Majorthebys Charming and brutal

BoardChiri Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay

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

Cissy Évelyne It really made me laugh, but for some moments I was tearing up because I could relate so much.

leethomas-11621 One of the funniest (and most tragic!) movies ever. Two heterosexual actors play the gay leads magnificently.

s3276169 As a child I remember Liberace popping up from time to time on TV. Somehow even back then there was something "unsettling" about the man. It had nothing to do with his sexuality, as I child that mean't little to me. What I do remember is thinking the facade the man presented to the world hid something rather sad and empty. Behind the Candelabra, offers up an image of Liberace as a man who appears to have everything but, in fact, has nothing. Liberace as he admits himself, is a marketing product, Lee as he prefers to be called, worked very hard to create. There is too, no denying the man's musical talent or his intellect. His sharp humour and insight can not easily be dismissed. That said, for all his material success, his glitzy shows, expensive cars, overstated mansions and young paramours, Liberace was a lonely, isolated figure. Liberace is a victim of his own success and the times he lived in. He can not openly admit his sexual preferences for fear of losing his career and he can not be sure who his friends are and who is simply out to take advantage of his considerable wealth (for the large part of his time in show business he was the highest paid entertainer in the world). The result as this film ably shows, is a man who leads a strained, sad, rather superficial existence. Surrounded for the most part by quislings and hanger on's. A man so worried about his outward appearance he resorts to plastic surgery that leaves him sleeping with his eyes partly open. Indeed, even his partner Scott Thornson, is compelled to have surgery to look more like Liberace. It seems the only person Liberace can really trust in and have any measure of love for, is himself. Its a sad tale, with beautiful sets and a very camp feel to it. Michael Douglas hands in a excellent, if slightly overstated, performance as Liberace. Personally, I felt Matt Daemon was somewhat more convincing, as Liberace's partner, Scott Thorson.All in all this is an excellent, very interesting film, that explores the unglamorous reality that lurks behind the glitzy veneer of the US entertainment industry. Eight out of ten from me.

svenrufus Let's get the good bits out there first. I thought Matt Damon and Michael Douglas were both very good in their roles, Douglas especially going against type. That was impressive. It was well filmed, and the sets were every bit as striking as you'd expect given the subject matter.But despite all the glitz of what I was looking at, the overall was rather drab and workaday. At first I was thinking that was perhaps a reflection on the fact that the rich and famous also live fundamentally normal lives, the same stories played out in terms of relationships and human weaknesses, so the mundane nature of their experience can't really be hidden by the shiny baubles and jewellery, but in the end I feel that there was something else missing from this.A bit like Liberace himself perhaps, this is a film that depends more on style than substance. 'It looks fabulous, so maybe no-one will notice how thin and meagre the rest of the work is' appears to be the underlying ethos for the film, and that's disappointing given the personnel involved.I can't quite get my head round why that is. It could be that the source material is not the full picture given how one sided the account really is (I only found that out after seeing it and that struck me as a possible issue straight away.) Perhaps the fact that it was supported by HBO rather than a more experienced film studio gives it a more televisual, functional feel than might have been achieved elsewhere, but I don't really know why that should be the case, other than the fact that I don't watch any TV any more, partly because it leaves me feeling like what I watch lacks something vital, similar to the way this film makes me feel.I was looking forward to the film, and am glad I've seen it now, but it didn't live up to my expectations.

kluismans a missed opportunity for a film. the true story is that a 57 year old man takes a 17 year old boy to bed, takes him into his home, well his mansion, no less, introduces him to drugs, bullies him into plastic surgery to make him look like himself, and soderbergh decides to give us this piece of fluffy nonsense! its extraordinary. the material is the stuff of horror and this light hearted puff of hum dee hah is the result. is no one else more outraged by the abuse of a 17 year old boy? has the world truly lost its moral compass to such an extent? the idea that a 42 year matt damon should play scott as a 17 year old and fail to tell the real story is wrong. am i really the only person amazed by this? i give this 4 because the film carries a story and it is well acted, it just isn't the film that it should be.