An Early Frost is, I feel, more at place as feature in a (Gay) Film History class than as a movie proper.
THE GOOD
The fact that it brought such great awareness about AIDS and was the first major TV movie talking about the disease so openly is great. It's positive, and although the disease is shown quite clearly (you see / hear about people dying, you see discrimination, you see the physical and mental toll it's taking on the victims), it's never too pessimistic either. The main character doesn't die at the end, which for a movie about AIDS is a nice relief.
THE BAD
The movie is often a bit melodramatic, and the music doesn't help. The acting is often wooden, and sometimes it feels more like a "special episode" out of a mid-afternoon soap opera than a real movie (even TV movie).
Also, although it is of course not the movie's fault, the information about AIDS is very dated, and the people's reaction to it seem often weird. (The boyfriend doesn't get immediately tested??)
THE UGLY
The ugly thing about the movie is its portrayal of gay people. To make it more palatable to the rest of the country, the gay couple is treated more like a pair of good college pals than a loving couple. You never see them kiss of share any physical intimacy other than a hand on the shoulder, and they lack any kind of real chemistry.
The boyfriend doesn't fight to have Micheal come back to him, doesn't really seem to care to be separated from Micheal, and when he learns Micheal is in the hospital, he doesn't come right away. The same, Micheal barely seems to want to come home, etc. Nothing about them says "couple" to me. Can you imagine a movie where a young married couple had the husband become sick, go home to his parents and have the wife visit him once in a while, "it's good to see you, I hope you come home soon"?? No. I didn't think so.
The movie is over melodramatic at some points (the father's reactions for example), and under-dramatic at others. Micheal's boyfriend doesn't seem to care that much, Micheal apparently doesn't have any other friends that might care about him, he shows almost no reaction when his hospital buddy dies, and the buddy's story (getting locked out by his boyfriend), although plausible (things like that did happen) isn't countered by more realistic portrayals of gay people's reactions to the disease and how the gay community organized itself to respond to the disease when nobody would do anything.
In the end, while on the surface pleading for gay acceptance, the movie is actually almost homophobic in its treatment, and relies on rather homophobic clichés to make its story (= gay men only care about themselves, they have no friends, nobody who cares about them, their only friendships are superficial, they're all promiscuous and in the end, only the heterosexual family isn't superficial).
THE GOOD
The fact that it brought such great awareness about AIDS and was the first major TV movie talking about the disease so openly is great. It's positive, and although the disease is shown quite clearly (you see / hear about people dying, you see discrimination, you see the physical and mental toll it's taking on the victims), it's never too pessimistic either. The main character doesn't die at the end, which for a movie about AIDS is a nice relief.
THE BAD
The movie is often a bit melodramatic, and the music doesn't help. The acting is often wooden, and sometimes it feels more like a "special episode" out of a mid-afternoon soap opera than a real movie (even TV movie).
Also, although it is of course not the movie's fault, the information about AIDS is very dated, and the people's reaction to it seem often weird. (The boyfriend doesn't get immediately tested??)
THE UGLY
The ugly thing about the movie is its portrayal of gay people. To make it more palatable to the rest of the country, the gay couple is treated more like a pair of good college pals than a loving couple. You never see them kiss of share any physical intimacy other than a hand on the shoulder, and they lack any kind of real chemistry.
The boyfriend doesn't fight to have Micheal come back to him, doesn't really seem to care to be separated from Micheal, and when he learns Micheal is in the hospital, he doesn't come right away. The same, Micheal barely seems to want to come home, etc. Nothing about them says "couple" to me. Can you imagine a movie where a young married couple had the husband become sick, go home to his parents and have the wife visit him once in a while, "it's good to see you, I hope you come home soon"?? No. I didn't think so.
The movie is over melodramatic at some points (the father's reactions for example), and under-dramatic at others. Micheal's boyfriend doesn't seem to care that much, Micheal apparently doesn't have any other friends that might care about him, he shows almost no reaction when his hospital buddy dies, and the buddy's story (getting locked out by his boyfriend), although plausible (things like that did happen) isn't countered by more realistic portrayals of gay people's reactions to the disease and how the gay community organized itself to respond to the disease when nobody would do anything.
In the end, while on the surface pleading for gay acceptance, the movie is actually almost homophobic in its treatment, and relies on rather homophobic clichés to make its story (= gay men only care about themselves, they have no friends, nobody who cares about them, their only friendships are superficial, they're all promiscuous and in the end, only the heterosexual family isn't superficial).