jm10701 Tim is an arrogant but charming high-school student with an ego the size of Australia, where he lives. He decides he wants shy jock classmate John as his lover. He gets what he wants (he always does) and rips apart both families in the process.Having gotten John all to himself, Tim decides he "owes it to himself" to play around, so he ditches John and ends up in drama school. He "experiences" numerous known and unknown partners, picks up the AIDS virus, and eventually tugs on trusty, faithful, genuinely loving John's leash so he can pass the virus to him. John dies, slowly, and in agony, while Tim (by now a C-list actor) plays the role of tender caregiver. The end.Thank God, it's not really the end, because Tim has the virus too and dies a couple of years later. Good riddance to bad rubbish. HE deserved it. John didn't.Knowing that he didn't waltz on to other C-list triumphs on the coattails of John's death is the only thing that keeps me from really, really despising this extremely well-produced and mostly well-acted movie. I loved the beginning, when it seemed that the two boys really loved each other, but when Tim started his scumbag, selfish acting out, I revolted. What a jerk. What a vile, loathsome, self-aggrandizing, self-serving jerk.

Bert Krus I wasn't searching for a movie about aids. The subject usually gives me a very uneasy feeling. I don't want to remember those days when some very good friends of mine died in agony in front of my eyes. I was quite young back then, and did I really understand what happened? No, when you're young life looks endless. So when this movie, unexpectedly for me, because I had not read anything about it, brought up the aids subject, I had to take a deep breath. But the movie is so well executed that it is much more than an aids drama. This movie is a piece of human history and every high school student should see it. I am in my 50s and now aids is something of the past, thanks to great medicine. It cuts through my heart that young men like ones in this film had no chance at all. Especially in the 80s gay liberation wasn't that far, and so much human needs have been denied to these men. Thank god society has improved on these levels, and it only could by telling these important stories.

runamokprods Note: this review has some very light and general spoilers that probably won't be much news to those who know enough about the story to be reading about it here.An extremely well intended adaptation of Timothy Conigave's memoir of the great love of life set in Australia in the 70s, 80s, and early 90s. The film did make me cry. And it was nice to see a gay love story where both the deep romance and intense sexuality of these two men were treated as utterly normal by the film -- if not by the society the two men were living in at the time. I also appreciate the way it pulled no punches on showing the devastating physical effects of AIDS in the days where treatment options were pathetically limited and ineffective. So there is much going for it. But, frustratingly, some of that good stuff is off-set with cinematic miss-steps, at least to my eyes: E.g. Casting Aussie stars Guy Pearce, Kerry Fox, and Geoffrey Rush in cameos so small that their presence seems more weird and distracting than involving (Anthony LaPaglia also takes a small role, but one with enough meat that at least his presence seems to make sense). Overuse of period songs: To a point this device worked well, but soon it started to feel like every other scene had a familiar period pop song as score – most a little too on-the-nose in their lyrics or meaning. This is a particular flaw at the very end of the film, when the crashing in of an up-tempo pop song short-circuits a moment of great emotional intensity I would have liked to have been able to sit with and emotionally experience. And while it's great that a gay love story can now feel little different than a straight one in style, that's maybe not great when that style sometimes feels as familiar and mainstream as any slightly bland Hollywood movie. Add to that, some of the worst age make up I can remember seeing in a long time (trying desperately to make two very adult looking actors come off as teenagers at the start of the story), and a tendency to skip too quickly over the character elements of these two men that weren't directly about their relationship -- so that even after over 2 hours I felt frustrated that I didn't know more about these two as individuals -- which would have given added shape to the story of how their lives joined into one. A worthwhile and admirable film, but one that I couldn't quite get myself to love, no matter how much I wanted to.

robischiffman I was given the book by a friend from Australia in about '97,I have read it countless times through the years.I never thought anyone would be able to bring the story to the screen, as Tim had written a remarkable story.Finally seeing the movie, I can only say that it does indeed do the book justice. No movie can wholly compete with a brilliant and beautifully crafted book, the best it can hope to do is convey the story and the spirit of the book - this movie does just that. I fell in love with John and Tim all over again, 19 years later. The love they shared, the pain they endured both John's physical and Tim's emotional came back to me as emotionally as it had in the book. (I wept through the end of the book) Was my emotional response a reaction to the movie on it's own, or in part to the memory of the book? I do not know. I do know that Craig Stott's portrayal of John was, for me, spot on, as was Ryan Corr's portrayal of Tim. The story, the spirit and the essence of these two beautiful men is definitely captured and resonate through this film.