Love! Valour! Compassion! (1997)

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Overrated and overhyped

This movie was so-so. It had it's moments, but wasn't the greatest.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The writer of the current featured review, jotix100, thinks this movie "doesn't work." I beg to differ. What Love! Valour! Compassion! was onstage doesn't matter to this movie. The movie isn't being judged as a play. Those of us who never saw the play onstage could not care less how good or bad it was there. This movie does work. It's everything good jotix100 mentions and what he finds deficient from the play has no bearing, unless what you like to do is compare two good things just to discover which is the weakest. Enjoy this movie for the witty dialogue, the genuine rapport between all the performers, the beautiful setting and the magnificent John Glover. Whatever isn't there on the screen is irrelevant.

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.

Gay men have been around for years, in all forms, shapes, and sizes. Except on film. That was sacred ground where no sexual deviates dared rear their nasty head. And if they did, it was as the fall guy, the pervert, the weirdo with a lisp, the psycho-killer who had a thing for dresses. So when the zeitgeist of the 90s decided it was time to give "the gays" stories of their own, no one, it seemed, knew how to approach the material. It was all so risky, like walking on eggshells.It's so evident here as to cry for help. Setting myself aside from the praise pretty much everyone and their mother have given Terrence McNally for coming up with this "un-fabulous" story, I don't buy it. I don't get it. I don't even believe in it -- that's how strongly I feel against this movie that somehow became a hit if a dated hit. It reeks of fabricated fake. I can't identify with a story that whacks me on the top of my head like an angry stick trying to troll for prizes as it tries to let me in on the miles of angst these people spew out. Especially when it revolves on clichés and a predictable setup involving two of the most stereotypical characters ever to grace a story: the Latino sex-bomb and the fey disabled man, so sweet you want to club him.Sure, the times gave it its importance, the people who saw it -- gay men among them -- were more than validated, and everyone was happy. I for one, was not. Not partaking in self-pitying, self-loathing, womanly emotions gone to hell, and the need for excessive, over the top drama, I saw it for what it was -- a dated story closer to the spirit of the 80s, i. e. LONGTIME COMPANION -- and moved on to the next flick. And hoped never to fall for manipulative melodramas such as this hypocritical, soulless, un-recommendable movie.

I recently saw this movie again since it hit DVD. I'd seen it once at the theater and was less than impressed. It seems to have aged well. It was better than I remembered. Most of the cast is excellent, given that they should know these roles pretty well after playing them night after night on Broadway. One of the main problems is the absence of Nathan Lane. The play was written for him specifically. The role of Buzz is the center of the play. While Jason Alexander is a capable actor, he is no Nathan Lane. As it stands, this is a pretty good movie with most of the cast intact, but there is a substantial piece missing from the whole and it shows.