Holding the Man (2015) User Reviews (70)

Not easily done...

[ekeby · 8/10 · 7 August 2016]

...showing the story of two teenagers through to their early 30s. Both the book and movie were unknown to me, so I came at this without expectations. This movie succeeds with material that is very familiar--if not overly familiar--to gay men like myself. That in itself is quite an accomplishment.

What starts out as a simplistic story of high school romance becomes an epic tale spun out for 127 minutes. I was surprised by the honesty of the story, and surprised that the two lead actors could seamlessly--and convincingly--go from teenagers to adults. It is not easy to take everyday events and stitch them up into an epic. This movie does that, and it does it well.

If I had known the plot in advance, I probably wouldn't have gone near this film with a 10-foot pole. I'm glad I didn't know because I would have missed a really good movie.

If you're young and gay and want to get an accurate look at what life was like for us in the '70s and '80s, this is the movie to see. For Americans, that it's set in Australia is irrelevant; the story was the same.

A touching adaptation

[hitchwood · 8/10 · 18 August 2015]

Having seen a rather heavy-handed and pretentious play version of 'Holding the man' a few years ago, I had trepidations about seeing the film. I need not have worried as Neil Armfield's direction brings a truthful and touching reality to Timothy Conigrave's memoir. The slightly non-linear structure to the storytelling brings a cautious prescience to the audience that J.B. Priestley would be proud of, highlighting the sombre future awaiting our ill-fated protagonists. There are a few insightful parallels throughout the movie that deftly highlight the truths hidden between fact and fiction – there's a harrowing mirroring of grief portrayed in an audition to the agonising reality of death that will stay with you long after the credits have rolled. The cinematography and music are judiciously time-specific as we travel through three decades with the characters. Each time-frame is beautifully evoked by film styles of the period and there's an accompanying soundtrack that is gloriously nostalgic. Both of the lead actors, Ryan Corr and Craig Stott, are perfectly cast as Tim and John respectively – each bringing a depth to these characters that makes them feel like family. The supporting cast are also superb; particularly Anthony LaPaglia, Camilla Ah Kin, Kerry Fox and Guy Pearce as the boys' parents. Special mention to Sarah Snook as their friend Pepe who resides on the periphery faithfully and staunchly. Also, there's a superb cameo from Geoffrey Rush as Tim's drama teacher at NIDA. It's graphic in places as it holds a powerful light over the passion of love and the bleakness of illness but the film is all the better for that; it shies away from nothing. Many fans of the original memoir should not be disappointed with this long-awaited adaptation and I am sure that if Timothy Conigrave was alive today, he'd be proud of this achievement in prolonging the legacy of his much-loved book.

A Favourite book and a modestly good movie.

[michaelrthomson · 7/10 · 17 January 2016]

This has been a favourite book of mine for many years, one I always have a few spare copies of to lend out to people, not because I think the literary skills are phenomenal but because I think it is a beautiful story of passion, lust, leaving and love. I've tried not to include spoilers in my review but there are one or two things that really perhaps are if you haven't already read the book or are aware of the story of Tim and John.

I saw the play in London some years back, and thought it cleverly done, and I had hoped to see it one day become a movie. Whilst I didn't doubt there would be some challenges in doing this, I thought it had potential to be retold in the cinematic form as beautifully as it is told in written form.

Let me start by saying I think the Actors were well chosen and performed very well. The character of the two lead personalities of the book were to a large extent captured, Tim's extroversion to John's quiet thoughtfulness. I thought the roles of both sets of parents were equally well played, with the supporting friend roles perhaps being a little bit neither here nor there in terms of what I think they really bought to the film (unlike their roles in the book).

What I did think was missing was much of the actual story, there were for me many parts missing, essential parts that enabled me as a reader to understand some of the decisions and directions Tim took in his life, parts of the overall journey he was living and how that impacted John and others around him, by their absence the movie lost something - parts that were rich in the telling were summarised by some random sex scenes and a visit to a gay mens sauna.

Whilst I appreciate the need to confidence a book into a film, the absence of these parts of the book left me feeling less like I knew either character, and thus less invested in them. Obviously I knew where the film was going in terms of it's conclusion, and in the book that conclusion was heart rending sadness, real lump in the throat tears on the cheeks stuff.... the movie was more for me just a case of 'yep OK so they put that bit in but left this and that bit out'. I was not able to connect with the characters because so much of their story was missing.

Am I glad it was made into a film, yes. Do I wish the script writers had included more, yes. Do I wish the editing perhaps had been a little more judicious in places and possibly a little less ruthless in others, yes. Would i watch it repeatedly, which I do with movies I love, perhaps not so much, and would I recommend others see it now it is becoming available through DVD/Blu-Ray/iTunes - yes, but only if they have not read the book. To me, this movie was a little bit of a disappointment for the reasons stated above, it could have been more, it could have told the viewer more about their lives, their struggles, the way they fought to overcome all that they faced, but really for me it could have created characters for these good actors to inhabit who one could connect with on an emotional level and share the lows and highs, instead, it felt as if they were cardboard cut outs of themselves.

As someone now living with HIV myself, I am only too aware of the struggles they faced, times have changed, medication is available but the experiences people went through in those times are all to real in our very recent past, and the stigma, shame and negative attitude is still so prevalent - this story is one of love overcoming all but the worst of times and the worst of situations, it gave and perhaps still gives many hope in finding love in life despite the challenges and in spite of some of the choices we make on purpose. I really just wanted more, more of them, more of the emotion and turmoil, the guilt, the anxiety, the passion and the sense of being denied that was so full in the book. Alas, to me it did not happen.

Moving, touching, disturbing, wonderful, sad, IMPORTANT

[firehorsefilms · 10/10 · 15 October 2016]

When you rate a film a 10, the review is harder because it usually means you are gushing with so much good news about the film, that you don't know where to begin.

I'll just hit three points, and to be safe, I'M REPEATING MY SPOILER ALERT HERE. THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS.

1. The casting is fantastic. The chemistry between Ryan and Craig is unlike anything I've ever seen in film, and I'm an oldie with an almost catalog knowledge of classic films. So, going back to the 1930s, I can't remember when I've seen two on-screen lovers who were more engaging and compelling. By the time the story ends, you feel like you gained and lost two great friends, so REAL is their relationship with each other. It translates over to a wonderful invitation to US, and we end up feeling lost when we lose them. (Yes, because this movie sticks with one well after one has seen it, I may be clouded by that glow, but, for now, that is my assessment of their chemistry.)

2. If you lived through the '80s and early '90s, as an adult, this film will resonate well and actually dredge up some horrifying memories of the time. If you have children in their 20s, it's even more oddly devastating to see (double spoiler alert here) two men being given a death sentence in their mid-twenties. (Triple spoiler alert here.) Although it takes years for the executioner to arrive, they are handed that death sentence at a very young age (25 - John; and 26 - Tim). To watch them have to cope with that as a couple, to see them thrown into such a nightmare at such a young age is tragic on an epic level. The day they get the bad news, they should be thinking about first jobs and maybe buying a car. It's astounding what they are instead handed. The grace with which they approach it is heartbreaking to watch.

3. (Quadruple spoiler alert here.) Hearing Tim's voice at the end SLAYS. The constant stiff upper lip of both of their journeys is the thing that makes this film stick with you for hours or days after you see it. It's the dictionary definition of impressive. It impresses itself on you with its hard truths and horrid reality: Two people you grow to love leave you at the end of the film, and they do it bravely. It breaks your heart and leaves you with a strange longing.

Cheers, from America

[paulcreeden · 10/10 · 16 August 2016]

This thoughtful adaptation of Tim Conigrave's autobiography parallels events in my own life here in the U.S, though I am 10 years older than the characters portrayed. As a hospice nurse during the AIDS epidemic, as a person living with AIDS, as the life partner of a man living with AIDS still, I found this memoir perhaps a most personal and least embellished representation of gay male relationships before and during the HIV epidemic's height.

From a critical viewpoint, I admire the actors of great international stature who put in roles which enhanced the story without intruding upon it. Well done. I felt their sincere support of the project from their performances. I don't know that American actors would have been able to do so.

I applaud the portrayal of the devastation of disease on loving relationships and affection between long-time partners. The portrayal of anticipation of separation by death, in contrast to the earlier youthful separation over sexual desires was very poignant. The sensitivity of the film cuts through the stereotypes of male Australian culture beautifully without being sappy.

As a person who has survived HIV for 32 years with many ups and downs, I usually avoid films about the AIDS epidemic like the plague itself. When my partner recommended it to me, I flinched. However, I would have missed a rare emotional experience if I had let it pass me by. Thank you, Tim Conigrave and all who have brought his work to us.

Book's better but still touching

[mrlloydcopper · 6/10 · 17 November 2018]

As with most films adapted from the book, you'll only get half the story in a movie. The acting is superb and the story relatively faithful to the original novel but it has some flaws. Namely, I found the mixing up of dates confusing. They didn't really need to jump back and forwards, I'm not sure why they did that. There is a lot of sex with spunky guys which will get on the wrong side of any homophobes or the conservatives but it is a neccessary part of the story as it depicts a lot of how the gay male community interacts (I'm gay, I can vouch for this). Ultimately it ends in tragedy and is quite a moving film but having been one of my favourite books, I will always prefer that to this.

John was beside you.

[hughman55 · 10/10 · 8 September 2016]

I feel this review inadequately describes how good this film is. I gave it my best shot. Here goes...

There have been films like this one before but this one is different. It's based on a book written in 1994 by the main character, Timothy Conigrave. Tommy Murphy has adapted that autobiography into a brilliant screenplay and director Neil Armfield has turned that screenplay into a brilliant film. "Holding the Man" covers the life and romance of two young men who meet in high school in Melbourne, Australia. It opens, however, in Italy with a frantic phone call back to Australia by Tim, wonderfully played by Ryan Corr. He needs to know, "where John was at the dinner party"; and he needs to know it now. That first impression of frenzy creates an undercurrent of urgency that will inform this beautiful story until the end; there just isn't enough time, there is never enough time, time is short, and life is shorter than time. Craig Stott plays the love of Tim's life, John Caleo, winner of the "Best and Fairest Medal" in high school. His performance, and that of Corr's, is mesmerizing. In addition to their love story you will also come to understand the struggles of their imperfect parents. These roles are played out by no less than Anthony LaPaglia, Guy Pierce, Kerry Fox, and Camilla Ah Kim. Geoffry Rush has a brief but impressionable role as Tim's acting coach. They all convey an acute understanding of these peripheral roles and I couldn't help but feel that they saw a project of substance and just wanted to see it succeed. It does.

Told in a non-linear narrative where the story jumps forward and backward in time, "Holding the Man" is a story of simple love that is complicated by society, family, and eventually consumed by the vortex that was, and is, the AIDS epidemic. What sets this film apart from others of its genre, no disrespect to any of them, is how personal and honest it is. Previous films have dealt with the AIDS epidemic; explaining it, apologizing for it, not apologizing for it, defending a community, lashing out righteously against an impotent, or worse, a passively complicit, government, and this one does too. But it does it in a way that is deeply intimate and personal to a degree that I think is new.

Tim and John meet and fall in love in high school at the end of the 70's. After some early years of stumbling around they come back together, forever. These characters were not perfect. Their story is not perfect. But it is compelling and, seemingly, honest. The author and main character, Tim, doesn't shy away from his own shortcomings and mistakes. He actually seems to enjoy picking himself apart and much of it is quite funny. Conversely, I've heard it suggested that Tim's memory of John is idealized. That's possible. My tendency though is to trust someone as apparently introspective as Tim Conigrave. His aversion to self flattery gives weight to his perception of others. And just as an overall impression, his story of their relationship seems balanced and real.

What came across for me the most was how genuine this story felt. Their relationship and their love for one another was at complete odds with their entire world; their community, their school, their families, friends (mostly), even their government, and yet they listened to their hearts and not the noise around them. They forged some kind of a life together with no blue print, no map, and no help, and it worked. This was in 1977...

Ryan Corr and Craig Stott bring an honesty and realness to Tim and John's story that is actually, and quite literally, overwhelming. We've never seen these two characters, under any name, on screen before. That is due in part to a brilliant screenplay which is not afraid of anything except dis-ingenuousness; yet equally to Corr and Stott's fearless approach to who these boys, and later men, were and their ability as actors to make them real. The pop music choices were an effective time machine transporting the viewer back and forth through the different parts of the story. You will never hear Blue Oyster Cult's "Don't Fear the Reaper" again without the sense of foreboding that ushered in the 80's for Tim and John. Not even my type of music but it's perfect, and perfectly placed, in their story.

For all of its weightiness there are moments where this film will make you laugh out loud. There's even some surprising gallows humor from John's mother as she waits by his hospital bedside. That moment will jerk you away from where you think you're going, and then go there anyway dragging you into a pit of despair and sadness with no apparent floor to stop the descent. The jagged chronology of the story creates a contrast for the dramatically different periods of their relationship. Innocent times are rendered more precious when contextualized by previously established losses to come. You will view moments in Tim and John's lives that will produce consequences they couldn't possibly have imagined. It is brilliant story telling and develops a depth and breadth to this film that was surely there in real life.

Nothing in this review will diminish your viewing experience of this film. The plot points of Tim and John's story are not surprising. It's not what happens to them, it's how we're shown what happens. The emotional impact, because of these amazing actors, the screenplay, and directing, renders a familiar story new. It is raw. And it is real.

If you were dying, and you knew it, what would you say? If you could write it down, how would it read? If you want to know what Tim Conigrave would have written about John Caleo, watch "Holding the Man". It is a beautiful film.

what a scumbag

[jm10701 · 6 November 2017]

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.

Wishing for More

[mikeyosaka · 6/10 · 27 January 2016]

I had the rare opportunity to finish reading this extraordinary book for the first time and see the film in the same day. I have to say, the film left me rather disappointed for a variety of reasons. As with all book to film adaptations, there are always difficult choices to be made, scenes to leave out, areas on which to focus at the expense of others. The nature of the the film, the jumping around of time periods rather than being a linear edit seemed to serve very little purpose, if any film would have been more emotionally resonant as a linear story, this is it. The wonder of the book is how naturally it plays, the love story is emotionally resonant because it seems so familiar.

There is no buildup to that love story here in the film, we know so little of the characters (who, let's be honest, as many people have already stated are played by actors too old to be convincing or able to convey the same sense of discovery and adventure that the book describes)that the love story falls flat. The actors have some wonderful scenes, but the dialogue is far too forced and stage-like at times to hit home. A much simpler approach would have had so much more emotional impact.

The unique and incredible love story, and the particular setting of 70s/ 80s Australia should have been the main focus, more time spent focused on the early years could have made the events of the later years so much more impactful. A lot of it felt almost movie of the week type stuff, generic and anonymous. There are obviously very difficult choices to be made by a director and writer in adapting any book, let alone a memoir so incredibly intimate and honest, but so many times in the film I found myself frustrated, wondering "Why didn't they spend so more time on THAT?" A lot of the characters seem like afterthoughts, even the two main characters at times unfortunately.

I finished the book with tears running down my face, and finished the film with a sense of frustration and disappointment. Judging from other reviews on here, it seems that the movie had made an emotional impact on many, and that is wonderful. I was very much hoping to feel the same. I was moved by some parts, but left largely cold by the experience. At least the book is there to read again(and again).

Well worth the wait

[robischiffman · 10/10 · 11 July 2016]

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.

A film I liked, but wanted to love

[runamokprods · 7/10 · 20 December 2016]

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.

When everything is against you

[albertusjohannesmaria · 9/10 · 22 January 2017]

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.

stock melodrama with recognisable mainstream tropes

[elkramer-67892 · 6/10 · 6 October 2015]

I'll say from the outset as a gay male I wanted this to be great and elements of it were, so I'm not coming from a perspective of critical indifference. I read the book when it came out and so knew what I was in for, all in all I must say the film was pretty faithful to it and didn't shy away from its most confronting or gruelling contents. I wondered beforehand whether it would or not and was impressed that it dealt with all the heaviest stuff head on, and did so well. The movie also gave me insights that my imagining as I read the book didn't, which I found illuminating and very interesting. I am from Melbourne, Australia where most of this story happened, so am familiar with its locales and some of them are of personal significance to me, so there is some overlap. There were many very strong elements in this film and as with Woody Allen's 'Irrational Man', it should have been great. The historical, social and cultural details of the mise- en-scene, costume, dialogue and even inflection were incredibly accurate, having lived through them myself, and lovingly, painstakingly recreated. Strong performances abounded, with standouts being Craig Stott who gave an incredible performance as John Caleo on par with Meryl Streep only less gimmicky, and that of the actress who played his mother, who gave a beautiful, nuanced performance. The film was for the most part very watchable, with warmth, drama and humour. Its filmmaking basics were very strong. Unfortunately, director Neil Armfield and/or producers went for an overlay of somewhat cheesy, narrated-by-crowd- pleasers pop songs that spelt out the emotions episodically and in a too obvious, simplistic way sometimes. Some of these songs and moments worked and were very touching, but evidently they were aiming for the youth market and it didn't work for me. Second of all, the film is of a genre satirised on Shaun Micallef's Mad As Hell as 'Reflecting Your Comfortable Middle Class Life Back To You And Validating It', Micallef's alternate title for such Aussie schlock as 'Packed To The Rafters', from whence came Ryan Corr who played Tim Conigrave, perhaps tellingly. I would have loved that kind of thing in my twenties, not knowing any better, but now it makes me want to reach for a bucket. And it's not cynical, bitter old age, it makes for dramatically inferior melodrama in my opinion. These two in my view major flaws really marred 'Holding The Man' for me and while professional filmmaking abounded and there were many fine elements, sadly these two errors almost dragged it down into prime time soap opera fare at times, 'Home and Away'. The excellent TV series 'Puberty Blues' which covered the 70's in a similar fashion managed to avoid such pitfalls, was a serious drama and a lot of fun, and managed to achieve art in my opinion. I have a reverent amount of respect for the blood, sweat and tears that go into a movie production, especially when there are some fine elements and great performances, so I don't like to criticise, but due to these elements I could only give it this lower rating.

I really wanted this film to work, but for me it just didn't.

[CineMuseFilms · 5/10 · 10 February 2016]

It is ten years since the release of Brokeback Mountain (2005), now widely acknowledged as a landmark film for the LGBT movement's long struggle to be heard on the big screen. It was one of many cinematic high-points on the wave of such films that started twenty years earlier. The film industry has changed since then; the genre of 'queer cinema' is now almost mainstreamed and the days of depicting all human relationships as heterosexual are gone. There are many more battles to be won, but the film pioneers have done the hard yards. This history is important because any current film that goes over old ground without offering something new risks being outdated upon release.

Respect for queer cinema does not necessarily lead to respect for all films produced under its rubric. Despite direction by the acclaimed Neil Armfield, Holding the Man (2015) is a disappointing film. Based on the 1995 memoir by revered gay rights activist Timothy Conigrave, the film version struggles to avoid soapy melodrama and corny humour. It's a low budget production about the illicit love that started between two schoolboys in the 1970s and continued for 15 years until the AIDS epidemic took its toll. Ryan Corr plays Tim and Craig Stott plays John, actors who in real life are around 30 years of age. Despite their talent, they are glaringly unconvincing as teenagers. The inevitable lack of acting authenticity through poor casting is insurmountable and it undermines the film. While sex scenes can play an important expressive role in the portrayal of all relationships regardless of sexuality beyond a certain point they become gratuitously exhibitionist.

The few genuinely sensitive moments in this film cannot overcome a disjointed narrative arc, unconvincing acting, repetitive sex scenes and an awkward mix of humour and pathos. The desire to pay homage to Conigrave's book may have constrained the film, but good adaptations are not straitjacketed by the source text. They go beyond it to show visually what was imagined by the author, contemporising it for today's far more open-minded audiences. I really wanted this film to work, but for me it just didn't.

Simply one of the best love stories-- and not just gay stories I have seen.

[amicusets · 10/10 · 5 July 2016]

I am a bit of a hard ash when it comes to rating and reviewing movies, and this movie hit all of the marks for me. It was sublime, and had me literally sobbing toward the end.

Being from America, I was not familiar with the book or the story, and in fact, only got the movie because of the cover art. I wasn't really looking for a movie that dealt with the early days of HIV/AIDS, and in fact, tend to steer clear of them because they are usually done so poorly, but HTM deals with it not only realistically, but with great humanity. In the end, the movie isn't about the disease, but the love these two men shared.

And what a love it must have been. Most of us could only ever hope for a love like that, and never actually find it. In that regard, it reminds me of Bridegroom. Both of those films leave you with the hope that fairy tale love really can exist in the real world.

Powerful and moving film of Tim Conigrave's well loved memoir

[TrevorJD · 9/10 · 12 August 2015]

Director Neil Armfield, who was at the charity screening of 'Holding the Man' I went to tonight, took a huge undertaking when he decided to direct the film of Tim Conigrave's autobiographical novel (A memoir that was an ode to Conigrave's lover and partner John Caleo). As Conigrave's book became such a well loved novel, and later a successful and highly regarded stage play. And now I am proud to say a very powerful and moving film.

The film 'Holding the Man' is filled with scenes that have such a strong emotional truth to them. Particularly for a gay man like myself, who experienced those years in the 80's and early 90's when AIDS took the lives of many friends and acquaintances; and when fear and ignorance of AIDS, and towards gay men, was the norm rather than the exception. However the centre of Conigrave's memoir was a love story that lasted 15+ years, and Ryan Corr (The Water Diviner, Banished, Love Child, ) and Craig Stott bare all in brilliant performances. Corr as the loud and opinionated Tim, and Stott as amiable and quiet John create an amazing chemistry on screen, and one that will earn them universal praise. However the great performances also extend to a roll call of top Australian acting talent that includes Geoffrey Rush, Guy Pearce, Anthony Lapaglia, Kerry Fox and Marcus Graham among many others. With a film spanning the 70's, 80's and 90's, it also has a great soundtrack of hits from the era.

Tim Conigrave died 10 days after writing 'Holding the Man', He probably had no understanding what a huge impact his book would have had on so many people across the world.

Read the book and go see this great Aussie movie.

special

[Kirpianuscus · 28 June 2020]

It is a story who you feel, scene by scene, in profound way. It becomes personal. It is admirable crafted and impressive acted. And it is alive, not a case, not a sad love story. But just pure life. To say more is difficult not exactly for the fear about spoilers but because , like a sort of liquid , it moves in yourself. A liquid of states , emotions, truths and levels of a powerful and unique connection. It is easy and fair to define it as a beautiful story of love, or inspired - precise chronicle, to admire the role of actors in secondary roles or to see it again.knowing than it is more. Yes,no doubts, it is real important is to see it.Just for feel it.

It's an alright film....

[Irishchatter · 7/10 · 3 February 2016]

I wouldn't call this the best gay biography movie I've ever seen because when the scene where Tim takes a break from John, he was seen having sex with other guys and I'm thinking to myself 'Is he gonna just move on from John or is he cheating on him too?'. I honestly wonder if the real Tim really did jump the gun with other guys? That I don't know....

Even if I thought the movie was a little confusing, it does give you a feeling of what AIDS involves and how it effects loved ones.Maybe if it was one hour and fifty minutes then 2 hours, the movie would be a lot easier in understanding to follow. It was heartbreaking that John unfortunately died from the disease and seeing the rest of the family including Tim, was very devastating.It does show you that AIDS is a very deadly disease and for those who have it, must go to a doctor immediately.

BYO Tissues

[jbrancinaed · 10/10 · 29 August 2015]

We saw it last night and I was crying within the first five minutes!!!!

I've read the book and absolutely loved (and hated) it. It was such a powerful book for that time in my life and slapped me silly with the raging emotions it evoked within me.

I loved it so much because of the story telling, the characters, the connections and the relevance to my life as a young sexually active man coming to terms with his sexuality. I hated it because it made me cry so bloody much and I fell in love with both of them and it was so gut wrenching. It touched me in a way I will never forget and the film does that experience justice.

The acting is spot on and the chemistry between the two is perfect. It was an interesting choice to use the same actors for the early school years, but given the importance of the connection between Tim & John I and understand why this was done and I don't think it hurts the film in any way. The surrounding cast is equally exceptional and Anthony Lapaglia's performance was wonderful.

This is an exceptional love story that is released at the perfect time, when marriage equality and same sex relationship rights is at the forefront of society again.

Apart from some reservations still impressive, especially in the second half.

[johannes2000-1 · 7/10 · 24 July 2020]

I never read the book, but I am convinced of it's sincerity - how could I not, the writer apparently wrote down his own beautiful but tragic love-story, just days before he himself died. The result is an equally sincere and emotional movie with some impressive acting. But looking at the movie objectively, without the hindsight of knowing it's origin, I also have some reservations.

For one, I am a bit frustrated to see yet another movie where the LGBT-community is pictured as drenched in misery, rejection, sickness, death and buckets of tears, due to bigotry, discrimination and AIDS. Wouldn't it be nice for a change to see how out-off all these difficulties something strong and positive would rise up. Alas not so here, so to me seeing this "Holding the Man" felt like having to do some steps back in time.

Another reservation concerns the fact that the actors play both the teenage and the adult versions of their characters. Maybe the producers supposed that the public couldn't handle different actors playing the same character, but the result is extremely awkward: giving two 25+ actors a silly hair-do and let them behave like madcap teens (especially Ryan Corr) was a big let-down to me, and a huge distraction from the actual story that was told. In a movie like Moonlight they even used three different actors for the the same character and it didn't harm it a bit.

To me the movie got better and more realistic in the second half, especially the part where John's health deteriorated and Timothy had to cope with this. Especially the acting of Ryan Corr in that phase was impressive. Craig Matthew Stott had the disadvantage of his character being so sick that he hardly could express himself, but his afflicted appearance combined with his resigned attitude was heartbreaking.

All in all: some serious reservations, but especially in the second half an emotionally impressive movie.

No words to say

[sammyrockz · 10/10 · 10 March 2019]

I am just as speechless as I guess the audiences would have been after watching the movie. I probably haven't cried this much since my boyfriend passed away because of AIDS as I did today. Tim & John are a wonderful couple. The days, months, years they spent together, the ups & downs they went through and finally the last days of John with Tim was heart-wrenching. I don't have words to express my feelings and thoughts. I just want to thank Neil Armfield to have made such a wonderful movie and to all it's cast and crew. I couldn't stop myself from giving a review to this movie. I think it's not justifiable that this movie has earned 7.3/10 wherein it should be a 10/10.

Kudos to everyone. Cheers!!!

Why?

[maggieyc · 6/10 · 4 April 2020]

Why does every gay movie have to end in tragedy? I wanted to enjoy the progression of the love story, but I could tell by the first scene that at least one of the characters were going to die at the end and I'm sorry but that just ruins the whole story.

Holding The Love

[larapha · 10/10 · 2 November 2016]

Perhaps the good felling I felt when watching Holding The Man is the intense acting of Ryan Corr. He gives the film such a radiance that not even the dark events of AIDS can destroy. It's because of him I would rate the film so high. Not that the other actors are bad. It's simple because we don't feel bad during the screening; we simply accept the facts with a painful smile. Corr is so good in portraying an immensely lovable person we assume the facts as they are. The AIDS crisis won't destroy love, it simply turn it more intense. As we move back and forward through the film, we go on learning the power of love. The film doesn't tell us what the characters do for a living, but we understand they have very little, as when they show the parting of the belongings of the one who is dying, but that doesn't matter. They are full of life in that environment of death at stake. It isn't properly the story that holds us on, but Tim's character that never leaves a moment of sorrow. I'd highly recommend it, if only for showing that AIDS isn't the worst. The worst is lack of love, and that abounds in the whole movie.

Holding the Man Review

[felipepm17 · 6/10 · 23 January 2020]

It's shocking how little I cared about either of the two main characters. The movie definitely could have been shorter.

Old Men in Bad Wigs?

[injury-65447 · 3/10 · 8 September 2020]

I was told this movie is great and I finally got around to watching it. I don't know what happened! I couldn't make it past the half hour mark. I really wanted to give it a chance but it just wasn't working at all for me. I was expecting to witness some kind of gay classic but it felt totally odd and wrong to me. Now that I think about it, I shouldn't be surprised that my ex enjoyed a film like this - given his questionable taste in cinema.

The main thing for me was that the two lead actors just look WAY too old to be playing high school boys. Combine that fact with incredibly awful hairstyles and mediocre acting and the whole thing just comes off as ridiculous and comical. I honestly think this was miscast from the get go. I couldn't stop thinking that Tim comes across as a kind of perverse Willy Wonka figure with John as the innocent child being lured into the factory for candy.

The film probably develops into something more but I'm afraid the characters just were not established well enough for me to be invested in their arcs. Such a shame and I'm honestly shocked! I'll give it a 4 just based on the assumption that it gets better in the second half of the film.