Diagonaldi Very well executed

Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

CookieInvent There's a good chance the film will make you laugh out loud, but if it doesn't, there's an even better chance it will make you openly sob.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

gtalbot This film is a wonderful portrayal of what can lie behind the public persona of a famous person. In a different time you feel Liberace would have been a much happier man. He could have been more open about his sexuality in more recent times. Behind the Candelabra shows how hard it was for Liberace to come to terms with being gay.Michael Douglas and Matt Damon give moving portrayals as Liberace and Scott Thorson, Liberace's secret lover.I love the ending of this films, when Scott Thorson imagines the deceased Liberace floating up towards heaven. It is as if they are both being released from his struggle with their sexuality.

Kirpianuscus not only for mixture of kitsch and opulence, costumes and careful recreation of atmosphere. but for the art of Michael Douglas to recreate the isolation, selfishness, vulnerability of Liberace. for the admirable job of Matt Damon, victim in fascinating spider web. for the musical moments and for the gay air. and, sure, as parable about glory and the fall. a great show. this is its basic virtue. and the heart of a splendid story about a meeting, a trip and a love story who has all the ingredients of soap opera and little more. the good point - realistic picture of a career who seems be eccentric and fake and strange today but who defines the taste of public more than the life of Liberace.

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.

bregund Watch any clip of Liberace on youtube and, despite your awareness of his personal life, you have to agree that he was a natural showman. I remember seeing him on TV in the 70s and woman loved him, my mom went nuts. It's easy to see why, because he pulled the audience into his performances and made you feel like you were part of it. It's not easy to do this, and he made it look effortless in the way that some outstanding entertainers do, like Michael Jackson or Madonna. That critical element is missing from this film. When you peel back the layers of showmanship, you want to see what makes up the person behind them, and this film doesn't accomplish that goal or explain Liberace's complicated life. I had high hopes for Douglas, but for some reason he just doesn't click, his delivery is off, and you can't buy him as Liberace, you just see Michael Douglas in heavy makeup. Matt Damon gives a suitably understated performance and he is a dead ringer for Scott Thorson.Ironically, given what are supposed to be colorful main characters, the real stars of the show are the supporting characters: an unrecognizable Debbie Reynolds as Liberace's mother, Dan Akroyd as Liberace's snappy lawyer, Scott Bakula as Bob Black, and of course Rob Lowe, who steals every scene he's in. Maybe Rob Lowe should have played Liberace.