Milk

Bomb Rating: 

Just imagine what it would be like to have your peaceful middle class neighborhood invaded by a bunch of people who think Madonna and Cher are great singers.

Sean Penn and Victor Garber in Milk

The gays are coming! The gays are coming!

Lock up your teenage sons! Never mind the aliens with their pod people. Just imagine what it would be like to have your peaceful middle class neighborhood invaded by a bunch of people who think Madonna and Cher are great singers. And are willing to play their songs at ear-splitting volume next door to prove it to you.

You may have heard this movie is about the political awakening of homosexuals in the USA. Nonsense. If you're a normal person - namely someone who doesn't know what a glory hole is - your sympathies will be with the heterosexuals. They were minding their own business living in the tiny Castro neighborhood of San Francisco. That is until Harvey Milk (played by Sean Penn) and his gang of felch-breath fudge-packers decided to take it over. The entire neighborhood is only six blocks. Now imagine about 6000 sissy-boys cramming - and I do mean cramming - their spandex clad derrieres into a space that small.

You've heard of urban gentrification? Harvey was into urban fabulous-ification. That tacky street light simply won't do darling. Let's put a Tiffany lamp shade on it. That red fire plug? Puhleeez! Paint it chartreuse and put a raspberry beret on top. Much better!

Naturally the Irish Catholic residents of the Castro take a dim view of these shenanigans. Queer eye for the straight guy my ass. Do we really need groups of gay boys hanging out on street corners just so they can do gang makeovers on hapless passersby? What is this country coming to? You can't even wear your bowling shirt and flood pants and be left alone by God!

Roman Catholics live by the simple notion that if the closet is good enough for the parish priest it should be damn well good enough for their politicians. Harvey Milk turns this upside down. He campaigns openly as a gay candidate for city office. Even in SanFran-sissy-sco that was pretty far out in the 1970's. At this point in time the gays were getting a little tired of being treated like human pinatas by the not so friendly Irish beat cops. That's beat cop, as in: lets see how many fairies we can beat to a bloody pulp today.

The gays react to this treatment by marching and rioting in the streets. Harvey then steps in with his bull horn to talk to the mob and calm things down. It begins to dawn on the police and the political class of the city that this guy could be useful after all. After failing many times to get elected Harvey finally does make it. He becomes the first openly gay candidate ever elected to office in the country. If you can't figure out what happens next you have never heard of Martin Luther King Jr., or Bobby Kennedy.

Sean Penn won the best Actor Oscar for his role in this historical film. Of course Hollywood's historical films are usually about as accurate as Paris Hilton's ability to remember how many porn films she has been in.

The film's director, Gus Van Sant, is one of the few openly Gay movie directors around. If nothing else you can depend on this movie as being an accurate depiction of the gay lifestyle. Then again maybe you would be better off spending your ten bucks on that heavenly little tank top instead of this Tinseltown trany trash.

To spread the word about this Milk review on Twitter.

To get instant updates of Mr. Cranky reviews, subscribe to our RSS feed.
34 Comments

Like This Milk Review? Vote it Up.

2

Rate This Movie:

Average: 2.7 (10 votes)

Other Cranky Content You Might Enjoy

  • Here's the most important thing I learned from watching Martin Scorsese's historical drama about 19th century New York City: If you have good teeth, you've got it made.

    Pretty much everyone of any

  • This is a movie for all those wackos convinced that the Warren Commission was paid by the Mafia to cover up the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was an extraterrestrial clearing the way for Elvis to meet J

  • Yo, dog. When I think about a white actor capable of hanging out and interacting with the gang bangers in South Central, I naturally think of Ethan Hawke.

Madonna and Cher?

WthmO's picture

Oh please, honey, no one's listened to them for years.

Speaking of ass pounding

Scumby's picture

I wonder if the comments can still be Google bombed by commenter keywords.

Two thumbs up on this review.  Up where I can't say. 

WthmO are you really bi-sexual?

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Gotta admit I'm curious.  About you being bi-sexual I mean.

In any case welcome to the madhouse we call Crankyland.  Post any darn thing you want.

{;-) Dan in Miami

I felt bad for laughing while reading this article

nickumoh's picture

It was such a guilty pleasure. Kind of like watching someone trip and fall, or setting a cat on fire.

Anywho, Cranky makes fun of every group, so I quess even gays aren't safe on this website.

By the by, I don't laugh when a cat is set on fire. It was just a joke. Eugene Mirman actually

...what...what were talking about again?

Cats set on fire don't make me laugh either

FearlessFreep's picture

Such broad slapstick!  It takes Rajah setting a hobo on fire to make ME laugh.

 

The Christian angle, bashing gays brings no one to Christ...

TMundo's picture

...as I usually state, everyone is invited to come and follow Christ, gays included.  How does anyone expect to bring others to Christ by bashing them. 

Speaking of christians and gays...

Mal_Content's picture

Mal the people in your anti-gay video are actors

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

You probably knew that .  There are supposed to be some auditions that actors being cast for this video did that are available on the internet.  It would be a hoot if someone posted them at youtube.com.  Just once it would be good if these conservatives would explain how gays getting married harms any heterosexual marriages.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Dan, I don't know how I've managed to stay married

Coaster's picture

for 31 years (This April 30th).  You have no idea how threatening this gay marriage thing is.  Hell, me and my wife are afraid to leave the house at night anymore.  I DON'T WANNA LEAVE!! SCARY GAY MARRIED PEOPLES ARE THREATENING US!!!!   It's bloody awful. 

Thank God there's these right-thinking God-fearing people out there willing to protect us or we'd be stuck in our house 24/7 with nothing to do but watch Glen Beck and listen to right-wing hate radio. 

Night of the Living Gay!!!

michael3b's picture

Best smelling zombies ever.

 

The Christian Right is not pro-marriage

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

They are anti-gay.  If the fundies were really in favor of preserving the sanctity of marriage they would be working to abolish divorce. 

{;-) Dan (single for life) in Miami

 

Christians gone wild in Vegas

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

Homosexuality (#4 of 130)  

 {;-) Dan in Miami

Churches should not be forced to marry Gays

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

The First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I am in favor of the government making homosexual marriage legal.

On the other hand the free exercise of religion means that the government cannot force churches, temples mosques etc to perform wedding ceremonies they think are a violation of their religion.

Government agencies should not be allowed to discriminate against gays.  For one thing they get their money from the taxpayers, some of whom are homosexuals.

Here is a quote from the Washington Post:

Some scholars also point to Bob Jones University, which lost its tax exemption over a ban on interracial dating and marriage among students, even though it claimed that those beliefs were religiously grounded. Some legal analysts suggest that religious groups that do not support gay rights might lose their tax exemptions because of their politically unpopular views.

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University who supports same-sex marriage, said the Bob Jones ruling "puts us on a slippery slope that inevitably takes us to the point where we punish religious groups because of their religious views."

http://tinyurl.com/dhn46q

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/09/AR200904...

{;-) Dan in Miami

 

That's a straw man

FearlessFreep's picture

No churches were forced to marry interracial couples after Loving v. Virginia.

 

Wow. Simulstaws!

Coaster's picture

But great minds do not think alike:  Mediocre ones do.

 

(Throws some gasoline on Dan's staw man. Light's match........)

Coaster's picture

No one has advocated forcing churches to perform a gay marriages.

What these non-discrimination laws target are assholes such as the pharmacist in Sherman, Texas who refused to fill prescriptions for morning after pills because to do so would be a violation of his sexually uptight repressed religious principles.  Well, FUCK him up the ass with a rusty iron dildo.  He needs to find a new profession. 

Your article's point along those lines was that when one chooses to do business in the public marketplace, you lose your "right" to discriminate.

Note that the Rabbi at Temple Israel in Tulsa, or as you would say, the liberal rabbi at the liberal reform Jewish synagogue in the liberal part of liberal Tulsa, refuses to perform marriages between a Jew and non-Jew, even if both participants are liberal. The law would not have a problem with that. 

The morning after pill

FearlessFreep's picture

What good does it do refusing to give a woman a morning after pill?  She's had the sex already, and she can't undo it.  Is it a warning to girls who haven't had the sex yet?

 

Some conservatives think morning after pill use is abortion

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

This is a very silly position but it is what they believe.  They think a fertalized egg is a person with a soul. 

If the woman can buy her morning after pill at the next drug store down the street I don't see how she has suffered anything much.

{;-) Dan in Miami

 

 

Every sperm is half a person

Rajah's picture

The heathens waste millions

What if there isn't another drug store down the street?

Wulfgar's picture

The pharmacist is there to give people the goddamn medication that the doctor prescribes. If the pigfucker doesn't want to do that, then he can get kneecapped and die in a motherfucking fire.

 

Period.

 

Plus, I don't care if a fertilized egg is a person with a soul, complete with a condo, reserved  parking spot and a spa membership in Heaven (or Hell, it might be a sinful zygote after all); it gets the Uterine Eviction if the landlady says so.

 

_______________________________

~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~

 

Then perhaps the Feds should

jazzdrive3's picture

Then perhaps the Feds should stamp down on grocery store selection too? Hey, my local store doesn't carry the frozen dinners I like. Waaaah! I have a right to buy that frozen dinner.

Oh wait...I don't.

Hey, and that Kosher deli doesn't sell pork. I want to buy some pork from that deli! Waaaah!

If one pharmacist doesn't offer something, it easily opens the door for a competing one to offer it.

And maybe if the Feds didn't limit online sales of prescription medication, this wouldn't be a problem either.

Have you seriously ever been to a town with just one pharmacy? I live in a town of just 50,000 people, and there are at least 25 pharmacies.

And so what if there is a small town with just one pharmacy somewhere in rural America. Why are we going to base Federal policy, affecting all 265 million people, on the situation of a few small towns?

This is the problem with taking everything to the Federal level. It gets out of hand and less and less representative of the people its supposed to represent.

Are you seriously equating...

Wulfgar's picture

...dispensing medicine prescribed by a doctor with TV dinners?

 

 

 

 

Fucking hell.

 

 

_______________________________

~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~

 

It's a business selling a

jazzdrive3's picture

It's a business selling a product. Pharmacies have to keep things in stock and decide what to sell just like other retail businesses. My wife has worked in both retail and hospital pharmacies, and I know most of the details that goes into it.

At it's heart, a retail pharmacy store is just that. A retail store. Forcing them to stock/sell things they normally wouldn't is just like the government dictating what kind of food a grocery store has to carry. Absurdity. Not only would it not know what the hell it's doing and screw stuff up like it already has with health-care, but it opens the door to even more absurdity in the future.

But that's neither here nor there. We still shouldn't base Federal policy on the situation of a few podunk towns.

Ever heard of the FDA?

FearlessFreep's picture

Government regulation of the pharmaceutical business is already considerable, and nothing to be ashamed of.

 

I tend to think that once the egg is fertilized...

TMundo's picture

I tend to think that once the egg is fertilized, anything you do afterwards to stop the process is some form of an abortion.  Anything you do to stop the fertilization is some sort of prevention.  I mean once the sperm fertilizes the egg, isn't that about where life begins?  I can't pinpoint it, but it seems reasonable to me, I mean following that point the fertilzed egg begins splitting, grows a spine and sprouts arms and legs, what more do you want? 

Now obviously the pharmacist may want to look into a new profession.  Knowing nothing about the situation in question I'd have to guess he was probably trying to make a point and draw some attention to the subject, which he obviously did.

"Where life begins"?

Wulfgar's picture

You mean sperm and ova aren't alive?

 

They're zombie gametes?

 

 

 

 

_______________________________

~No, my young padawan; this one is mine.~

 

Most fertilized eggs don't survive

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

TMundo said:  "I can't pinpoint it, but it seems reasonable to me, I mean following that point the fertilzed egg begins splitting, grows a spine and sprouts arms and legs, what more do you want?"

Agnostics and atheists would want a viable fetus before we would call it a person.

Saying you are pro-life is meaningless.  Do these people eat rocks? 

The anti-abortionists should change their slogan from pro-life to pro-person.

{;-) Dan in Miami

 

I cry everytime one of my tadpoles dies needlessly

The_Little_General's picture

Damn you, Rajah!

Keep your hands off me, you freak!

I will say a prayer for the needless deatshs of so many

Coaster's picture

half-humans.

Gays boycotted anti-gay businesses in the movie "Milk"

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

And it worked very well.  If businesses want to discriminate let them feel the full wrath of the consumer.  The government should get involved only if individuals suffer real financial harm or actual physical harm.  Just having their feelings hurt should not require the heavy hand of government to come down on a business or non-profit. 

{;-) Dan in Miami

PS:  The right of free association means you have the power to not associate with people you don't like.  Otherwise it is meaningless.  The government should never tell people who they have to hang out with.

Then they shouldn't be allowed to send people to prison

Rajah's picture

eh?

You mean to rape chambers?

jazzdrive3's picture

You mean to rape chambers? No, I really don't think they should. A penal justice system doesn't really make sense most of the time.

Most crimes can be punished by having the convicted pay back double of the damage of the crime. True restitution to the aggrieved parties.

In the case of sexual predators and murders where there is no price tag, it's a different story, of course. But other cultures can give us some hints as to how to better deal with these situations.

But no, a government should not get to decide what is a just punishment for a crime. The government is not who the crime was committed against, so they should have no say. Government should only facilitate the trial, although they do a horrible job with that simple task most of the time too.

Arbitration in some criminal cases might work

Dan_in_Cincinnati's picture

If the crime involved violence it probably wouldn't work.

If the criminal is a flight risk it probably wouldn't work.

But in a small number of cases where you could actually count on the accused to make financial restitution it would be interesting to try arbitration If both parties would agree to it.

{;-) Dan in Miami

Crime committed by drug addicts

Coaster's picture

No restitution will be forthcoming, and an inordinate amount of crime is committed by this class of criminal.  We choose to incarcerate the drug users as drug addiction is seen as a disease of choice.  What we should be doing is offering treatment as Nixon did during his second term, but of course all this went out the window with Reagan. As Bill Maher points out, Americans love to punish people, and we're good at it. Note that during the Nixon era, the crime rate went down.

For the past decades, we've been punishing ourselves.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.