Watch Love! Valour! Compassion! For Free

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Don't listen to the negative reviews

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

This is perhaps the most inappropriately named movie ever! There is no "Love", there is no "Valor", and there is no "Compasion". Let's try this instead: "Self Centered!, Shallow!, Headonistic!" I saw this film when it "came out" in 1997 and as the credits rolled in the theater I wanted to crawl into a hole and pull the hole in after me. Last night I caught parts of it again on cable and immediately started having PTSD symptoms. What a giant pant load. As a gay male, and ballet dancer myself, I cringe to think that people out there might see this vapid movie and think that my life in any way resembles it or any of it's pathetic inhabitants. Sorry to take this personally... This is not a movie about people, gay or otherwise, and their struggles or triumphs. It's about gay cartoon characters. And not very nice ones. Every distasteful stereotype is there. And most of the characters are several all at once. What do they have in common? They are all shallow, self centered, bitchy, immature, and totally lacking in impulse control, which explains the last thing they all have in common, they are all dying of AIDS. And so we have one of two problems here. Either gays are now making movies that perpetuate commonly held negative stereotypes about themselves, in which we have a movie and gay problem. Or, these aren't stereotypes and we gays are really like the way this movie portrays us, in which we have only a gay problem. Either way this movie is just one big problem from start to finish because it's loaded with bad movie making and bad gay characters. When "The Boys in the Band" opened in the 1960's the gay community, of which Terrence McNally had to have been a part of at the time, was outraged at it's negative portrayal of gay men as stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy. Whatever Mr. McNally's perspective was back then he clearly thinks that stereotypically sad, self loathing, and bitchy was the way to go thirty years later in 1997, and that AIDS would somehow ameliorate the subjects' distastefulness. Not even close. More importantly, all the personal and sociological offenses aside, this is just a really bad, unenjoyable, movie. The house and landscape are beautiful but there is no one to like or care for anywhere to be found. Like too many "gay films" it trades on shallowness, bitchiness, nudity,and the promise of easy sex. Those can be elements of a film, but they can't BE the film. Follow this if you will. One of the many "subplotlines" threaded throughout this movie: the cute blind guy screws around on his partner, in their own home, with one of their guests, then gets a phone call that his sister had died and launches into an overacted banshee like scream that makes you think he might also be mentally disabled. Then while his lover is comforting him due to the loss of his sister, the cute blind guy thinks it's the perfect time to "be honest" and tell his lover that he has been schtupping the house guest. And this is fairly routine for this script and this group of characters. And this is not treated like a plot development. It's just one of many random moments, clichés, and stereotypes thrown into this shepherds pie of undeveloped stories and characters. Uhgg...And as for the brain trust behind all this, if this is what passes for talented playwriting and movie making by the gay establishment, God help us all.

Love, Valour, Compassion is a tear-jerker. No question about it, you'll get teary-eyed more than once before the credits roll. And it's worth it. This was originally a play and the film makes that fact apparent. Dialog is occasionally overly wordy and a bit contrived and most scenes play out in one place and from one angle. None of that hurts the movie but it's more noticeable than many other play-to-silver-screen adaptations. Jason Alexander pulls off a character I'd never have expected from him. Funny, sympathetic, and downright lovable. He also has one of the best lines of the movie. When asked what room he's staying in he responds: ". . .the Patty Hearst memorial closet. . ." The film is packed with philosophical conversations about life, love, compassion and many subjects that don't get discussed enough in real life or on film. It also has its' share of full frontal male nudity. Refreshing given the fact that directors historically seem more willing to strip females naked but keep the fellas covered in bed sheets. This is the kind of movie that will get its' viewers talking after they've turned off the TV and wiped their eyes.

It's amazing the fate the great play by Terrence McNally suffered on its way to the movies. The fact that it's basically the same team that produced this moving theater piece at New York's Manhattan Theater Club and later transferred to Broadway with basically the same cast, and with the same director, Joe Mantello, doesn't give the film viewer any idea of what "Love, Valor, Compassion" was so effective on the theater in comparison what one watches this version on the screen.First, and foremost, the replacement of Nathan Lane, the originator of the role of Buzz was the first mistake. In fact, Jason Alexander, a good actor otherwise, throws away the balance of the film as he portrays Buzz. Mr. Alexander is out of his element in the movie. He seems to be acting in a different film, rather on this one.The rest of the brilliant cast is repeating the roles they originated on the play."Love, Valor, Compassion" deals with a lot of serious topics in a matter of fact way. AIDS is at the center of the story as this group is affected deeply in one way, or another, by the plague that is killing most of these men gathered at a summer house. There is also a subtext in the movie about relationships, friendship, and loyalty.John Glover playing the twin brothers, John, and James, gives one of his best performances in this picture. Mr. Glover is an actor who has a long background in both theater and films and he is a welcome addition to anything he decides to grace with his presence.Stephen Spinella and John Benjamin Hickey, are Perry and Arthur, a gay couple that has managed to stay together fourteen years, a record for this type of life where relationships tend not to last at all. Stephen Bogardus and Justin Kirk, are Gregory and Bobby, the host of the house and his sweet blind lover. Randy Becker plays Ramon, who appears to be a hustler and has been brought as a guest and ends up betraying his companion and the host.Finally, the fact the film doesn't work rests with the direction of Joe Mantello, an excellent theater director for casting the wrong man in a key part in the movie and perhaps his unfamiliarity working in films.

Having nearly all of the original cast in this film, makes it an excellent record of the Broadway production even if the powers-that-be decided to eliminate Nathan Lane and replace him with Jason Alexander. Alexander does a credible job although you do spend the film wondering "what if.....?" I'm sure now that Lane's name is bigger than ever, the producers must be kicking themselves. I have directed a production of the play and must say that although the essence has been retained, the film loses some of the stage version's heart. Must admit though some of the performances are excellent particularly Justin Kirk and Stephen Spinella. Terrence McNally is my hero so having anything of his on celluloid is worth cherishing. Now if they'd only make a film of Master Class............