gay men, then it sure looked to me like these unhappy campers didn't know how to have a good time (sober or drunk) when they were in each other's company. They really didn't.From hurling vicious insults, to hateful bitching & bickering, to basking in self-pity, to shoving each other around, to deep-rooted resentment & bitterness - Believe me, TBITB did not paint itself a pretty picture.Below are several quotes taken directly from this decidedly sordid homosexual soap opera. If these sorts of comments appeal to you, then, perhaps, TBITB will, indeed, entertain you to pieces - If not - Then you can always choose another movie to watch."There's nothing more boring than a queen doing a Judy Garland impersonation.""Who would want to be a flaming, little sissy like you?""Show me a happy homosexual and I'll show you a gay corpse.""Just the same, old, tired fairies.""You remind me of an old maid, school teacher."(Get the picture?)*Note* - This sort of chit-chat went on and on and on, non-stop, throughout the entire course of the story.Personally, I believe that if director William Friedkin (who 3 years later directed The Exorcist) had thrown a few lesbians into the mix at Harold's birthday party, then that, I'm sure, would've helped heaps to alleviate some of the brutal pettiness and irksome monotony that prevailed from TBITB's swishy beginning to its trite and tearful finale.

CitizenCaine Like Harold Pinter's The Birthday Party, director William Friedkin brought another controversial adaptation to the screen with Mart Crowley's seething gay drama: The Boys In The Band. Ironically, The Boys In The Band also uses the facade of a birthday party as a catalyst to comment on its themes. This film comments on contemporary gay life. Actors from the original cast of the stage play recreated their roles for the big screen. The cast is uniformly excellent, but I suppose it might depend on one's impression of gay men. The characters ultimately turn on each other in a way that suggests they're only treating each other in the way society treats them.At least three members of the cast appear to be gay stereotypes: Michael, the pathetic lead character (played by Kenneth Nelson), Larry (played by Keith Prentice), and Emory (played by Cliff Gorman). Some critics may argue that Kenneth Nelson as the self-loathing Michael, Cliff Gorman as the flamboyant flaming Emory, and Leonard Frey as the verbally aggressive Harold are all over-the-top. Ultimately, none of the characters is even remotely appealing as a person, especially the repugnant Leonard Frey as the guest of honor, Harold.That being said, Crowley's scathing dialog is the highlight of the film, drawing each of the distinctive characteristics out of the actors while continuously moving the story forward. Friedkin films nearly the entire film on a single stage set inside Michael's loft. The claustrophobic set works well with the theme of gay men feeling trapped in a society that disallows them to function as accepted members as well as feeling trapped amongst each other at Michael's place. Friedkin pulls the camera in and out and changes his focus on each of the characters in a well-paced manner, and the film never seems as long as its nearly two hour running time. Perhaps it was just enough to get Mart Crowley's play on film at the time, but without the great script, the film would surely have degenerated into a laughable fag-fest of stereotypes that would have seemed even more dated now than some of them do. Crowley attempted to present the various types of gay men in his circle at the time, and several viewers commented these types, while stereotyped at times, are not so far from the truth today still. This is rather unfortunate.The last half of the film imitates the merciless "truth game" scenario of Who's Afraid Of Virginia Woolf? When the guests partake of an unrelenting exercise in disgrace and humiliation orchestrated by Michael the host, Michael's catharsis fails to provoke empathy or sympathy, making him a tragic figure. Obviously, it's not a film for all tastes, but it's a worthwhile film about subject matter nearly impossible to film in a meaningful way at the time. ***1/2 of 4 stars.

TheLurkingFox I've just seen the movie for the first time ever (I'm a 20 year-old student) and, as a young gay man who's also very interested in gay movies and gay history, I thought it was extremely interesting. This is a personal analysis of three aspects of the movie - it is not a summary or a complete review. I think that this movie has been vilified without much reason. Yes it shows self-hatred, but only to denounce it. I think that the way it was reviled in the post-Stonewall era is a sign that the movie hit too close to home for many at the time (which is understandable). No one likes to have their own flaws reflected to them too clearly - an issue the play also addresses... For me it was also a matter of saying "this is what you are - change it", which was taken as provocation in the gay liberation movement of afterward. It is, after all, the point of much of the cruel exchanges between Michael and Harold: Telling the horrible, cruel truth to make the other one react. For me, in context - and I strongly advise to read the wonderful "Celluloid Closet" by Vito Russo (or at least see the filmed version that was made) - it *is* indeed a breakthrough movie. It shows a bunch of gay men, who are friends. Gone is the vision of the lonely closeted suicidal queer. Maybe these people are not totally happy, maybe they drink too much, maybe they snap at each other, maybe they're not automatically out and proud but they're not alone. They have friends that stay with them through the hardships, friends that forgive and forget, and they have a sense of community. I'm 20, living and 2008, and still this is something that I can identify with. 40 years after, this is something of the gay community that has survived. And that this film shows it is immensely important. Another terribly interesting topic that has to do with gay life and is both contextual and still relevant today is the relation with the straight world. The straight world, that does not always understand the gay world (the taxi driver, the deliverer) and even scorns it (Alan, the woman on the street). To me, the way Michael immediately goes back in the closet when Alan comes is extremely important. He respects this "very close total stranger" more than his friends at first - he's more concerned with the straight man's comfort level than his friends'. But when Alan disses them, (concerning Emory mostly) Michael defends them. He is still ashamed, but he is adult enough and self-accepting enough not to pretend anymore. This relation of the gay world to the straight world is still a riddle for us in 2008 - how to behave "outside", who to tell, who to hide from, how to handle these colliding worlds, the private from the public, and so on? The question is not dated, and the answer of the play isn't either. The final topic that I want to talk about is the friendship theme. As I've said, there is this group of friends. But more precisely, there is an important triangle: Harold/Michael/Donald. Are they simply friends? Were they lovers? Are they still f**k buddies? Who are they, who were they, who do they hope to be? I do not subscribe to the idea of a love/hate relationship between Michael and Harold. For me, they do not hate each other. They love each other (Michael organizes the party, gets a personal gift... the glances etc.). But Harold becomes harsher with Michael when the latter begins to drink and becomes hostile. It is a way of keeping him in control, and still not wanting to spoil the party. Harold would have been very mean, he isn't, he plays it cool. Michael becomes drunker and drunker and meaner and meaner. But, after all is said and done, Harold lets Michael know that he will still be there in the morning. Donald on the other side is the archetype of the ex-lover/best friend/ future boyfriend(?). It is very common in the gay world to have for best friend an ex-lover, an old flame or an ex- boyfriend (sometimes of a long-term relationship). Gay friendships are often sexually ambiguous - such is Donald and Michael's. Everyone thinks they're lovers, Michael makes sure that Donald feels "settled" and that the Saturday night thing is a fixture (the toothbrush, the question in the end). And Donald is the only one other than Harold that Michael doesn't touch during the telephone game, and the only one he doesn't harm and doesn't attack during the night. They share an intimate relationship, and Donald plays the support role for Michael, without being judging like Harold. And he is there in the end, non-judgmental, still committed. In conclusion, yes this film is cruel, yes it may be disturbing, but it is also witty, hilarious and, for me, full of hope. It is a strikingly real portrayal of gay relationships, of the gay family, and even some things have changed (the self-hatred, mostly), it is incredibly modern in the issues it deals with (coming out, the straight world, friendship, the community, homophobia...). It is a must-see for any gay person.