My short review - see The Times of Harvey Milk instead. That documentary is first-rate in every way. It's wonderfully crafted, and does a vastly better job of getting across the politics of the time, Milk's impact, and the effect of his murder.
As to the Gus Van Sant film - eh. I thought Emile Hirsch did a truly great job as Cleve Jones, James Franco did a perfectly nice job in a role in which he had nothing to do, and the costumes were great. And yeah, if you like his showy acting Sean Penn did a good job too. But, personally, I thought the script was terrible, and I thought the direction was merely passable. How can you not do more to get across the feel and emotional impact of tens of thousands marching in the street after the assassinations? Many of the small scenes were shot in ways that were more nothing more than ordinary. And what was with casting Josh Brolin? He was entirely too old for the part in the first place - much less given how the part was written (essentially a lost puppy).
And the script ... oy. It's a combination of exposition, average dialogue, exposition, average dialogue, exposition, exposition exposition ... it's like watching some sort of CliffsNotes thing, and about as subtle as the world's biggest cymbals clanging non-stop. As a matter of history there are giant holes or key matters that are barely touched on (Mayor Moscone? the role of women in the movement). It doesn't even play honestly within its own constructions. The script explicitly notes (for some reason) that state legislator is a bigger job than city supervisor - and then goes on to say that Milk was the first openly gay person elected to major office. Ummm, no, that'd be state legislator Elaine Noble, or if you want to count him, state senator Allen Spear. And of course it repeatedly explicitly says that what really matters is the movement, not the individuals - though that's not what one sees in this film. And that unsubstantiated reaching involving Dan White, while predictable, is a little troubling given that many people will take the film as gospel.
But that's just history stuff - the script's bigger problem is simply that it's ponderous and all too often bizarrely cursory when making what I presume are supposed to be points of important emotion. We are supposed to believe that Ann and Scott were really in that exact situation at the end? Even if true, it was shot in such a way as to make it look unbelievable. And the opera stuff? Marc Forster's opera scene in the last James Bond was much more effective. And by the way what was with that scoring of the opening? An odd choice.I'll definitely give a thumbs up to the acting. But I don't think this would be entering "best of the year" conversations if a) the vastly superior Brokeback Mountain hadn't so embarrasssingly lost to Crash, and b) if this wasn't a fairly weak year for message/Oscar movies. Again, I highly recommend the documentary. That was great. But this wasn't anything special.
Posted by armand at February 1, 2009 11:11 AM | TrackBack | Posted to Movies