User Reviews

Necessarily crude but no less potent for that. In fact, as Koresky points out, its amateurishness only serves to give the film an extremely sensitive quality. One of those movies that feels like a UFO sighting; rarely seen, alien in conception and creation. You sense how open and urgent it feels, which counts for a lot and I was moved by it even in spite of its rudimentary aspects

This 35 year old film seems "unpolished" by today's standards (higher resolution, better acting & production values) ...but the movie still works.

The acting isn't great, but good enough. The setting appears a bit sterile and sanitized ...at times more like a play rather than a movie. But we are still able to connect emotionally with the characters and enjoy the narrative.

A meaningful film and a great time capsule!

I would have given this a higher rating 30 years ago.

I have been vocal before how many in the media and governing political parties spread misinformation and lies about Aids in the early 1980s.

Conservative and religions groups had a vested interest in labelling Aids as a gay only disease. Thousands of hetrosexuals, intravenous drug users, haemophiliacs contracted Aids/HIV because they thought they would be safe. It would not affect them.

Buddies released in 1985 very much as this in the heart of this movie. Gay men with Aids were denied help from government funding. Having to rely on charity.

Robert Willow (Geoff Edholm) is in hospital dying of Aids. His life as gay man was difficult, ostracised from his family when he came out.

David Bennett (David Schachter) is a young gay man in a relationship and with a supportive family. He has volunteered to be a hospital buddy and he is nervous about it.

David and Robert are contrasting personalities. It shows up when they discuss Gay Parades. It is not David's things, he wants to keep his personal life private. Gay activism is not his thing.

Over time they get close and learn to understand each other. This includes David showing an interest in gay politics.

By making David a typesetter who is researching about Aids. It allows writer/director Arthur J Bressan Jr to explore the political implications for Aids. Robert gets angry to learn that Aids is meant to be God's revenge from some anti gay groups.

As in the British television series It's A Sin shown in 2021. Robert dies without his friends being with him. A hospital mix up meant, David could not be contacted.

Buddies was a small scale film made on a very low budget. It only played on the independent film circuit.

Both Edholm and Bressan jr later died of Aids. Because of the the time it was made, it is an important document of that era. Hollywood would later revisit the themes in Longtime Companion in 1989.

A gay man (in a happy monogamous relationship) becomes a buddy with another man dying of AIDS. They slowly become closer and closer...

I was one of the few people to actually see this in a movie theatre back in 1985. It played at a VERY small art house cinema and was the first film ever made to deal with AIDS. It was written and directed by a gay man (Arthur Bressan Jr.) who, sadly, died of AIDS two years later.

It was shattering. At the time I was a closeted gay man with no gay friends and knew nothing about AIDS. This movie really opened my eyes. It didn't scare me from coming out though--it does have the gay, HIV- couple who clearly love each other. The acting was great and it all built up to a powerful climax that left me crying (I wasn't alone--everyone else in the theatre was in tears also).

This is a powerful, depressing film but it should be required viewing for everyone! It's also sad that Bressan is no longer with us. He had the courage to make this film and it is well-written and directed. This has disappeared completely since 1985 and was overshadowed by "Longtime Companion" in 1990. That's too bad--I'd love to see this again.

Powerful and moving. A 10.

Buddies (1985) was written and directed by Arthur J. Bressan Jr.

The movie stars Geoff Edholm as Robert Willow, a young gay man dying from HIV/AIDS. David Schachter portrays David Bennett, a young man who volunteers to be a "buddy" to Robert.

The buddy concept was new to me. Humanitarian groups would assign people to visit people dying from HIV/AIDS if they had no other support system. This must have been common, because many gay men had partners who were dying or had died, and people were afraid to go near people with HIV/AIDS because no one knew how it was transmitted.

This film could have been just a sentimental movie about people dying from a dread disease. It was much more than that. It showed us the human face of people dying from HIV/AIDS, and a human face to those brave enough to help them maintain their dignity.

This movie must have been made on a tiny budget, because the two main characters are about the only actors we see. Many people who would normally have appeared on screen were just speaking parts. The sets were essentially just a hospital room and a gymnasium. (David isn't naturally athletic, but he works out so he won't be a "wimp.") Still, it was effective as a two-person film, so the low budget didn't really interfere.

It's hard to say that you "enjoy" a movie like this, but I can say that I learned from it and am glad that I saw it. It was shown at Rochester's great Dryden Theatre at The George Eastman Museum. The movie was presented as "ImageOut of the Archives" by ImageOut, the excellent Rochester LGBT Film Festival. It will work on the small screen.

Buddies has a very strong IMDb rating of 8.2. Yes--it's that good. Find it and watch it.

A film I happened to see late at night on Channel 4 (UK) while channel hopping a few years back. My attention was grabbed within minutes. Its the most moving and realistic film to deal with the way AIDS affects lives. This film does not rely on Hollywood sentimentality. No big budget scenes and special effects. In fact the quality was almost that of a home made movie. But then again, the film was meant to put you so much closer to the actors and the story. So what better way that apparently watching someones home movie? It works. See how people are forced to questions their own prejudices, sees how others live and how their values and beliefs may not be the same as yours, but are just as valid. If you get to the end and never have at least the starting of a tear in your eye at any point, then you heart must truly be made of stone. Wish I knew if it was available on DVD or even VHS somewhere.

This has to be one of those films that should always be remembered for the way it handles, the then not widely known journeys for people who have Aids. It starts by showing the misconceptions that people had about Aids and how to catch it. There are many moving parts to this film and I deny anyone that has feelings not to get emotional and need to dry their eyes. I hope one day to be able to get hold of a video so that I may be able to see the end without using too many tissues to dry my eyes.

As a child of that generation, a peer who survived, I couldn't help but getting very wet cheeks about 10 minutes into the reel. This isn't just a downer/dying film though, it's actually quite uplifting, even erotic and funny for a few seconds. They don't hire actors like these and they don't produce movies like these today. There aren't stories like these today, and that's a very good thing. Still, like other remembrances of the things that brought humanity so far down in the last century, look at this and learn, and remember. Never forget this, the deeply human experience. This isn't a story about a cause or an idea, it's a high-res (before that term existed) depiction of an intimate, loving relationship between two people. This movie is way ahead of it's time,and the current time, early 2016.

The faults to be found with this film are probably all in the technical production value, it was shot in the early 80's and the sound is a little hard to grasp at times. But the cinematography, acting, story and soundtrack are monumental.

Buddies (1985)

*** (out of 4)

This ground-breaking drama centers around Robert (Geoff Edholm), a New York City man who is in the hospital dying of AIDS. One day David (David Schachter) comes to visit him as a "Buddy" and the two of them quickly build a friendship, although David knows the story only has one ending.

BUDDIES was one of the very first films to deal with AIDS and homosexuality and it was directed by Arthur J. Bressan Jr. who was actually suffering from the virus while making this picture. In fact, the director would end up dying of AIDS a few years after this film and I think his ghost is hanging all over this picture.

I say his ghost is hanging all over this picture because the film really does come across as a first-hand account of what it was like to have this virus during the 80's and what it was like waiting to die. The film is certainly very depressing and it's rather raw in the way it takes a look at a life cut short and I think it's clear that the director was working out his own demons here.

As I said, the film is exceptionally raw and there are some brutal moments on hand here. As good as this film is, at the same time it's pretty hard to recommend it since the thing is so depressing as I'm sure most people aren't going to want to watch someone slowly dying. The film is about loss, the film is about not wanting to die and it's about regret. It's certainly not a very cheerful movie but at the same time it's so well-made that you can't help but get caught up in its emotions.

Both Edholm and Schachter are good in their roles. I wouldn't say either of them are great as there are a few weak moments in the performances but for the most part they hit all of the right notes and I'd argue that both of them help add tot he rawness of the picture. I thought both of them had a great relationship with each other and as the friendship builds you really do feel it.

BUDDIES isn't the easiest film to sit through but there's no question that it's an important picture and one that deserves more attention than it has gotten over the years.

Buddies (1985) -

I'm sure that it was a huge thing to even contemplate making this film back in 1985 and I wonder if it actually made any difference to the AIDS crisis and how it was viewed. It's just a shame that there weren't any braver, stronger actors and directors, Etc that would have been more appealing and that could have leant their names to it, in order to show the world how things were.

So many other productions have confronted the issue since this one, that it didn't feel like it would stand the test of time like 'The Normal Heart' (2014) and 'It's A Sin' (2021) probably will.

I think a lot of the issues with people being homophobic in general is to do with the sex element and if this one was aimed at gaining sympathy then the producers might have wanted to cut back on the bits that were about numerous sexual partners and open relationships, because it showed some of the elements that those in more committed heterosexual marriages wouldn't necessarily understand or consider to be right.

Otherwise it was just a message of condolence to those with the disease at the time and served no real purpose, which wasn't helped by the bad acting.

The lead playing David had the most monotonous voice and the script tried a bit too hard to create balance between the two characters differences, which ultimately showed them both up.

I did like the opening and closing titles, which were a very clever idea.

As a film that was made during the height of the crisis, I would have hoped for more, with the expectation that they were trying to make a statement about the indiscriminate disease that was alleged to be discriminating against homosexual people. It could have been something very important that aided the progression of a a sympathetic solution and the science to ease the pain of so many individuals, but it was cheapened by its delivery and it's content and, to be honest, seemed to make light of things.

253.32/1000.

I have heard about the movie, but I don't think it has ever beem on theatres in Brazil. If it has, probably for a small festival with veryimited access.

I touches for its humanity and simplicity. The two main characters are the only ones who actually have their faces shown during the picture. As their connection grows, we can see true love and mutual comprehension growing. It is a muste see movie.

Mournful, angry, funny, smart, even sexy. Good score too.

It's not really very good. The scriptwriter was clearly wanting to say something very profound but couldn't think of anything. There has to be purpose to writing a drama otherwise one might as well zmake a documentary about the AIDS crisis.

Neither character was particularly interesting, David being especially dull. The scene where the VCR is smuggled in has a little sparkle.

Otherwise the whole thing is somewhat stilted. Wannabee AIDS scriptwriters take note; do your research before attempting something like this, but remember, you're creating art and not medical notes.

Within the constraints of the wooden script both the leads acted well, especially the dying boy played by Geoff Edholm. Worth a look but don't expect to be wowed.