comment #1

Thrudvangar says ...

I enjoyed Transamerica.

Oh.

comment #2

The InSneider says ...

I thought Milk was a good movie but I wouldn't disagree with this guy either. I don't think it should be in contention for Best Picture but I understand why people feel it's a viable contender. It's an underwhelming movie that doesn't have the emotional impact of a Brokeback Mountain or, yes, Crash. I agree that it's a paint-by-numbers biopic. It didn't share any special insight into Harvey Milk's private life. It was much too issue-driven rather than character-driven. Penn, Brolin, Franco and Hirsch are all great and besides Penn (who is a lock and deservedly so) I could see it getting two supporting actor noms, but I think Dustin Lance Black's script is overrated and Van Sant, as I feared, kinda blew it. The most emotional moment in the whole movie is when you see the real Milk during the credits at the end. Personally, I don't think Milk can touch Frost/Nixon or Doubt or The Wrestler but because this is LA, I understand why most people might feel differently.

comment #3

smarty says ...

I could not AGREE MORE. And I'm gay! Its like everyone's afraid to not like it. Yes, its an important story but the film itself is BAD. All those rah rah generic "We need to stand up for ourselves' speeches...and some of the supporting actors doing 'Gayface' was just plain offensive. Diego Luna in particular.
NOT A GOOD MOVIE.

comment #4

Devin Faraci says ...

First 45 minutes of MILK are BAD. Sorry. But once Milk gets heavily into politics the movie finds its way and becomes amazing. I don't know that I've seen a movie that so conveys the concept that 'local is global' in politics.

TRANSSIBERIAN was a real chore to sit through.

comment #5

actionman says ...

Haven't seen Milk yet.

I thought Transsiberian was a very effective, extremely unsettling thriller. The last act is a little sloppy with the hijinx on the train, but the film has some great performances and an unrelenting sense of dread that made for a very menacing atmosphere. Great cinematography.

comment #6

The InSneider says ...

I dug Transsiberian but I'm a fan of Anderson's previous work as well as Woody, Sir Ben and Mortimer. And I agree with Devin 100% that Milk's second half is much stronger than its first. I've read several reviews that feel oppositely (and I think that's the general consensus), but I think Brolin really elevates the film with his brooding portrayal of Dan White. By the way, I thought Emile Hirsch was absolutely perfect as Cleve Jones but I think he'd the odd man out awards-wise as the film just doesn't give him the "Oscar moment" he needs to compete with Brolin and Franco, who as reviews have correctly pointed out, is the beating heart of the film.

comment #7

corey3rd says ...

The film critic is worthless at this point they contribute less to the hype than ever before. Rarely do they have the power to lure folks to see the little film that doesn't have the P&A budget. They're just part of the flow and not a current.

I'm watching this "Priceless" film thinking about how 25 years ago, a cute French comedy would do very well on the art show circuit just as a classy date film. Now it goes straight to video because the paying audience is gone. The arthouse is now about Hollywood actors paycheck slumming for their art.

comment #8

K. Bowen says ...

I liked MIlk for the political end of things. The film feels like it does Harvey Milk justice. But I understand where the guy is coming from.

I'm not sure the first forty-five are bad so much as that they skip over interesting things without exploring them.

comment #9

p.Vice says ...

I agree completely. Milk is getting hosannas because it's A) a "serious" film about a real person made by respected people, and B) it's being released by a substantial company with a marketing presence. This combination of factors makes it an Oscar contender regardless of the quality of the finished product, so critics are therefore more inclined to pull out the hyperbole because they have a better chance of somebody actually paying attention to what they say. They no doubt respond to films like this differently than ones that have zero radar presence. Case in point: how many of Jeffrey's favorite films of the year also happen to be in the Oscar discussion?

Milk isn't a bad film per se but it's thoroughly unexceptional; all of the actors have been better in recent films and it's easily the least interesting van Sant film since... well, pretty much ever. Maybe the kudos are a surreptitious way of thanking him for not turning it into Gerry 2.

comment #10

bmcintire says ...

"A) a "serious" film about a real person made by respected people, and B) it's being released by a substantial company with a marketing presence. "

Those criteria didn't seem to work out so well for BOBBY, ALL THE KING'S MEN or BEYOND THE SEA, just to scratch the surface.

And sorry, but MILK, imperfect as it may be, is nowhere near as bad/uninteresting as FINDING FORRESTER, LAST DAYS, GERRY, PSYCHO or PARANOID PARK. Or GOOD WILL HUNTING, for that matter.

comment #11

MilkMan says ...

Jeff's filmmaker friend is Brad Anderson.

comment #12

The InSneider says ...

Good one MilkMan.

comment #13

Deathtongue_Groupie says ...

I think they went with the wrong gay director, because has Gus Van Sant EVER made a film that had a real emotional wallop like many of us undoubtably thought we'd get with Milk? Looking over his CV so far, I see one film after another about outsiders made with the detached eye of another outsider.

This film needed a Gregg Araki.to make us cry with a burst of anger or a Todd Haynes to make us cry with a keen affinity for the subject.

Whatever it needed, Van Sant didn't bring. He also makes the assumption that most people will know how Milk died, which is a very myopic view of it. Until I saw The Life and Times of Harvey Milk in college, I had forgotten he was the other person gunned down with Mascone. The nation was still reeling and obsessed with the Jim Jones tragedy that happened only 1 week before.

After Penn, the only person who really deserves a nomination is Franco, but such subtle performances are usually entirely lost on the academy.

comment #14

lipranzer says ...

I don't think MILK is the Best Picture of the year either - Milk's personal life isn't engaging because James Franco and Diego Luna don't have any characters to play - but I wouldn't call it a dull film. All the political stuff is interesting, particularly the complex relationship between Milk and Dan White.

And I don't think TRANSSIBERIAN is the Holy Grail like your filmmaking friend claims it to be, even though it has some suspenseful moments and genuine bits of misdirection (like I thought Harrelson was going to disappear when he didn't get back on the train). There doesn't seem to be a real reason for Harrelson and Mortimer to be an estranged couple other than the plot requires them to be - you don't feel it. And it's also one of those movies that, while it grabs you while you're watching it, makes you ask too many questions afterwards (like how did Kingsley get all those people off the train?).

comment #15

fattyhadaparty says ...

Yeah, I have to agree, MILK was a pretty watered-down affair (does that qualify as a pun?).

I think the mistake was the assumption that only a gay director could do this material justice. How about a director with some passion? How about a director that could stir up some shit? How about giving us a film that conveyed some of the anarchy and fire of the myriad political, sexual and social upheavals going on at the time? In short, how about Oliver Stone directing this film? (I mean 1991-THE DOORS-JFK Oliver Stone; not WORLD TRADE CENTER-W.-I'll-play-nice-with-the-studios-Oliver Stone.)

comment #16

K. Bowen says ...

Since it's being discussed, I do think the film's greatest weeakness is its emotional resonance. When Milk's lovers leave him, it seems more like a historical notation than a emotional event.

comment #17

sumo-pop says ...

Transsiberian? Great? It's a solid piece of work with a couple of truly nerve rattling moments, but "great" seems like an, er, "great" stretch. I don't know how seriously I can take the criticism of MILK from a guy who thinks a pro job Hitchcock knock off is one of the best movies of the year. One of the better movies released that month? Well, sure.

comment #18

TVMCCA says ...

p.Vice wrote:
Milk isn't a bad film per se but it's thoroughly unexceptional; all of the actors have been better in recent films and it's easily the least interesting van Sant film since... well, pretty much ever. Maybe the kudos are a surreptitious way of thanking him for not turning it into Gerry 2.

In terms of Van Sant's avant-garde trilogy, I only saw a few minutes of LAST DAYS and headed for the exit. In terms of quality, PARANOID PARK outranks MILK.

But, as far as mainstream crossover gay-themed made-for-uplift films go, MILK is eons better than the timid PHILADELPHIA.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

I'm gonna be suspicious, considering Brokeback was an overrated bore-fest. But I will say that the best gay-oriented flicks I've seen are Happy Together, Beautiful Boxer, and Utena.

comment #20

janee says ...

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of highly available