IMDb slamdogs to Gus Van Sant:
“I drink your Milk shake, I drink it up.”
We all know about the well-documented “Oscar bump” a movie receives when nominations raise its profile and thousands of moviegoers check it out to see what the fuss is about. This year we see a nastier and more disturbing phenomenon occurring. Give a movie with a gay theme some Oscar attention, and there’s a backlash from certain quarters that can only be called gaybashing.
That sudden slump in Milk’s already battered position on the IMDb charts is exactly what happened to Brokeback Mountain three years ago. As soon as enough people start to see an important gay film as a threat, the same types who believe gay marriage is a menace to society climb out of their holes and start shredding it.
I talked about this a couple of days ago when I noticed the percentage of “1″ scores for each of the BP nominated movies. We decided to call it the IMDb “Hate-Rate” ®
Even the best films will always have 1-2% of IMDb voters giving it the lowest score of “1″ as if it sets their eyeballs on fire to watch it. But Milk has 5.6% of IMDb voters saying it’s the lowest movie scum in existence. The number of “1″ scores for Brokeback Mountain is an astonishing and despicable 8.1%. (Adam Sandler’s Bedtime Stories has 6.4% of voters giving it a “1″)
As predicted, the wide-release of Frost/Nixon following its own Oscar respect has bumped F/N up to a #249 chart position. That fulfills the prophecy that 4 out 5 BP contenders would come from the IMDb Top 250. And there’s another revolting development I hate to see happening — a head-on collision involving a Gran Torino.
But most shameful and disgusting of all is the brutal bashing Milk is taking for daring to bring a gay hero to the Oscars.
52 Responses for "Slamdogs Gaybash Milk"
They are just getting started, Ryan. The 1 rankings are up to 6% already. The trolls won’t stop until they knock it out of the top 250. They did the same thing with Brokeback Mountain. By next weekend, chances are good it will already be knocked out of the top 250 – the weekend that the film opens wide and people can really see it (these “1″ people have not seen it).
I have more than 200 trolls on my “ignore list” at imdb.com from the Brokeback Mountain board alone. Sad, pathetic little people.
Well put, Ryan. I also like to check Netflix ratings once in a while. There Crash and Brokeback have 4.0 and 3.4 ratings, respectively.
Right now Milk has a great 4.4 average, but I would like to see where it is after the oscars. Netflix average for Bedtime Stories is 3.9.
Assholes. May they rot. People spreading hate around only hinder everyone else, gay or otherwise.
I’ve known for a long time now that many people on IMDb are “Homophob-City”. Sad…..but, true.
I think this is true about a lot of films that elicit controversy because of their topics and more importantly, how it gets discussed in the media.
Passion of the Christ has an IMDB rating of 7.3 overall, but 10% of its votes are 1s.
United 93 has a rating of 7.9 and 6.8% 1s.
Valkyrie has a 7.5 rating and 6.6% 1s.
Bowling for Columbine has a 8.1 rating and 6.1% 1s.
Borat has a 7.6 rating and 6.2 % 1s.
Crash has a rating of 8.1 with 5% of its votes as 1s.
Side note: I enjoy how Tom Cruise is as effective as generating vitriol from extremists as movies about homosexuality, 9/11 etc.
Does anyone really pay attention to those rankings though? Surely everyone knows that the people who participate most in IMDB are, well, not all that smart…
Despicable, but is it necessary to tie Slumdog Millionaire into the equation with your headline? Is there any evidence that it is Slumdog Millionaire fans who are doing this? I am certain it isn’t; people who would do such a thing are not the type to go see a film set in India that doesn’t involve James Bond, car crashes or explosions.
Surely, a pun on the “frost” in Frost/Nixon or the “curious” in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button would be just as appropriate, unless the objective here is to set Slumdog Millionaire fans versus Milk fans.
The highest rated film in most years at imdb did not win the Oscar. The Academy does not pay attention to imdb.com or netflix. The However, historically, they absolutely do pay attention to award precursors and a certain minimum box office. Brokeback is the only film to win the Directors Producers and Writers Guild awards to lose the Oscar. It is the only film to have the most nominations with the New York and Los Angeles Film Critics Best Picture prizes and lose the Oscar. There are many more permutations and combinations of firsts for Brokeback’s loss, also involving other Best Picture and Director prizes it won such as the Golden Globe, Broadcast Film Crix, BAFTA, Independent Spirit Award, etc. etc., not to mention a boat-load of smaller crix prizes from Boston and San Fran to Utah and Iowa and Dallas and more. It was the #1 film of 2005 per boxofficemojo.com and made the most money of that year’s nominees by 50%, with $82m US by the voting period and over $150m worldwide by that time (now over $200m). No Country for Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire had/are having remarkable runs, but fall short of Brokeback in Best Picture/Director prizes and dominance. Only Schindler’s List tops Brokeback in that regard.
Brokeback is also the ONLY Best Picture nominee ever where Academy members openly, unashamedly said that they would not even watch it – the overwhelming frontrunner – because “John Wayne would roll over in his grave”, and similar anti-gay quotes. Tony Curtis and Ernest Borgnine (”and all their friends”) were not the only ones who made Prop 8 type slurs. The Academy leadership stood by and didn’t say a word, they let it slide, until the point where conservatism and fear of ratings slumps and right-wing backlashes defeated the year’s universally proclaimed masterpiece, in favor of a film with a 69 at metacritic, general mixed reviews, and only one critics’ prize (thanks to Roger Ebert’s championship (I’m not bashing Ebert, I’m just stating the facts), no Golden Globe nomination for Picture (only the 2nd time that happened since 1943 when the Globes started, the first being The Sting, which famously split its own vote between comedy and drama, and won other prizes like the Directors Guild etc), the lowest box office of any winner ever when adjusted for inflation, etc. etc. For years I forgave their awful picks, and their historically lousy track record, but this is why I will never watch the Oscars again.
However, MILK is not Brokeback. It does not have nearly the acclaim or precursor prizes. In other words, it is not SUPPOSED to win. Over the past 6 weeks, Slumdog has become that film that is supposed to win, and it will, just like No Country and Return of the King and American Beauty and virtually every other such favorite for Best Picture. Of the 81 years, there have been maybe 8 or 9 Best Picture upsets, and in all instances except for Casablanca, they got it wrong (of course, Casablanca was a 1942 film and therefore won the wrong year, but fine, they still get credit that one time for selecting Casablanca over front-runners The Song of Bernadette and Watch on the Rhine). Moreover, in all other upset instances, the eventual winner at least had some true “precedent” for the prize (and sorry, SAG ensemble alone ain’t precedent, its an acting prize, not a picture prize, and was won by The Birdcage, Full Monty, Gosford Park, etc., not real competitors, last year their nominees included 3:10 to Yuma and Hairspray, films without a chance at a Picture nomination, much less a win…SAG was honoring what they felt was good acting, period). In 1952, when High Noon and The Quiet Man were co-favored and Singin’ in the Rain wasn’t even nominated, The Greatest Show on Earth won the Golden Globe. Around the World in 80 Days is surely an awful winner, especially in the year of The Searchers (not nominated) and Giant, but it was the favorite, having won the New York Film Critics award. The Graduate was slightly favored to beat In the Heat of the Night because Graduate won the DGA, but Heat was no surprise having won the Globe (as did The Graduate) and New York Film Crix. Oliver! was a pretty big upset over Lion in Winter, but Oliver! won a Globe and had the most nominations, which, until the past decade, was one of the biggest indicators in picking the winner. There were no upsets in the 70s, not even Rocky over Network, All the President’s Men and Taxi Driver, since Rocky won the Globe, tied for the most nominations with Network, and had the DGA. Chariots of Fire was not supposed to beat Reds, but Reds was vulnerable having lost the Globe, On Golden Pond was strong, and Chariots won a Best Picture Globe (Brit film) and National Board of Review. And, of course, Reds was about a great American communist at the beginning of the Reagan era, something that old Ernie and Tony couldn’t have been too happy about. Driving Miss Daisy was an upset winner only because it wasn’t nominated for director, but it had the most nominations, the Globe, the National Board (when it meant something, since there were far fewer crix prizes back then), and much better box office than Born on the 4th. The only other upset of the past 20 years was, of course, SHakespeare over Saving Private Ryan. But Shakespeare had several critics prizes, a Best Picture Globe (as did Ryan), the most nominations, and Harvey Weinstein going door to door! And nobody said they weren’t watching Ryan because Jewish Steven Spielberg directed it so certain Nazis would have rolled over in their graves! Or that they didn’t watch snubbed Do the Right Thing or Dreamgirls because George Wallace and the KKK would have rolled around in theirs. Can you imagine the outcry if somebody said anything remotely like that? They’d have been tarred and feathered, and I would have joined in. But again, not a peep when at zero hour everyone started loudly whispering they wouldn’t give Brokeback its due after all because of its gay themes. That’s unacceptable, Academy. I’m glad people are pissed and not watching because of the Academy’s awful judgment in snubbing Dark Knight (not my personal fave, but c’mon, it was the film of the year and brilliantly executed) and Wall-e (the true Best Picture), but I wish people would start examing the Prop 8 stye homophobia (or fear of being perceived as gay friendly) of the Academy and boycott them for that, because bigotry is unacceptable in any form.
@ Haifa
It’s not an endorsement of the veracity of the rankings. It’s an observation of what the ranking might tell us about people who are supposedly enthusiastic moviegoers. It’s an indicator of how a small faction of detractors of any movie in any group of voters can quietly wreck the image of any movie by clicking a mouse or ticking off a box on a ballot.
@ Elmer
Slamdog is not meant to be a reference to Slumdog Millionaire or I would have made a connection in the body of the post. Only meant that there are hyenas slamming Milk. The fans of Slumdog Millionaire are not known as Slumdogs or Slamdogs. It would be an interesting experiment to set fans of Milk against fans of Frost/Nixon. …do you know any?
@ DD
That’s an excellent point, and an interesting list. I don’t mean that gay-themed movies are the only ones getting hate-rated. Just thought the timing was interesting — while most Oscar movies got an uptick after Thursday’s announcement, Milk takes a 45-point dive.
Milk has been out for months, and had already been smashed down to the bottom rungs by haters, but the nominations really seem to have spurred a new wave of infuriated voters.
I had spent a great deal of time on the IMDb board for Brokeback Mountain when the film was out. I loved it so much I just couldn’t stop talking about it. So when it lost on Oscar night I was very upset and I logged on to talk to the people there that I knew probably felt as bad as me. When I got there, it was full of really really anti-gay tirades and I wound up staring at my computer screen in disbelief. It was shocking to see that many people willing to take that opportunity to gay bash on a movie website immediately at the end of the Oscar telecast. I was in tears. It was horrifying.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Milk gets the same or worse, because if there is someone red state type folks hate more than gay people, it’s Sean Penn. I also made the mistake of going on to his IMDb board the day his brother Chris passed away. I had to report a couple of those posters. What people will say because someone disagrees with their religious or political views. It’s sad. I kinda wish I didn’t know how awful people are.
Whatever. No matter how much the IMDB idiots try to lower the “Milk” rating – they can’t change the fact that the film has been nominated for 8 Oscars. The same for “Brokeback”. Though “Milk” may not win – it’s just a matter of time before a gay-themed film wins BP. You can’t stop what’s coming, lol.
Passion of the Christ has an IMDB rating of 7.3 overall, but 10% of its votes are 1s.
Wow. I wonder if that’s the highest percentage of 1s for a film with an overall positive rating. A backhanded badge of honor for my #1 film of all time.
At this moment my head is spinning like Regan in The Exorcist, Benj. It’s not a pretty sight.
LOL, Paul. Maybe another time I’ll expound. I don’t plan to be awake too much longer tonight, and I’m not capable of being brief about that movie.
And The Reader?
Ah. Um. I liked it. A lot. I need a day or two to process it, but I’m pretty sure it’s breaking my top five for the year.
Most holocaust-related films pretty much amount to “Nevah forget!!”, which is fine, but this was different. Questions of guilt and absolution are a point of fascination for me (see also: The Passion of The Christ), and this movie had things to say on that point that I have rarely encountered elsewhere. I’m going to have to assemble my thoughts better, though.
@ 8
You should bash Ebert, he’s a renowned homophobic.
T.
@ Tufas
Sure Ebert’s homophobic. That’s why he gave Brokeback Mountain and Milk 4 stars and listed both among his best pictures of the year. Yeah, sounds like he is scared to death of homosexuality. Give me a break.
Paul Outlaw beat me to it. The Reader should have dropped from its 8.0 to a 7.1 by now. But seriously, it’s only at 7.9, a 0.1 drop from Thursday. Come on, fuck.
On the subject of Milk, even though that chart is evidence already that Milk has drastically dropped, who didn’t already know that Milk was gay? Did people not know that Frost/Nixon was all about… Frost and Nixon? Was it a big revelation on Thursday morning, with Whitaker adding a litte notation with Milk’s nomination, “by the way guys, this movie’s about homos.” So, where did these 1/10-er’s come from?
Nothing wrong with a gay hero.
Something wrong with a performance by Sean Penn that was just a toned down version of I am Sam.
What is great about Milk beside the fact that its somewhat revolutionary in presenting a gay icon in a major motion picture?
IMDb is very homophobic, yes. They censor some mild words, but allow people to type “fag” just because it also means cigarette. Too bad people only use the word for homosexuals.
I’ve become a little intolerant, too. I can’t tolerate people who make others 2nd class people. I’m okay with people believing in God, most people in the world do. I’m against THE FEW that make it ugly.
I have intolerance. I have such intolerance.
I’d also like to mention The Exorcist and direct a certain quote towards CERTAIN people: “Let Jesus – - – you”. And I’m sure he does.
“somewhat revolutionary”?
Wow, what a failure of a movie. *giggle*.
Penn’s voice is not dead-on, but it’s pretty darned close, and way more importantly, the character feels, at least to me, completely whole.
The sense I get from the performance isn’t “whoa, he totally looks like him” or “that voice is uncanny”, it’s “wow, that’s totally one of the most ‘complete’ people/characters I’ve seen on screen this year”.
Also, what seems to be rare in other biopics I’ve seen is how cohesive and in-tune with each other the entire cast is. When Penn stands out it’s because Milk stood out, not because he’s the showboating star.
Digressing aside, point being, nearly all the folk that give 1’s to the film, are not doing so because they hear another character instead of Harvey, their reasoning is clearly a lot more juvenile, and horrible, than that.
But fact is, “Milk” is overrated. And I’m the last person suspect of homophobia, you know.
Saw it a second time, rating improved from C+ to B, which ain’t enough in my opinion to be “deserving” of a BP nom. My biggest problems come with the screenplay, the direction and also how over-the-top is the reaction to good and very good performances, but nothing groundbreaking to justify rabid fandom on Penn and Brolin (or Franco, for the matter)… and how everyone seems to leave out who actually does really Oscar-calibre work (Emile Hirsch). I’m totally puzzled with this one’s universal appeal (as much as last year’s “There Will Be Blood”, or “The Hours”, “Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon” and so on: it seems that each year there’s a movie nom’d that I can’t understand why someone would consider it “an out of question masterpiece”, lol… well but in 2003 where all nominees were really great)
I go to IMDB all the time and I never pay attention to the rankings there. And, I have occasionally read the message boards, but….
I just checked Milk’s ranking and 637 people voted it a ‘1′. When the number of ‘1′ votes are compared with the number of total visitors and unique visitors averaged per day at IMDB.com, this value is statistically insignificant, or the same a 0 votes.
One cannot infer the reason why somebody ranked a movie ‘1′ on IMDB. All 637 votes could have been an orchestrated campaign to impugn a film about a gay man. Or, they could all have been people who hate Sean Penn. Or Gus Van Sant. Or, they could all have been friends of an actor who lost the part of Dan White to Josh Brolin. Or a combination of all the above. Or, maybe it is 637 homopohobes.
There are people who are homophobic in the world. There are. Just like there are sexist people. And racist. And anti-semitic. And the list goes on. Having laws to protect the rights of certain groups of people is a good thing. But, it will not force everyone to think the same way.
Well said, Tero. I’ve largely been avoiding the MILK board lately, and it seems that I made a wise choice. IMDb users are generally regarded by other film forums as being “cabbageheads”. That’s why I visit Joblo for my film forum needs. While the language used is a little course for my taste, I’ve not seen one instance of homophobia at all. Plus, the mods there keep everyone in line, and most of the sites regulars (of which I am one) are quite civil to each other.
The only thing that bugs me about MILK is that I haven’t seen it yet. I still keep it in My Movies list because I haven’t seen it yet. Once I have, my list will contain only films from 2009 and a few listed for 2010 and even one for 2011 (Peter Weir’s next movie).
Jesus:
Your reasons for not liking MILK as much as others strike me as very legitimate. I disagree, but you raise your points fairly. What the article is complaining about is the stone-brained IMDb homophobes who simply rate a film a 1 out of pure spite. The only times I’ve ever rated films that low was to “boost” a particularly bad film’s ranking on the Bottom 100.
This is all the more reason why I want Milk to win Best Picture. This movie cannot NOT win a major award this year if it is to have any positive social impact in the media at this time in light of the passing of Prop 8 by millions of asshole Californians. I hate the rabid love for slumdog and I hate even more how SM is being pushed ahead while homophobia is knocking down Milk.
Well, too many IMDB users are not only homophobic but also clearly racist – I´ve been observing that for years now: Whenever a film with a largely black cast opens it already has a few hundred “1″s at IMDB.
But we should be fair: There are millions of IMDB users and voters (and I am one of the busiest in voting), but only a few thousand are openly homophobe, racist or other bad things.
Unfortunately it seems that mostly exact those stupid people are using the IMDB boards (or at least they are starting the most threads OR it just seems so because stupid threads jump right into your eyes while you don´t really notice the “normal” ones …) which is the reason why I usually don´t.
Btw: I really hated “Passion of the Christ”. But nonetheless I gave it 3 or 4 points at IMDB because there were a few parts of the film that I found quite enjoyable.
IMDb users are incredibly homophobic and racist. ANY movie with a black cast has a pretty low score. Even the greatest “black” films like Boyz in the Hood” and “The Color Purple” have lower ratings than they deserve, even if they are technically good scores. Neither is in the top 250. Do the Right Thing isn’t either.
It’s hard to argue because a lot aren’t good films exactly, but when a movie as harmless as “Pride,” has a 3.0 score BEFORE release, you know something isn’t right. Seriously that dance movie “How She Move” which I think was actually fresh at Rotten Tomatoes was in the bottom 20 for a while. It’s disturbing to say the least
A lot of IMDB users are teenagers.
Pathetic. I gave it a 10 because I actually think it was the best film of the year.
@ Ben,
I totally agree with everything you wrote. Your exposé is excellent and there is no denial that the shocking Brokeback Mountain snub for Best Picture three years ago was a gross anomaly and is still inexcusable. The film that eventually won the top prize that year had earned the lowest critics rating of all five nominees; furthermore, it sits at the bottom of the heap in 76th position out of 81 BP winners in Oscar history in terms of critics ratings and it has the all-time record for “the lowest box office of all Best Pictures Oscar winners” (when converted to inflation rate). In the end, the Academy crowned that year what was surely not the most glorious Oscar winner we’ve seen.
I don’t normally care much for the Oscars because they are much too driven by insider politics and they are too often a mere popularity contest. Many Academy voters don’t even see the films they are voting for. In that respect, the Oscars, though they are the most publicized, are arguably the least reliable and have little credibility left. I kind of got caught in the whirlwind three years ago simply because I had found that Brokeback Mountain was an exceptional & genuine Masterpiece and it was sweeping virtually all award shows. I exceptionally watched the Oscars that night, convinced that, with its outstanding credentials, Brokeback Mountain would surely and deservedly win Best Picture. Well, as we all know, the inexplicable happened. For a lot of viewers and movie fans, the final outcome left a sour aftertaste. I personally do not think that we’ll see such a gigantic blunder/fiasco at the Oscars again soon. You don’t win every major award in the world to lose to a much inferior film for no reason. When a film is named “Best Picture” a record 26 times(!!) around the world prior to the Oscars only to lose to the worst reviewed film of all BP nominees on Oscar night, there is undeniably something fishy.
As for IMDB, I must say that I find the number of “1” ratings for Brokeback Mountain outrageous and somewhat disturbing. These intolerant and homophobic people have a problem.
This is just more proof of why we can’t take the IMDB ratings seriously!
As with everything surrounding Prop 8, the forces that wish to spread this kind of malice are clearly working harder than those that would see fairness and equality spread throughout the world. I know it’s a little thing like IMDB, but millions of people who have no idea that this phenomenon is happening are influenced by the site in subtle and unconscious ways and i believe it has more of an impact than people realize it terms of the overall historical longevity of a film. These people hope to make the film disappear from the popular conscious thus rendering the film obsolete. What a glorious day it would be if the voices for equaity would respond with a force so strong that we could instead erase their cultural impact thus rendering them obsolete…
just because people don’t like milk doesn’t mean their homophobes, just like people who didn’t like dreamgirls werent racist.
you can’t take it personally. its ridiculous.
I already see this movie most of all for seeing what is all the fuzz about. I don’t write a complete review about it or something like that because english it’s not my matternal language but what i really want to say is that Milk is a very good movie with great performances and a cast ensemble that works marvellous together. The editing work is amazing too and I can see why was nominated for that. In general I like the movie but I couldn’t feel that was any closer to other movies that i’ve already seen this year (or movies of 2008) like Revolutionary Road, In Bruges, Wall-e (my favorite still) and The Dark Knight. For that I think that it doesn’ deserve a place in the best pictures of the year and I can comprehend his falling on Imdb (but I understand that Imdb is not pro-gay too xD). I think that Brokeback Mountain is a better movie and works better as a film that gain prizes and acclaim on normal people that likes movies (nor critics is what I mean). So if I would have to choose between Milk and BB, I’d choose without even thinking (It’s a hyperbole) BB.
And that my comment from Chile. I like very much this website. Greetings and congratulations for all your effort on cover the season of oscars.
i’m with you “furr roaches”. I think the same
The year ‘Brokeback’ was gay-crashed, you’ll recall, the Oscars were a week later than they’d been the previous year, for a reason I can’t recall–a holiday conflict or something. Because the anti-Brokeback voters began coalescing behind ‘Crash’ after its SAG ensemble win, gaining momentum by the day, that extra week’s delay came at the right time for ‘Crash.’ Had the Oscars been pushed back a week instead of forward by a week, the likelihood that ‘Brokeback Mountain’ would have claimed the Best Picture Oscar is great.
It doesn’t belong in the top 250 anyway. Neither do those other films mind you and I get annoyed as 10 new films make it in every year, pushing out some of the best of all time due to how many people see them and people’s tendency to overrate what they’ve just seen. But ya, its no great loss…
“just because people don’t like milk doesn’t mean their homophobes, just like people who didn’t like dreamgirls werent racist.”
If for one second I believed that these people actually saw the film and felt it was truly “awful” (the semantic term for a “1″), the scores might be believable. I find it hard to believe that 600+ people thought “Milk” was one of the worst films they have ever seen. These people, by and large, have not seen the film. They are voting “1″ to pull the score down because they are mostly teenage trolls (who have nothing better to do at night).
“Milk” won’t even open wide until next weekend. It’s impossible to believe that the “art house/metro crowd” would honestly rank the film a “1″.
The only film I remember ranking a “1″ was (ashamed to say I saw it on DVD) “Glitter”. That was an awful movie. Even the ordinary “bad” film gets 3 or 4 points from me. Very, very few get a 10.
As has been noted, imdb has very little credibility. I don’t really care what the trolls do there. I know the film certainly was not a “1″ for the people who have seen it. There’s nothing about it that could be called “Awful” by a serious film goer.
“They are voting “1″ to pull the score down because they are mostly teenage trolls (who have nothing better to do at night).”
Sadly, not mostly teenagers, I’d say.
Please note that it is Gran Torino, not Twilight, that has been climbing up the IMDb 250. Twilight isn’t even on the list.
What do ppl expect? Unfortunately we do not live in a hate-free world, and even though culture and education in the digital age is practically free, people choose to be ignorant, hence the homophobia still living at large everywhere. And of course, the internet being the best place to voice ignorance, specially in annonimous voting sites like IMDB, every biggot and idiot in the world can do his/her harm.
Brokeback is a masterpiece. Milk is great. We can at least revel in the fact that we have, simply put, better taste and are better humans.
T
You should not say it comes from those that don’t believe in gay marriage. That would be a generalization.
[...] Awards Daily for looking at a uniquely embarrassing problem over @ the IMDb. They posted a chart of the fall Gus [...]
[...] Awards Daily reports that Milk is falling victim to virtual gaybashing on IMDb in much the same way that Brokeback Mountain did after if received it’s Oscar Nominations 3 years ago. “We all know about the well-documented “Oscar bump” a movie receives when nominations raise its profile and thousands of moviegoers check it out to see what the fuss is about. This year we see a nastier and more disturbing phenomenon occurring. Give a movie with a gay theme some Oscar attention, and there’s a backlash from certain quarters that can only be called gaybashing. [...]
[...] disappointed but not surprised to hear that IMDB trolls are voting down Milk to take down a gay-themed movie. Tags: 30 Rock, Andrew Sullivan, Charles Dawin, Don Asmussen, homophobia, Milk, San Francsico [...]
[...] Do homophobic IMDB users vote down gay films that raise their heads too high above the parapet? AwardsDaily seems to think so, pointing out that since Milk got its Oscar nomination for Best Picture it has [...]
[...] AwardsDaily.com: Give a movie with a gay theme some Oscar attention, and there’s a backlash from certain quarters [...]
[...] at Awards Daily has noticed a strange trend: Milk’s multiple Oscar [...]
[...] Adams at Aw, ards Daily noticed a curious trend on the IMDb movie rating system in regards to the Academy Awards [...]
[...] Bagger somehow missed this, but Cinematical did not: Ryan Adams of Awards Daily watched the rating on IMDB for “Milk” drop like a punched-out drunk the minute it got an Oscar nomination. Mr. Adams [...]
I’m a great fan of Gus Van Sant, especially his more avant-garde films like Gerry. Milk was an involving film, aimed at a popular market, but it’s the kind of film that Van Sant doesn’t pull off as well as he does other kinds of film. I think his decision to fill in certain parts with non-professional actors was misguided. These actors didn’t really contribute anything to the film and because of that were a bit of a drag on it. In Drugstore Cowboy there was a small cameo piece with William Burroughs. That came off very well. But here it didn’t work so well. Penn is impressive, of course; so is Hirsch. His persona is so different in Milk than it is in Into The Wild – much gayer – but it’s equally convincing. The crowd scenes were done well, and I think the editing in of historical footage was excellent too. Of course, homophobes are going to hate it. What does one expect? It’ll be a long time before human culture is enlightened enough to render homophobia a thing of the past.
Leave a reply