Reviews on movie The Normal Heart (37)

God, why me again? Why again do I have the dubious privilege of telling kids that Santa Claus doesn't exist? Why should I be the first to say again that one should not look for deep meaning where no one has put it?
So... Before writing my review, I read a number of others as usual. The range of reviewers' emotions ranged from "admiration" to "depression" to "disgust."
In my case, everything was much more trivial: frequent glances at the clock were replaced, from time to time, by a nervous smile, that’s all. And now everything in order.

I do not understand why this craft still does not have a single negative review, just as I do not understand such a stormy flow of feelings.
In the synopsis of the film stated two important problems for today’s society: homophobia and AIDS. The problems are certainly serious and need to be discussed. Discussions... But not speculation.

“Ordinary Heart” is a speculation on burning, and for many painful, topics in its pure form. By the way, none of these topics is not covered by the film.

There are many problems with this film, and the first of them is the script.
The main motive for creating this craft was, in my opinion, banal conceit. I didn't see anything else in two hours of timekeeping. There will be no subtle psychology, no philosophical reflections, no deep-rooted dialogues.

What will happen?
And there will be tantrums with snot, tears and muzzle, savoring gay orgies, pathetic speeches, the aforementioned self-admiration and the offer to move with a fit on one knee.
The second problem stems from the first, cardboard, non-living characters. No one can sympathize with them. How can I feel compassion for a man who buried a loved one a month ago, and now he has a new passion and again the crazy love of his life?
How can I be inspired by the deep feeling that overwhelms the heroes after the first date? And literally out of nowhere grows another love for centuries. Where is the development of heroes, where are their motives, where is the elaboration of images and so on?
Well, it's not like that. Look at the "Lonely Man" thing.

And here’s another point I would like to clarify... there are many openly gay people among the creators and actors of the film. I would like to ask them: gentlemen, if you, after reading the script, decided to take part in this craft, then the ideas expressed in the film are close to you? So you share the view expressed by Mr. Parsons that if you don't communicate with everything that moves, you shouldn't live? Do you also believe that you are holy martyrs and are enemies, “the rest of the normal world,” to quote Ruffalo?
If that’s the case, I’m really sorry for you. You have more problems than AIDS.

You ask... yes, you demand respect and tolerance for your choices, but respect and tolerance are good when they are on both sides. Have you ever thought of such a thing?

And the statement that the second world won the gay, just above all praise.
Yes, Turing made an invaluable contribution to the approach of victory, but still he worked as part of a group of scientists, and to say that he won the war ... well, to put it mildly, boldly, to say the least.
Mr. Murphy, at least open up Wikipedia.

Finally, a few words about acting. Someone found her in this craft, too. So, she is not in the film, except for the stupid and openly vulgar curves of Ruffalo with all these stereotypical clichéd gay sneers and Roberts with a stone face screaming about a new form of cancer.
P.S. No, I'm not a militant homophobe, as some might think. My best friend, the man I knew from high school, was gay. Ten years ago, he died in a car accident, and I'm crazy... crazy... he's missing. I have never met anyone more sensitive and responsive in my life. And to list all the great people from the world of science and art, which I admire, it will take a very long time.
I just do not think that the problems of life and death, AIDS and homophobia should be spoken in this way: hysterical, it went with pathos.
Much more worthy work has been done on each of these topics.

If you're looking for AIDS and discrimination, "Philadelphia."
If you want to see the first awareness of your choice and acceptance of yourself – the North Sea. Texas.
If you are interested in the problems of society’s attitude to gays – Serbian “Parade” or “Imitation Game”.
About the last film I want to say separately: gentlemen, admire, please, give it time. There, in a short five-minute episode in which a brilliant mathematician, treated with tranquilizers to the state of a vegetable, can not even scrawl a word with a pencil on a piece of paper, psychologicalism and personal tragedy much more than in this two-hour craftsmanship.

You know, we can spend a long time talking about AIDS, saying that it is a disease of homosexuals and “disliked” our society. The same film perfectly shows the disease itself in general, and how it is “experienced” by patients. No one can understand what these hundreds of millions of people around the world are feeling, what they breathe and how they live. And it's terrible. What about their loved ones? How they can see young children, loved ones and loved ones dying on their hands. The film captures not only these moments, but also how the government ignored the disease, turned a blind eye to it, how some doctors simply refused to treat AIDS patients, fearing for their health. The film very well reflects the entire chronology of events on the treatment of the disease and, of course, shows the emotional side of love. True love can happen to anyone, no matter what. It goes beyond the usual, giving people the opportunity to open up and show their true feelings, which no one and nothing can control. Don't forget that.

10 out of 10

When the AIDS epidemic broke out in America in the early 1980s, homosexuals were the first to take the hit. Before HIV was declared a global problem, for several years the virus was considered exclusively a “blue disease”: there was no chance of getting public funding to fight the disease. By the time scientists officially documented a case of AIDS infection in a heterosexual woman, thousands of gay men in the United States had died without waiting for either treatment or human treatment.
The film by Ryan Murphy, arguably the leading homosexual on modern American television, tells the story of a group of gay activists who unsuccessfully fought AIDS during its total disregard by the public and the authorities. The basis for the film was the play of the same name by Larry Kramer, in which the writer reflected his own concerns about the indifference of people to the misfortune of the gay community, which survived the tragic first wave of the epidemic in the United States. Perhaps it is a deeply personal view of the global problem that distinguishes “The Ordinary Heart” from any other tape that promotes tolerance and equality among people. The director focuses primarily on the main character, openly gay and writer Ned Wicks (Mark Ruffalo), whose eyes the viewer observes the monstrous spread of an unknown disease. The shocking straightforwardness of the presentation of not too cinematic material, devoid of any sentiment, is most striking: one of the most powerful scenes of “Ordinary Heart” occurs at the very beginning, when Ned, faced at a doctor’s appointment with a long-time friend who contracted AIDS, with one eye expresses a total misunderstanding of what is happening and a panic fear of an unknown pandemic. In a few weeks, his friend will be dead.
Together with the numerous characters of the film, desperately fighting for the life of each patient, we experience the suffering and death of seemingly strangers as our own. Such an amazing degree of empathy is achieved with the help of the most powerful acting works of Taylor Kitsch, Matt Bomer, Joe Mantello and Mark Ruffalo, whose hero becomes a natural guide to the dense spectator in the painful soul of a homosexual of the 80s. Murphy’s merit here lies in the fact that, deliberately doomed to contemptuous ridicule from the notorious straight people, he gives a human scale, plays not on the arrogant pity of the audience, but on compassion – a feeling inherent in all people, regardless of their religion and orientation. And if the news of the first deaths arouse sympathy only in the homosexual heroes of the tape, then when in the frame and behind the scenes the characters begin to die like flies, and the awareness of the worthlessness of human life literally hovers in the air - all the prejudices accumulated by humanity during its existence, involuntarily disappear, opening the way in the hearts of an unbiased humanity.

Yes, it's a confession to Mark Ruffalo, a recognition of his acting talent. In recent years, this actor takes one top after another in acting, I hope it will continue to be so. I’ve seen Mark in movies before (judging by his filmography), but for the first time he hooked me, oddly enough, in The Avengers. And you know what? Hulk=Bennet had good eyes. And I started paying more attention to him. “The Illusion of Deception”, “Infinitely Polar Bear”, “Fox Hunter” and, control to the head – “Ordinary Heart”. How is that possible? From a fighter with a bear gait to turn into an intelligent well-groomed man!? A man of traditional sexual orientation, who graduated from Catholic school, husband and father to turn into a gay man?!
The film is amazing with the power of feelings and emotions. I knew what the movie was about, but I wasn’t ready for some scenes. I have bed scenes M+F and it is awkward, and even more so M+M. Of course it's 18+. But all this fades into the background, and you no longer see gays, but just two people who love each other both in sickness and in health, until death do them part. In some scenes, sparks just fly between them. And you start to worry about these perverts, to sympathize and understand. And the final?! The heroes of the Titanic nervously smoke in the side.

Of course, the fact that the film was successful, the merit of the entire film crew. There is not a single failed scene or a false note. Even small roles and episodes are remembered. Julia Roberts is as good as ever, and I would love more scenes with her. I really liked Alfred Molina as the brother of the main character. Despite the two-hour duration and the absence of any super special effects, he looks in one breath, thanks to the script and acting.
But my laurel wreath in this movie is Mark Ruffalo! The 2015 U.S. Screen Actors Guild agrees.

10 out of 10

The problem of AIDS remains relevant today, despite the passage of so many years.
"From where?" "Why?" "What's my fault?" I'm not sure any of you can answer any of these questions. What is a problem until it affects you personally? The media did everything to ensure that terrible things are not perceived so acutely today. Hourly sensations, succeeding each other, lose all seriousness and sharpness of the question. And even if there are those who care, those who take to the streets to speak out, to express themselves, to express their personal position, and remain alone with their own helpless cry, standing for a long time in their ears.
One has only to look at the hero of Mark Ruffalo, a man who desperately fought for happiness, for the lives of dozens of people in the person of his beloved.
And the most bitter thing is that the events shown in the film are our reality, where tens of thousands of such caring people are gagged down the throat, after which they only have to fight in vain, like fish in an aquarium.
What would you do if you knew that your salvation was not in your hands? And, faced with an immoral reality, what price would they put on their own life?
9 out of 10

I accidentally stumbled upon this movie. I decided to see what the latter has Julia Roberts, saw the film last year with a brief description: "A homosexual activist tries to raise the problem of AIDS in the early eighties." Mark Ruffalo I knew from the movie "Kids are OK", where the hero was terribly disliked, but outwardly remembered. And now, noticing in the cast and his, I decided: watch.
I was surprised I had never heard of the film before. It is shot beautifully, powerfully, and the tension does not subside for all two hours. I had to watch the part, and watch the end of the film the next day, and I was very much waiting for the moment to return to the film.
A lot of people compare this movie to Philadelphia, but I don’t see anything in common except, of course, the main theme. But the protagonist is different, the character, the behavior is different, the atmosphere of the film is different, everything is different.
Mark Ruffalo was surprisingly believable. All the actors were believable. How they did it, I have no idea. Mark Ruffalo looks 200% gay.
The guy Ned fell in love with, Felix Turner, is young and attractive. It is happiness to meet a really close person in life, to live and change together. But lately, among gay people, suddenly a certain unknown virus begins to spread quickly and inexorably, from which there is no salvation, and no one knows anything about it. Guys are dying, and politicians are in no hurry not only to allocate money for treatment and study of the virus, but also to voice the problem because of the piquant detail that the virus affects only homosexuals.

It was a revelation to me that in 1981, the year the film begins, AIDS was unknown! The virus was called anything, even came up with the name “gay cancer”. This is amazing!

Julia Roberts plays a doctor, as desperate as Ned, looking for ways to raise public awareness about the problem. “Poliomyelitis is also a virus. They don’t get sick anymore.

She tells him, reminiscing about her childhood, how society has always distanced itself from the unknown. How people get scared and leave, how difficult it is to change something
They were told to visit me. We said hello and didn’t know what to say. They were scared of me. And now I scare people. A woman in a wheelchair.

- I scare people, too.
- So use it! You don't need universal love and approval.

For any disease, a cure can be found. It's just a matter of time. Meanwhile, gays are dying and society is taking their eyes off them.
Ned's brother is a model of a loving but not accepting brother, a family member. In an argument with Ned, he claims that Ned is different, that Ned is different from “normal people” (for the film’s title, “Normal Heart”), while Nat asks, no, to admit that everyone was born the same. I refuse to talk to you until you recognize me as equal and healthy. In every sense ”. Too irreconcilable that even his comrades distance themselves from him, fearing that Ned’s intransigence will only hurt in agreements with politicians.
Miracles, as we know, didn’t happen, and millions of people died before much more attention was paid to research and drug discovery. This film was a revelation for me to some extent, as it happened when I was already born, lived, grew up, but did not know anything about it, so thank you very much to those who made this film.
10 out of 10

So I'll tell you right away.

"Boys' House." A movie with a very similar plot. I watched it shortly before I learned about the film “Ordinary Heart”, and these two works of art really have a lot in common: almost all the characters are gay (only in “House” they are strippers of a nightclub, there almost all the action takes place), also AIDS, also the two main characters have great love, and even the information at the end on a black background about the number of people who died from AIDS is exactly the same decorated, and the sea, too, took away ashes ... yes, a lot in common.
BUT.

The cast of Hearts is much stronger. I’m talking about primary roles and secondary roles. I wasn’t impressed by the actors in Home, they weren’t even pretty (which could have saved the situation). At Home there were just boys, strippers, gays... so what? I didn't believe them. And let all the same moved to the end, you need to thank not the actors, but the theme of the film. It is, as they say, from the #39; tear-squeezers & #39; and similar, as I believe, lurk in very dangerous territory. After all, if there is nothing else in the film besides the heart-wrenching theme - no strong actors, no subtle directing, no smart live script, no juicy mesmerizing camera work - then it seems that the creators simply frankly press on pity, hoping to leave at the expense of the win-win eternal theme of life's struggle with death. And that’s what happened in “House of Boys.”
The “ordinary heart” is another matter altogether. I can’t say that all the actors here have shown themselves to be the greatest geniuses, but I’m pleasantly impressed by many. I know Matt Bomer from the light ironic detective White Collar. He plays the clever, charming adventurer Neil Keffrey, and I love this show, I love Bomer in this role, but it never occurred to me that Bomer would take on — and successfully — a dramatic, I would even say tragic role. And I was pleasantly surprised by Jim Parsons from my favorite sitcom 'The Big Bang Theory'. I was very happy to see him in this movie. Again, I can’t say that it was a reincarnation and implantation in the image by one hundred percent, when the line between actor and character is completely erased (as usually happens with the roles of the incredible, maybe even great actor Benedict Cumberbatch), but still Parsons is a great man. I used to fear that he would end up casting the same role as the genius eccentric physicist Sheldon Coomer, but now I have hope that he is not. Thank you Jim for that.

It is worth mentioning Julia Roberts. Once again, I saw that she was charming and very talented. What a strong role she has in the Heart! What a great monologue closer to the end! And not only at Roberts, many others also received their own powerful climax.

But there were many other highlights in the film. For example, I was shocked by the story of another couple in love. Because one of them was sick, they didn't want to let them on the plane. Like they put the dead man in a bag. How my mother sobbed and howled. Yes, this film is much stronger than Boys House, and I am very grateful to my extravagant friend Nastya Romanova for the tip. If you are reading this, thank you very much!

But the main thing, I think, is this. The creators managed to convey very deeply, vividly, piercingly the universal atmosphere of hopeless despair and impotence. The way heroes stumble upon universal indifference, the way they fight, fight, fight, but they are not heard, not seen, not noticed, all useless, no one cares. I know this feeling very well from personal experience and I was really scared when I saw this movie. It's just scary for all of us humans. For how indifferent we can all be.

This is a great movie on a very important topic.

The actors are certainly at the highest level. Immediately I would like to note Matt Bomer, who is better known for his role as a handsome thief Neil Caffrey in the series “White Collar”. Personally, this actor did not cause any emotions when he played in the television series, but the character in “Ordinary Heart” won. Bomer proved that he is not just the owner of a pretty face, but a real actor who can play a serious dramatic role.
The same can be said about Mark Ruffalo. The well-known Hulk also showed its best side. The facial expressions, gestures and speech were perfectly staged. There was no playfulness or anything that could put off the whole movie.
And, of course, the reason I watched this movie is Jim Parsons. I’m a longtime fan of The Big Bang Theory and I really wanted to see Jim in a different way. I'm not going to say that he impressed me because I saw Dr. Cooper in him anyway and I couldn't help it. However, if we abstract from the well-known image of a theoretical physicist, I dare say that I would be happy to see other dramatic pictures with the participation of Parsons. Very interesting.

The movie itself is very strong. There are two main themes: AIDS and homosexuality. Fear of the unknown and a preference to ignore it. Is this how people react to the new? The indifference and unwillingness to help other people, different from the majority, is perfectly shown. After all, for some reason we decided that it should be so and not otherwise! And these “others” don’t need help, and it may be a good thing that they are “extinct.” Terrible reality.

If you’re free of stupid prejudices, you’ll probably like this movie. It’s really great and the time you spend watching this movie is worth it.

Ryan Murphy's name is familiar to me mainly from the youth series Glee. But his full-length work, The Ordinary Heart, immediately interested me for three reasons. First of all, the topic itself is interesting to me. I haven’t seen anything about LGBT in a long time. Secondly, there are a lot of actors that I like. The number of nominations for various film awards is impressive. Let me tell you right away that I liked the movie. I was happy to follow the developments, despite the fact that the era of the 80s I do not like in cinema. But still there are shortcomings, because of which I lowered the rating.
Well, if you look at the picture as a social drama, you should give credit to the creators. It turned out really very atmospheric cinema, which is imbued with a sense of indifference. And now I am referring not only to the position of the government that refuses to recognize the problem of AIDS, but also to the attitude of the heroes themselves to sexual life. They also do not care where, with whom and how... And even fear for their lives cannot tame the lust they have suppressed for years. The film very well showed how people are indifferent to someone else’s trouble, until it touched them personally. Separately, I want to note the very attitude towards gays. It seems that activists have already formally achieved that homosexuality was removed from the register of mental illness, but this did not significantly change the situation. Even the tolerant brother of the main character considers himself a full-fledged and absolutely healthy man. How is it different from the others? It's a rhetorical question. For morals and raising an important social theme, praise.

But if you look at the film as a melodrama, then flaws begin to pop up one by one. First, the very development of the relationship between Ned and Felix almost did not show. Here they met once in the editorial office, and after a few minutes dinner by candlelight with all the ensuing consequences. Well, I understand that in real life, too, things happen quickly. But I want to get to know the heroes, to sympathize with them. Personally, I did not catch chemistry between the guys, although they were diligently pressing tears and generally played well. Just the line of relationships pushed to the background, and a pity. Because of this, the film never had a climax. It seems that the whole film is struggling, and nothing really achieved. Well, except for a couple of phrases in the final credits.

In general, even the melodramatic line makes you think about a lot. What would I do if I were Ned? Would you leave a dying loved one to save your own skin? Would I have the moral strength to walk this path together? There is also a very good message that we should not be indifferent to each other and appreciate the time spent together while we still have the opportunity. But that, unfortunately, few people care at the moment. Why bother and take responsibility when you can only have fun every day? Many people break up so quickly because of some small things that you really begin to believe in love only while watching melodramas.
I won’t talk much about acting and directing. I liked everything. A lot of emotionally strong scenes: a tirade of Julia Roberts, a stack of business cards, a scene on a plane, a nervous breakdown of Ned ... I love that kind of movie. But I still couldn't be touched. I guess I'm already too tempted by such dramas. And yes, there is a fine line between eroticism and pornography. Ryan Murphy crossed it this time. Don’t say you haven’t been warned.

7 out of 10

"Ordinary Heart" captivated me immediately. It happened in one of the first scenes, where Ned Weeks (Mark Ruffalo) takes a little distance and sadly observes the general freedom and cheerfulness of young boys. For some reason, I was very surprised by this on-screen statement that gays are also lonely, that they do not greedily attack every available object, that they suffer like everyone else, doubt whether they know how to love, whether they themselves can be loved. This hero did almost more than many of my dearly beloved musicians, directors and actors of similar orientation, in order to make me understand gay people even better.
Sex minorities, in particular gays, are devoted to many paintings. You can recall almost the entire filmography of François Ozon and Xavier Dolan, and the fascinating "Lonely Man" Tom Ford, and "Harvey Milk" with Sean Penn in the lead role, which depicts the process of fighting gays for their rights. In The Ordinary Heart, the viewer watches gays hunt and recklessly enjoy the fruits of this struggle—the freedom they have won—until a terrible virus, like what some overly hotheads believe to be God’s punishment, strikes the gay community. How can God punish people for making them so? That's crazy nonsense.

The main character Ned Wicks has to fight an exhausting war on all fronts. He fights against those who despise gays and is ready to silently watch these “disliked people” die en masse; he fights against gays themselves, revelling in their achievements on the basis of the sexual revolution and not understanding the threat that looms over them, afraid to voice; he fights for the life of his beloved; he fights against a hard-headed straight brother. He, despite all his fieryness, is hard to win the battle at least on one of the fronts, but he definitely wins the fight against callousness and prejudices in the audience’s hearts.
I'm crushed. Yeah, that's right. Cry and cry until the tears stop. And then again...

The film is titled “The Ordinary Heart.” Yes, like the hero Mark Ruffalo, and should be an ordinary human heart: sensitive, strong, caring, compassionate, determined, understanding. Alas, it's utopia. These days, the heart of Ned Weeks is just "extraordinary." Such a heart, when in honor one law (who is stronger / richer, is right) is perceived today as some anomaly. And we would really need at least a hundred, with a dozen of such hearts.
Mark Ruffalo experienced an amazing transformation in this picture. It is not even that straight, the father of three children, it is not easy to play a gay man, to take part in some explicit scenes with a partner who is just gay. It's about the level of acting. Here we can talk about a breakthrough of the same kind that Matthew McConaughey made at the Dallas Buyers Club. But I’ve always known how he plays, and for 17 years after Time to Kill, I’ve been waiting for great roles. In the case of Ruffalo, I was pleasantly surprised. Either I was so unlucky, or Mark really had inconspicuous images, episodes and the green monster Hulk. And so at 47, about the same age as McConaughey, he opened up. Amazing and attractive game, fiery and gentle, soft and explosive, real.
Love is an innate feeling.

I don’t know how Billy Bob Thornton played there in the serial version of Fargo (I haven’t yet appreciated it), but I only know for sure that Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson with Matthew McConaughey (both are True Detectives) deserved a Golden Globe. Why can’t the award be given to everyone? Sometimes it is necessary.

9 out of 10

P.S. Now, when I publish this text, on the film search 29 reviews for the film: 26 positive and 3 neutral. Are there still people who think, feel and understand, who are not caught up in the virus of total homophobia? It's gratifying to know that.

It’s really one of those movies that devastates you. It ends, credits run across the screen, and you sit in front of the monitor and you don't know how to reassemble yourself because you're ruined. Because this film turns inside out the truth about society, about relationships in it, about struggle, about indifference. This is a story about the struggle, the hard, long, exhausting struggle not only for the right to receive help in the study of an unknown virus, but also for the right to live fully and be a full part of society. The indifference and composure faced by the characters of the film, how often they are on the verge of hysteria, on the verge of despair, how they do not give up and fight for their loved ones – it is so hard, but so exciting to watch. Actors believe one hundred percent and believe in the stories they tell, as if he himself experienced everything from beginning to end.
The film can hurt and shake you with frankness and directness, but it will not leave you indifferent. This story is about those things that are relevant in our time, so you need to delve into it and you need to look at it.
9 out of 10

Please don't watch this movie! It will take out your soul and heart, turn them inside out and make you look with the eyes of the senses, which hurts. And scary.
That's what happened to me.

I don’t remember the film evoking such strong personal emotions: I cry.
Shocked, surprised - no, I'm discouraged. The film went inside me and showed the footage there, inside. This has never happened before.

Thank you to those who made this movie!

I've never believed an actor so much: sincerely and completely. Thank you to them!

I've seen people die of AIDS: a nice girl in a parallel class, did a good job, didn't go out in bad company. The infection got inside her in a tattoo parlor, along with a small beautiful butterfly on her lower back. The salon was closed, but she didn't care. She's gone. ..

A relative of an HIV acquaintance. 2.5 million rubles and one month of her life a year, she gives for prevention in a specialized medical center so that HIV does not become AIDS and the virus does not pass to her partner. The diagnosis was made more than 7 years ago. Her husband knows her now. He's healthy. Six months ago, they had a daughter with HIV: unfortunately, if the mother is sick, the child is 100% HIV positive. She does not use the state support program: in the family there are funds for treatment, believing that ' ... others need'. Their family believes that scientists will invent a way to stop the disease.
AIDS ceased to be a disease ' at-risk groups' - it came out to the masses, becoming a universal problem. You can get infected anywhere and how you want, even if you completely eliminate sex and drugs: in a beauty salon, in a hospital, in a dentist’s chair. And no one can help you.

In a year, the state spends about 0.5 million rubles on an AIDS-positive citizen - so much is the annual set of vital medicines (according to the Ministry of Health). No, no, this does not include drugs to maintain immunity, money for rehabilitation measures and even more so for special nutrition, so necessary for these people.
They were left alone: without money, without the right to work, study, visit pools, without the opportunity to fully love. They're outcasts. The same as 30 years ago in the frames of this film.
I'll put this film in a separate collection with 'The Highest Truth' and 'The Man Behind the Sun'.

10 out of 10

There are very few films that I watch from start to finish without switching or closing. Maybe I’m passionately listening to the soundtrack, or I’m incipiently waiting for some minimal sequel, a shot that I don’t know is just going to happen. Maybe for some other reason. I have very few such films. And this is one of them.

It’s incredible that I came across this movie. I don't know what's incredible. But I don’t have another more appropriate epithet. Providence.

Plot... Why are people like that? What happened to us? Why are we like this? Why am I like this? Why are we so indifferent to other people’s problems? It took five years and 24,559 people to die. Now that figure is 36 million. What would have happened if they had worried about it earlier? How could everything change?

The cast is remarkable. As they say, “played for an idea.” I’d love to hear from Mark Ruffalo because his character is a key figure in the film and he was more than remarkable. Honestly, I didn't expect it. Awesome game. His tantrums frightened, angry attacks made him shudder... but I believed him, and at the expense of these notorious hysterics, and anger, and passion, and pain, and tears. You just believe him, and that's why you empathize with his character like never before. I'm amazed.
Matt Bomer looks like another gay guy, but it’s not that simple. He performed his dramatic part perfectly. But even in moments of happiness, well, I regret that his “lusty” face and open smile caused a warm response in the soul. The first night of their love, so many emotions. And this one tear that was allowed to roll down the temple - from the pain, physical and mental, from the soul-breaking desperate burst of happiness because of the connection with the loved one - how much emotion there was in it. We haven’t been shown the moment of his character’s death or, let’s say, his funeral, but when the phone rings, you already know everything, it’s been clear for a long time, but you believe in some fluttering part, even though you realize that it’s the end. And when his business card, just like hundreds before him, as well as hundreds after him, is folded to the others and moved the box, closing it from the whole world - it is like a fat point, on life, on love, on faith. You can’t give up, you can’t.

I remember Jim Parsons. The love for Ned is obvious to us, the audience behind the screen, but he prefers to hide everything in himself, realizing that he can destroy the relationship that they have now. He certainly wouldn't want that. Tommy's really amazing. In the arena, leaders shout and run, proving something to themselves and someone else; he is a shadow leader, he is unlikely to gain power, but his help and support are invaluable. He is a co-operator, does what is necessary, calmly, without excesses, knows everything that is necessary and invisibly is a support, universal support. Slim, tentacle, in appearance a boy-bunny, but in fact with a hard rod inside, not allowing him to bend and, if necessary, give a picket driver in the face. And his final scene is worthy of mention: a bell, a brief urination and a frozen look into the void, a jerky “Thank you for telling me” and the need to cross out another person from life, removing his card from his eyes, but in no case throwing it away. And uninvited tears that burst out, ignoring the prohibitions on showing their feelings. Is that what this guy's crying about? . .

Julia Roberts may not be the cake anymore, but she played it to the fullest. The drama of a lonely woman, even if she is in a wheelchair - she still, like everyone else, wants love and attention; so that it does not hurt, hides behind coldness and restraint, but at some point the armor cracks and from there a timid un daring smile and incipient grains of tears appear. That's just about himself kicking like a cruel reality, and the shell closes again. The first step has already been taken, right?
Unfortunately, the actor Alfred Molina is almost unknown, but his interpretation of Ben Weeks, the brother of a hysterical gay activist, seems to the public to be commendable. Do you see the conflict of the rushing man: brother? career? reputation? to recognize him as his equal or is it just a disease? But who cares about statuses when things turn out too seriously?
Enough time has passed since I watched the film, but I remember the feeling that with an unseeing glance, you keep looking, you keep clinging to the final phrases, you do not blink, but tears roll, one by one, and you do not even want to move. I fucking want to see previous theatrical productions and read the play of the same name. Larry Cramer has come an incredibly hard way up to these days to finally see it all on screen. Without Brian Murphy, things would be different. Maybe better, maybe worse. But all efforts have been put into this project and it is impossible to write it off.

Yeah, I'm sentimental. But there is no escape from this: it hooked.

9 out of 10

The film is exclusively for a caring and tolerant viewer.

Mark Ruffalo as a gay activist who in the early 80s is trying to draw public attention to the problems of the spread of a new and terrible disease. He gets to the White House, but no one at the top is ready to listen to a homosexual talking about the 20th century plague. The first to die from AIDS is not the honorable members of society, but a controversial stratum, recently living under strict prohibitions. Who cares about the fact that gays will become less, or if they completely die out?
So far, some people do not realize that HIV is transmitted by women, and all the most traditional relationships, medical institutions, children, and the whole society are under threat. The main character is no longer fighting alone (Julia Roberts is his company in the unusual role of a doctor in a wheelchair), and the world may have a chance. It’s too late for some people.

It is worth seeing as a kind of addition to the film “Dallas Buyers Club”.
7 out of 10

This movie will break your heart. You will cry once again asking why life is so cruel and the world is so unfair. Because. No one knows why that is. Why does someone get a long and meaningless life, and someone according to Lana Del Rey, as they say, born to die? And to know this is pointless, the information will not help you in any way. But as long as you're alive, you have to fight. Even if you’re in the ’80s, and you’re a gay man with AIDS, a guy you’ve never heard of, and if you’ve heard of, you’re persistently spreading rumors that it’s only passed on to gays. We have to fight... And maybe then, after 30 years of fighting television corporations, one of the leading American TV channels will make a film in the history of your life, as happened to one of the most phenomenal people of our time – Larry Kramer.
In the 80s, this man almost single-handedly defended the rights of the LGBT community in the United States (and this is a large number of people) in the context of a new rapidly developing contagion, then even more unexplored than now. And the name of this infection is AIDS, as well as its initial stage HIV. It is difficult to tell how much he has done for America and ultimately for the world. There is a film that reflects the entire path of Kramer, in which there was no place for tolerance, understanding, normal legislation. In general, there was no America as we know it today, where movies like this come out just in TV format. All this Kramer had to cut through himself with the axe of his own suffering and loss. Of course, someone will think that all his scream at one time went into void, because almost the entire generation of his non-traditional orientation (his entire environment, from friends and acquaintances, colleagues and ending with the love of his life) was carved out by the disease, which is now called the “plague of the 21st century”, as well as the complete indifference to this problem on the part of the authorities.

It is hard to believe that such state homophobia, backed up by legislation and political strategy (as you can see in your country today) in America has allowed so many innocent people to die for only 30 years. This is a real tragedy. And I think it's important to remember that. Like any other war, and it was a war (don’t be embarrassed by this comparison – scale doesn’t matter). A bunch of helpless people struggled with the whole system and literally laid down their lives to take some action 4 years after the epidemic. Wasn't that a war?

According to the shrillness of this film (on account of which such successful television projects as the American horror story and Glee), it is comparable only with another triumphant of this year - the Dallas Buyers Club. And the issues seem similar: AIDS fighters in the 1980s. Personalities are strong and indisputable, that the hero of Texas straight electrician Ron Woodroof, that the hero of Ned Weeks, a journalist-activist of gay orientation.

Matt Bomer, who has already met Murphy in Glee, shows himself here as a serious dramatic actor. In fact, he does not solo, but the impression of his carefully carried role leaves indelible.
But the main role of Mark Ruffalo I saw this actor many times, each time he showed nothing new, nothing surprising, and the projects were selected, to put it mildly, not very. Who would have expected such a role from him? I don’t think he expected that from himself. This is how inconspicuous, seemingly passing actors rise in the eyes, and immediately rise very high. And in this regard, again, you can draw a parallel with the film-brother “Dallas Buyers Club”, in which “Matthew McConaughey” finally revealed himself as an actor and gave a brilliant performance. Mark Ruffalo, like McConaughey, rose from the ashes. Only before him was the task of a different plan - a homosexual role. His hero came out very strong, and at the same time infinitely touching. He didn't slide, like many straight actors playing gays, into a parody - a parade of squeamish, feminine gestures and mannerisms. He was a real badass man. For that and thank you.

In addition, Julia Roberts took part in the project, which further drew attention to the picture. But she did not receive the lot of "star guest". Her role as an Influential Physician proved to be another strong dramatic role (which impressed even more than that in August) in her career. To observe the development of her character and attitude to the state of things was infinitely interesting, and her line as a representative of "his own in the enemy clan", which helped to promote ideas in experimental medicine, was almost the most leading.

Also in one of the most important episodes, another openly gay actor played (along with Bomer and the one I will tell you about below) – Jonathan Groff, who has already starred in the same Glee by Ryan Murphy, and in the now-released LGBT series of the HBO channel "In Search".
Continues the list of amazing people who took part in such an important social film Jim Parsons - the main star of the sitcom "The Big Bang Theory". This is probably the first dramatic role Parsons has seen, and probably the first since Theory itself. Way to go. Parsons is talented on all sides. He also presents a huge list of successful artistic and historical figures with a non-traditional orientation (and this list began in the time of Julius Caesar, so it is very long). Of course, it does not matter whether he is gay or not, when he plays a small one, but in this case, this role is not just a way of self-realization of acting skills, this role is an expression of civic position, a role-recognition for a whole generation, thanks to which he can now safely walk in the park by the hand with his boyfriend, and if he wants to even marry him.
From an artistic point of view, the picture is devoid of the delights that were so memorable in the Dallas Buyers Club (scene with butterflies, bull, etc.). It is even more social, but not dry. "Ordinary Heart" - the most frank story, well-directed, perfectly adapted (after all, at the heart, we should not forget, a play) and heartfelt. I'd be surprised if you didn't weep at all at the fact that Ned Fleeks was paired with Dr. Emma Bruckner. Ideally, you should be in a broken state, in tears and thoughts. What would so amaze you, what might be called a feat, for those whom we now call heroes of our time, was considered simply the presence of a normal, human heart, acting out of compassion and humanity. This should be a “normal heart,” loving and struggling. I told you that a revelation film, a film that acknowledges a normal human heart, would break your heart.
10 out of 10

I love movies like that. When you start watching them, you already know how it will end. Happy endings in films about the love of two men rarely happen. I still watch these dramas.

I really like this time - the 80s, I like how the life of the gay community in New York is usually shown, I would like to be there to breathe in this air, to feel the atmosphere. But that, alas, is no longer possible. And maybe because it’s so unattainable, I find the love story unfolding at that time particularly romantic.
I think that watching the true love of two men, many would want to be in their place, to experience the same feeling. Despite the fact that the intensity of emotions the film can not compare, for example, with “Brokeback Mountain”, it carries a very bright charge. I always rejoice when I see a show of loyalty to my partner, when I see how two men care about each other, cherish their feelings - it is impossible to take off the screen. And let the film touches on a painful topic - the departure of one of the partners due to AIDS, this does not prevent the fact that the soul after watching remains a bright feeling. I would love to love you that way.

Mark Ruffalo and Matt Bomer did a great job, just brilliantly portrayed the pair, I wonder how much effort it cost Mark, because he is straight? Matt Bomer amazed me with his beauty, I didn’t know this actor until the ordinary heart. I wonder how he looks like that at 37.
I thought for a long time why the filmmakers called it that. An ordinary heart. I came to the conclusion that perhaps this name means that the hearts of all people are the same – ordinary, that everyone can either find love or lose it. And perhaps the meaning of life is to try to preserve this feeling, if fate gave you a chance to meet “your” person.
The most touching moment in the film for me was the moment when both characters fakely marry each other, and the host of the ceremony is a clinic doctor, performed by Julia Roberts. I think 80% of the audience will cry at this point.
I am very grateful to the writers and the director that the most difficult, bitter moments they left behind the scenes, the audience can think and guess how the events developed. In any case, the film is made in such a way that you will not be choked with tears, as in the finale of Brokeback Mountain.
I like the shooting itself with its softness, excellent shots, landscapes, the atmosphere of that time is conveyed wonderfully!
Special thanks to those who picked up the music, they took the right songs from disco 80s. There was even my favorite "Wham!"
Summing up, I want to say that I would recommend everyone to watch this film, and if someone can not empathize with the theme of the film, then absolutely he will be able to enjoy beautiful shootings and beautiful heroes!
10 out of 10

To be honest, I was expecting this movie with fear. After all, the focus is not one representative of a different sexual orientation, but a whole team. But the fear of such a topic was in vain. The first stars of Hollywood, a honed script, a master director ... There was no other way to see Hollywood.

This is a picture of a society free in every sense. At least that’s what those who live in it are. A separate commune of the early 80s, settled somewhere on the sunny California coast. The feeling of the gay world, like gay life itself, is everywhere, in every little thing. And you know what? They're human, too. Real, normal, normal. Maybe more open and free than you and me.
But it is not for nothing that the period of narration is indicated - in those years when the sexual revolution cannot be finished with a stick, such "failures of society" were seen exclusively negative. They did not want to help them, they did not want to help them. Gays themselves were happy about it, because only in such independence were they happy. But apparently forgetting that they remain human. Subjected to diseases that develop into plague, a new, unknown torture.
Hero Mark Ruffalo is forced to stand up for “this” category of citizens. First, because of the strength of spirit that he possesses, with which he goes to the end, with which he believes to the last. His perseverance in raising the problem, the ways of communicating to the authorities and the public world, lies at the center of the struggle for his rights. Another reason is love. Unexpected, beautiful, becoming that irrefutable stimulus that gives strength to fight. Ruffalo himself, in my opinion, did well in this. He's overly emotional, but he's not gay. Whether the audience is not deceived, or the actor did not try hard. Compared to Taylor Kitsch or Matt Bomer, he is gay in real life.
The character of Julia Roberts is a very important character. A doctor who has devoted her life to studying a problem is more loyal to her than anyone else. He and Ruffalo form a strong tandem, act as a push for each other, and alone would hardly achieve anything. Unfortunately, the final is not so good, but the main thing is participation, struggle, team spirit.
Who if not us? A film about the right to life that everyone chooses for themselves. Freedom, hope and love.

This will probably be my shortest review because I just can’t find the right words to describe this film.
I admire the actors, I recognize Mark Rufallo as the undisputed leader, because he showed his hero, got used to his hero 100%. I felt all the pain of losing my friends and loved ones, the pain of realizing my powerlessness before the bureaucratic machine. He fought, really fought, although he was not recognized not by his opponents, not even by his associates. To the rest of the cast, I bow my head, as a token of respect and gratitude for not being afraid to show us a terrible, tragic reality.

The film is touching, in some ways even heartbreaking and so sensual that you think - there is more love, sincerity and devotion between them than between a man and a woman. Let it be a time of debauchery, orgies and promiscuity. But who knew that freedom would be paid for, and at such a high price?
I am grateful to the director, writer and author of this story for helping me, albeit in a small way, to penetrate into their world, to see what great people, brave, desperate and boundlessly loving they were. And there is... They will!

Films such as The Ordinary Heart cannot be in a losing version – in a period of general and total political correctness, the acute social problem raised becomes a powerful formula for positive criticism, and the failure to adopt such a tape will be perceived as a lack of proper tolerance. Literally, people are tightened by the latest trends in life stereotypes. It was necessary, after “12 years of slavery”, to make all African-American, and then the “Ordinary Heart” would be solemnly carried in their arms, like a gleaming raja.
But I tend to look at the movie itself, not its bulging ego. I'll start with the story. This is the story of the gay fraternity, where you go, it's only natural if you have the right orientation. As such, the discussion of fraternity society is not shown, their lives, their hangouts, conversations, meetings are shown, they live their own world, which arose from their addictions. Of course, there will be a decent number of people who will not like this imagery. But soon, in addition to straight men, homosexuals have a new, deadly enemy - an incurable disease that will then become known to the whole world and the whole world is frightening under the acronym AIDS. Homosexuals begin to die, they say that they are almost deliberately killed by special services. One of the homosexuals, Ned Weeks, begins a campaign to warn those who are themselves representatives of same-sex relationships, try to help them, and find ways to draw the attention of the government to their problem and find a vaccine for the disease.
Yes, the plot can't help but touch. The problem is not just about homosexuals, although they are in the forefront of those whom the virus destroys. This is an acute problem, no one can turn a blind eye to it, and how the history of the struggle (which, perhaps, later turned into the fight for gay rights) began, it is worth knowing that someone can start their struggle. But with an excessively depressing atmosphere, everything was filmed. Of course, I am well aware that there is nothing funny about the topic, but you look at the picture and you want to die yourself. It's not an idea of survival, it's an idea of how to die if you're not like others. Fragments with a demonstration of a man’s kiss or embrace of love in bed, to be honest, you could not show. A complex, cumbersome, tragic plot, to which even the creator of the play of the same story, Larry Kramer, who forty years did not come into contact with cinema, and the terrible fate of the heroes cannot but hurt, this is our life, but the format of the shooting, taken as a basis by director Ryan Murphy, was too vague, tart, rough, from this not quite pleasant to the eye.
I can't express any harsh claims to the acting ensemble. First, he was very competently selected and its leader was well-experienced Mark Ruffalo. The very agreement of many famous actors to star in a non-big-screen television movie speaks not only to their humanity, but also to the fact that they have found a loophole in how to unleash potential. The director has confidently achieved that each hero, each character is original in its own way, has its own set of feelings, emotions, but the actors, I am sure, have made their efforts to be individual. The only question for Ruffalo’s character is, what was the need to show him so audacious, depressive and bitter? Somehow he fell out of the whole deck and was not a joker. Special thanks to Julia Roberts for such an aesthetic, humane, humanitarian and sometimes aggressive role.
The film is not for everyone, fans of blockbusters will not even look back on it, but those who love history, biopics, films about strong, albeit extraordinary people, the picture will taste. I watched with interest the history of the struggle itself, but the background of the tape, as if the picture was lavishly rubbed with sand, caused a slight, but still rejection.

7 out of 10

Films that deal with acute social and very important issues can be either excellent or failure, there is no intermediate stage between them. This film is in the first category, it shows the realities of the past, the brutal battle for their rights and all the emotions, all the suffering that these people were forced to go through. It is worth noting that the film tells the story of gay people who are really discriminated against, who want to live like everyone else and who want to be on the same level with everyone else. It is the ones, not the ones, who show everything to the public, promoting this way of life and complaining about the rest of the world. Unfortunately, over time, more and more appear those who belong to the second category, and this, to put it mildly, repels and leads this problem to a dead end.
This is a film about homosexuals and about a terrible disease that began to inspire fear in the early eighties, AIDS. To this day, this disease is one of the most terrible, because it is still impossible to cure it. It shows the struggle of minorities with the rest of the world for the right to exist and remain as they are. In addition, the viewer sees the usual emotions of a person, pain and suffering, love and joy. All this is shown through the prism of the main character - Ned, a gay activist. Imagine what it was like for him to live and stand up for the truth at a time when society rejected them, called them “abnormal” and sent them to treatment. If there are fierce discussions about this today, then they were simply not allowed to speak. They had to shout, but no one heard them, because people have a great and vile quality of rejecting everything that is not like them. "They just don't like us." That's the essence of humanity. I don’t like to remove, throw away, do everything so that they don’t exist. What forces had to be exerted to go against the whole world, against the age-old system, against obsessive minds - incredible. These incredible efforts were shown in parallel with Ned’s personal experiences.
This film brings everyone together, trying to prove that homosexuality and AIDS are important issues that need to be addressed. They can only be resolved through constructive dialogue and compromise. This film takes you into an unknown world and teaches you to confront homophobia and hate, and proves that not paying attention to the problem is not the solution. If there is a problem or disagreement, they should be resolved as soon as possible. All prejudices and stereotypes of society associated with sexual minorities are condemned.

In the '80s, gay men had already defended their right to exist and to live among the rest, but still the majority disapproved of them. They were not considered equal in rights, and some even thought they had no right to exist. And then there's a virus that starts killing them one by one. This brings them together, but there are different personalities among them. Someone publicly declares that he is gay, and someone does not decide to do it because he is afraid of losing his job and becoming nothing in the eyes of others. They weren't allowed to talk about AIDS, and the White House, the whole tower, refused to acknowledge it. When the main character hopes that they finally decided to act and summoned him to the White House, he rushes at all times. Now imagine how he must have felt when he found out that they were not going to help, when he was asked the question: Is it possible for a straight person to contract this disease? This meant the collapse of all hopes and the start of a new path.
The whole atmosphere reaches the point that each member of the community loses nerves. They don’t know what to do and how to proceed when they don’t recognize you and don’t want to listen. It is also annoying to see that no one cares about your problems, even though they may soon become global. The situation comes to a point where Ned remains abandoned even by his own, because he was the strongest, most active of them and was not afraid to talk about what he cares about.
The hero of Mark Ruffalo finds the strength to resist the world and defend his point of view, he lives on, falls in love for the first time. This gives him strength and gives him strength to fight. Thanks to this, he realizes that all his efforts are worth the fact that someday it will all be rewarded. There is a stunning monologue by Julia Roberts in the film, which breaks through and conveys even more the idea that AIDS needs to be studied and treated. But, unfortunately, the authorities are not so good-natured and refuse to do anything.
This is an incredibly difficult and heavy film that shows how hard gay men won one battle. But if you look at the current situation, it becomes clear that this war is still going on, and it is very sad.

“To win a war, you must start a war” is the slogan of the film about AIDS, which began in the 80s.
The picture began easily and at ease - the beach, parties, sex. And as they say, nothing foreshadowed trouble. But that wasn't it. AIDS among homosexuals in the 80s began suddenly. The government and other citizens turned a blind eye, not wanting to help “abnormal” people. Then gay activists began to fight for their right to live.
The reason for watching the film was an unused theme, as well as director Ryan Murphy, familiar to many on the television series “American Horror Story” and “Glee”.
Another reason is a great cast.

Mark Ruffalo. The actor is known for many films and in principle is famous for his talent to play a variety of characters. In this picture, he plays the complex character Ned Weeks, who is not indifferent to the whole heated situation. He is a hot-tempered man, waving his hands, showing in public what he believes to be true. Although his colleagues respect him, they cannot accept that he complicates everything. In fact, the character is desperate to save his beloved, he is ready to do anything to prevent it.
Matt Bohmer. This actor is well known on the television series “White Collar”, where he plays a handsome criminal. Here he plays the beloved character of Mark Ruffalo Felix Turner. Matt played his part wonderfully, showing the pain, both spiritual and physical, that his hero had experienced.
Taylor Kitsch. Unfortunately, I had never seen this actor before, but it was a nice find. His character Bruce Niles survived the deaths of several of his loved ones and continues to move on. Yes, he's scared, but he's moving on! He lacks some confidence that Ned has.
Also pleased were actors such as Julia Roberts, who played a disabled doctor who is struggling to prevent an epidemic, and Jim Parsons, who pleasantly surprised after his long comedy role in The Big Bang Theory. It is very interesting that some of the actors are homosexuals.

There are no words to say how wonderful this film is. He makes you cry more than once. To be honest, I didn’t even notice any significant downsides, and the film looks in one breath, so it’s worth watching. Moreover, the picture is very relevant, since AIDS deaths are still occurring around the world.
10 out of 10

Freedom... What exactly is she? Everyone has their own definition of this concept. But I don't think it's any better than slavery, literally. Even worse. Naturally, when you are free, you have no master, you seem to obey only yourself. However, it imposes a responsibility the more freedom you get.

In the film, the characters seemed to be free. The freedom to do what they thought was most important to them. So what if it leads to death, but freedom! And when one begins to think about the results of what this freedom leads to, it may be too late. And the one you care most about in this world will die in your arms and there's nothing you can do about it. You're free. But does she need that freedom? Wouldn’t it be better to exchange it for a loved one? The heroes have no choice. Because society has turned a blind eye to them. To put it mildly. In fact, the rest of them are just us! Did you seek your freedom? So enjoy it!

What a joy that freedom has the opposite effect. You become dependent on the person you love, but it doesn’t cause discomfort. You want to give him everything you have, even your own life, and you don't think it's an attack on your freedom. When you look for the means to open the eyes of the world to your problem and everyone turns away from you, is that what you fought for? For this Freedom? The world is blaming you for bringing the virus into the world. The virus of freedom and the virus of slavery in one person.
This movie is worth seeing for everyone who loved it. Especially for those who didn’t. Those who believe that homosexuals seek only to satisfy their lusts and corrupt innocent youth! Perhaps they will understand that this is not the case. And at the same time! Because that's what freedom is all about! To be able to love who you want and give him everything you have. And the lack of freedom is that you can't give him the most important thing when you need it. Health. Life. Happiness.
Acting jobs are all fantastic. The film for me flew in one breath, and I did not notice how these two-plus hours went.
If you want to think about it, look.
9 out of 10

Just because I admit that you and I were born the same will not save your dying friends! - That's the only thing that will save my dying friends. . "

Many years have passed since the very times of which this story is told, it would seem that 1985 is far beyond the horizon, a time in which I did not even exist in nature. But, alas, the story is more pressing than ever. Especially, probably, in our country, where homosexuality advertising is prosecuted, and people from countries that have allowed same-sex marriage are prohibited from adopting “Russian” children.

Let's be honest, this film is not about the AIDS epidemic that started in the '80s in the United States, this is a story about homosexuality, about the conflict between society and a certain group of "abnormal" people.

“The Normal Heart” is a very powerful thing, it is written on the rash of the day, written with feeling and soul, based on personal experience, and takes as a basis the lives of real people: good, bad, talented and not so, faced nose to nose with the terrible and inevitable.
At the heart of the plot in my awareness of this film is a beautiful love story. Not the kind of love that is written about in most books, and not about the one that is usually filmed. But, very importantly, in the relationship between the main characters, we do not see any playfulness, perversion, or falsehood. We are exposed to true, sincere feelings, show it very frankly without shyness, and that surprisingly discomfort the viewer does not feel. However, this is only a small drop of what the film has prepared for us. On the basis of a beautiful idealistic-romantic fairy tale, we are immersed in the terrifying world of reality. A reality in which there is no right to deviate from a given norm, a reality in which you will scream in pain, fear and call for help, but the harsh faces around you will not waver. This is a sad fairy tale about “normality” and “abnormality”, about “correctness” and “delusion”, about the fact that the notorious majority cannot accept all the versatility of the world and tries to stop diversity at the root.
There are two things that got me in this movie:

1. sincerity and warmth of feelings of the main characters. It seems to me that after seeing the story of Ned and Felix (talentfully played), it is impossible to simply continue to live as it was before, it is impossible not to discover the falsity of the stereotypes instilled in us from the diaper.
2. the acting of Mark Ruffalo (he had, probably, the hardest of all, since there are a number of very revealing scenes in the film), as well as Joe Mantello (from his monologue, tears flowed down my cheeks). Guys, take off my hat!

Stories are written to be heard and understood, and the story is heard. .

A bold, very uncomfortable film with a bunch of stars, real romance and deep drama. Deep from the fact that for each person it will be perceived differently. There are those who know this phrase firsthand: “an incurable disease.” In different ways, a person relates to people with a non-traditional orientation (indifference, secret envy, sympathy, denial, consent, disagreement, someone simply asks God a question...).

It was hard to watch the first ten minutes. If not for the PR in the media and the article that the film won the Critics’ Choise Television Awards... But come on. That's not what I mean. This is probably the first time I’ve heard of the award.

What I pointed out in the first paragraph, in parentheses, concerns me primarily, because I experience these feelings in one way or another, one after another. Like a roller coaster. And it's magical, actually. A magical sense of novelty and change. You see and feel differently, discover a new self, even though you are the same. But you just acknowledge a part of yourself that you just didn't want to see or couldn't. I mean, some part of you may have an inexplicable disgust or weakness for certain things (I mean things we can't control). You finally recognize it and come... even peace, probably.
You should watch the movie to the end and, if possible, distance yourself from yourself. From your views, assessments, other people’s opinions, from everything that prevents you from enjoying this movie and its, in fact, tempting directing.

Before us, fabulously talented actors (Julia Roberts, Matt Bomer, Jim Parsons, etc.) tell us the story of our time.

Quite accurately and sensitively, the actors conveyed their emotions. Every look, every step, every wave of a hand or hug, everything was endowed with meaning, incredible sensuality, and most importantly, love and sincerity.

After such roles, I think the actors of this film will be on the shoulder, because their professionalism was experienced by everyone who saw this film, everyone who experienced emotions while watching.
What is the film about?

It is in this picture that the history of the United States during AIDS is reflected. All segments of society are reflected in this picture, and most importantly, we see what this terrible disease is doing to society. It would seem that the director wanted to pay special attention to homosexuals, their relationships, which makes it seem to many that he is not objective.
But every day we see the broadcasts of the same “Titanic” and “Pretty Woman”, so why are we not negative about the directors who made these films?
I think first of all, the filmmakers wanted to tell us that people of different orientations can suffer from a problem like AIDS. And tell me where the roots of this terrible disease grew. That is why, citing the history of the relationship of a same-sex couple, one of whose partners became ill.
Many thanks to the creators of the film for helping people at least in this way to understand not only the scale of this terrible disease, but also try to show that sometimes it does not matter what gender, race, orientation you are – everyone can get sick. You need to be careful of all people and be tolerant of each other, and most importantly - you need to be able to become support for such people!
7 out of 10

This film is not about downtrodden sexual minorities, this film is primarily about people who are sometimes afraid, and sometimes they are ready to fight literally to the last breath for what they hold dear. Ryan Murphy told us about various fates and ways to achieve his goal.

How far a man is willing to go to protect what is dear to him. Freedom of speech or stagnant foundations based on outdated facts?

I will divide the film into two unspoken parts. A film about homosexuals, made by homosexuals, where they try to talk about the alleged discrimination by representatives of the heterosexual half of society. The second part is a human feat, how much can one person do against the whole world.
1 part. 1981. The sexual revolution has engulfed young people whose as-yet-unformed minds refuse to think about the consequences. Why would you do that? Sex, endless orgies and a sea of love. Here is a recipe for happiness for these people. They are happy, do you need to change anything even under the terrible yoke of an unknown virus?
It is difficult to talk about such a film detached and objectively. So I want to get into this eternal stumbling block and express my point of view. It is foolish to change partners like gloves several times a day, forgetting about any protection. It doesn't matter if you're gay or straight. After all, if you are asked by a certified medical professional to temporarily refrain from such contacts, perhaps there is a grain of truth in this request. But! Jim Parson's character capaciously gives out: "And for what to live?" Our heroes are already mired in their own nirvana as in the abyss.

And our heroes were ready to accuse the whole white world of refusing to follow elementary rules. They blamed everyone but themselves.
But the funny thing is that the director’s position on this issue is too explicit and specific. Here the main enemies are straights, Murphy deliberately pits these two parts of society, drawing a specific line between them.
2 part. Mark Ruffalo's hero will do anything to defend his point of view. He defended his ideals from the very beginning, but faced a misunderstanding of both the authorities and close people. All this for the sake of a loved one. He chose a difficult path: by all truths and untruths he achieved much. Fighting for the common cause, in the end he was overboard, completely alone. But was he right to choose confrontation over peaceful dialogue as the primary means? His associates take a different stance, but Ruffalo’s hero is not ready to back down from his principles, because he has already gone too far. And what to do when the stakes are huge, and the life of your soul mate is at stake.

Summing up, the first half of the film, revealing the moral foundations of LGBT is one-sided. The other half is multifaceted. Its main task is to show that the representatives of sexual minorities are people like us. They don’t want special rights, their only goal is to be with those they love. As a film that promotes homosexuality, I categorically did not like it, but as a film about difficult human fates, it is a great food for further reflection.

The film “Ordinary Heart” complements last year’s and recently Oscar-winning “Dallas Buyers Club”. The themes of both films are the problems faced by society at the dawn of the HIV epidemic. But while the Dallas Buyers Club focuses on treatments, The Ordinary Heart tells of a period when the epidemic was not officially recognized and only a few people shouted out into the void. In terms of their informativeness, both paintings deserve the closest attention, but in terms of aesthetics and sensory perception, in my opinion, “The Ordinary Heart” clearly wins.
Making a film about people living with HIV that they want to watch and watch is a daunting task, but Ryan Murphy has proven it’s possible. The picture, very strong plot (based on a play by Larry Kramer, which suggests an interesting dramaturgy), is based on the masterful work of the actors. I am once again convinced that when people create with their soul and talk about what is close to them, everything turns out in the highest category.
Mark Ruffalo, who played the main role of gay activist Ned Weeks, is the core of the picture. The actor brilliantly reveals the image of an energetic, stubborn, emotional person, ready to fight to the last strength through a closed door when everyone turns away from him, including his companions, when his beloved dies. Such people make history, such people keep peace. Ned has an interesting relationship with his brother Ben (Alfred Molina), who loves him but still cannot accept that Ned is gay. Another great character is Emma Bruckner, played by Julia Roberts, a cynical doctor who is almost unable to walk because she has had polio, she is desperately struggling to study an unknown disease, she is not a fanatic or an activist, she just does not want people to die. The actors of the “Dallas Buyers Club” were appreciated for their magnificent reincarnation, but no less award deserves Matt Bomer, who played HIV-infected Felix Turner, partner of Ned – the actor lost so much weight that at this time he had to leave his family.
The film “Ordinary Heart” is filled with emotions, passions. The test is simply magnificent, in fact the narrative consists of chic scenes, dialogues and monologues. One of the things that I remember the most was Emma's response to the commission that was considering funding for the study of the disease: "Would you mind my research, my thoughts, my work?" Take it! Do something about them! – The cry of a doctor tired of watching the government ignore more and more deaths year after year. A magnificent monologue by Mickey Marcus (Joe Mantello) - a man driven to despair that what he fought for all his life - the freedom to love whomever you want - was the cause of the spread of HIV - "Oh, one day someone will come to you and stab you in the back, and you will find out that everything you lived for is shit." Ned’s conversation with his brother is that it is impossible to maintain a close relationship without accepting his brother as he is and as his equal. Emma and Ned's dance is an attempt to stir the stale heart of a strong and suffering woman. Bruce’s story about Albert’s death – the doctors refused to issue a death certificate, the orderly stuffed the guy in a garbage bag and took him out to the yard, and also asked for $ 50 for his help. A gray-haired mother clutching a bag of her son's ashes in her hands. And much more, bright, memorable moments, a non-trivial, lively story about how it all was.

Ned and Felix's love line is very interesting. It would seem that you can come up with a new one, but no, their relationship is developing very interestingly, realistically. I was a little surprised, however, by the tearful ending on duty, but it can and should be accepted in the context of the film, because, after all, love, not sex, is what is the basis of relations between gays, even between straights.

The cry into the void will still be heard, but only four years after the onset of the epidemic, and the past tense and the lives that have passed during this time will not be returned. But we all need to be aware of this, because the HIV epidemic is so far invincible. Who knows what would happen if the voices were heard immediately.

The ratings of this drama about the problem of AIDS are skyrocketing – both on imdb and on Kinopoisk. Meanwhile, HBO, famous for its display of nudity, but regularly making amazing series (suffice it to recall that it gave us the Sopranos and Game of Thrones), shot a very heavy drama. Hard for heterosexuals to perceive. Even without being homophobic, a viewer with a normal orientation will be shocked by the scenes of gay soft porn, which are shown in the first part of the film. What category should it be assigned? 21+?

The essence of the picture is that in the early 80s in the United States suddenly begins a massive AIDS epidemic. We are shown a panicked gay community. The main character of the film is the brave gay activist writer Ned Weeks (Mark Ruffalo), who is struggling to ensure that the authorities recognize the presence of the virus - and began to develop a treatment. The mayor, who is gay but secretive, is not willing to openly support the gay community. And in the White House, the position is rather strange – the epidemic is not recognized, although sodomites die one by one. “They kill us because they don’t like us,” gays say.
Julia Roberts played the role of a doctor in a wheelchair, which is almost the only one who beats all the bells and tries to help gays in their difficult struggle.
At first, gays do not want to do anything to prevent the epidemic. Their very lifestyle, shown in the film, contributes to the spread of HIV. They are not against group women, meet in special clubs, where they start a random relationship for one hookup, constantly change partners. Couples among them are extremely rare.

One such couple is Ned Weeks, who unexpectedly fell in love at the age of forty, and his partner Felix Turner (Matt Bohmer), a Times journalist who is also infected with HIV.
The script is based on a play by Larry Kramer. He wrote it together in the director of the film – Ryan Murphy, who, in fact, is openly gay, and was, apparently, very pleased with the opportunity to show on the screen the life of the gay community and candid scenes. They don't shock him at all. Meanwhile, the film in graphic candor easily bypasses Brokeback Mountain, Harvey Milk, Philadelphia and other gay manifestos on the subject.
It was quite unusual to see Mark Ruffalo and especially Taylor Kitsch in the role of gay people, whose movements are characterized by characteristic gestures. Especially to attract a young audience to the project, one of the roles was entrusted to Jim Parsons from the Big Bang Theory (he collects business cards of deceased friends - and he has a whole "paper cemetery").

In general, if we abstract from the theme of Sodom’s sin, the drama turned out to be strong and piercing. And the final title – “the world is infected with AIDS every day 6,000 people” – says that the picture is still relevant. And not just gay people. After all, as has long been known, the virus does not spare straight people. Although the creators and focused all their attention only on sodomites.
6 out of 10

I do not think it was necessary to show such explicit scenes of homosexual sex.