SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

troyturton61 I still cry, every time I watch this movie. How cant you? Both for the subject matter, the lost loved ones and of course. The fact that to this day, gays are still hated & feared.

Michael de Werd It is more than 20 years ago that I saw this film for the first time. Yesterday I have seen it for the second time and again I was deeply moved by it. For a part it is because of my personal memories of the beginning of AIDS. I had my coming out in 1981, but it was in 1984 that I first heard about the "new disease" – Europe was a few years behind in this respect. Like the people in the film at first I didn't take it seriously, but then I was struck by insecurity. Is it risky to kiss somebody, because HIV is found in saliva too? Looking back I have to be glad that my coming out was not ten years earlier. Otherwise Longtime Companion might have been my story too. Although I knew some people who have died of AIDS, none of them was a close friend of mine.But apart from this personal aspect I think Longtime Companion is a wonderful film, probably the best about AIDS. Like the first time there were two scenes that moved me to tears: the final scene with the fantasy, where the survivors meet those who have gone. And of course the scene, where David tells his dying love to let it go. I didn't know that Bruce Davison got an Oscar nomination for this role, but he had deserved to win.

nycritic At the time of its release, the term "longtime companion" had a different meaning than the one displayed in this film's title: it did not have the connotation that it does now, but was the equivalent to what "significant other" is in our times nearly twenty years later. It certainly carried an aura of gravitas as it defined a romantic but very serious notion that two people were bound together by ties stronger than the sexual and were, truthfully, partners for life, for better or worse.Norman Rene's groundbreaking film LONGTIME COMPANION is that rare act that takes hold of a term, gives it life and new meaning, and is one that has not aged since its premiere in 1990, when queer cinema was barely a blip in the arena and the themes still being explored were the conflicts of coming out (to one's self, to the world), usually with a sordid, semi-exploitative tone. Up until then the only other film that treated homosexuality as a natural occurrence -- complete with a view of the horrors of gay bashing -- was TORCH SONG TRILOGY, which also remains rather contemporary with the times.Like a trip down memory lane, it divides itself in chapters, focusing on the appearance of what was (then) known as the "gay cancer" and crept its way into social consciousness as a fearsome, four letter word we now acknowledge as AIDS. We're introduced to a variety of characters, all realistic in nature, and confront their issues that are commonplace. Friendships are formed, love is exchanged, and all the while bonds are tested as this "thing", this invisible character, becomes almost omnipresent in every sense of the word. A very grim, yet real scene early in the film is one that can't be denied: at a hospital visit, one character (played by Campbell Scott) immediately washes his hands in restrained disgust after greeting a sick friend (Dermot Mulroney) because of the fear of contagion. Counterpointed is a much later, extremely emotional scene involving Bruce Davidson as he says goodbye to his lover and allows him to "let go".It's two sides of the coin, but Norman Rene creates a haunting experience that remains indelible to anyone who has been in those situations. It's in my own opinion one of the finest films about gay men ever done, and it's a must for anyone getting into queer cinema.

savichmike2001 Although topical, this movie is not dated in any way. Set in the late '80s and '90s, the film evinces timelessness in terms of dialog, music, style, set design, and costuming. In fact, the only thing that "dates" the movie is the absence of cell phones and flat-panel monitors. Unfortunately, the biggest miss is excluding larger social institutions and their reactionary background: the President, NIH, etc. But, perhaps, that is the point of the film: to keep the effects of the disease personal and gut-wrenching. Far better than "An Early Frost" and your typical made-for-TV, "disease-of-of-the-week" films. Truly great acting from a well-put together cast of believable and empathetic characters.