Harvey Milk (2008)

I just finished watching the new Gus Van Sant film, and it definitely deserves its own dedicated thread.
First off, I have to mention the surprise that was James Franco. Up until now, I’ve mostly seen him in roles where he was pretty much consistently mediocre. Here, it feels like a different person—like he’s actually inhabiting a real character. For some reason, I couldn't stop thinking about how much he reminded me of Heath Ledger. Not sure why, though.

On the other hand, Sean Penn and Josh Brolin will likely be picking up Academy Award nominations this year, each in their respective categories. Both are excellent—though if I’m being honest, I think Josh edges out Sean slightly, but hey... I already mentioned over in the Nixon/Kennedy thread that I'm not really a fan of heavy imitation acting.

While I haven't seen a huge amount of Gus Van Sant's work, this is the first one of his where I can't immediately label it as either a masterpiece or a disaster. His previous films have always been either phenomenal (like "Good Will Hunting" or "Elephant") or totally misses for me ("My Own Private Idaho," "Finding Forrester," "To Die For," or "Psycho"). This one is perfectly fine, but it doesn't quite have that "extra something" that makes it stand out from the sea of similar movies. That’s probably my biggest gripe. Also, that ending with the candles... well, I guess it was expected given the story.

That said, this is definitely the kind of movie that should touch anyone with even a shred of emotion left in them. It's worth a watch.

redowl90 said:I just finished watching the new Gus Van Sant film, and it definitely deserves its own dedicated thread.
First off, I have to mention the surprise that was James Franco. Up until now, I’ve mostly seen him in roles where he was pretty much consistently mediocre. Here, it feels like a different person—like he’s actually inhabiting a real character. For some reason, I couldn't stop thinking about how much he reminded me of Heath Ledger. Not sure why, though.

On the other hand, Sean Penn and Josh Brolin will likely be picking up Academy Award nominations this year, each in their respective categories. Both are excellent—though if I’m being honest, I think Josh edges out Sean slightly, but hey... I already mentioned over in the Nixon/Kennedy thread that I'm not really a fan of heavy imitation acting.

While I haven't seen a huge amount of Gus Van Sant's work, this is the first one of his where I can't immediately label it as either a masterpiece or a disaster. His previous films have always been either phenomenal (like "Good Will Hunting" or "Elephant") or totally misses for me ("My Own Private Idaho," "Finding Forrester," "To Die For," or "Psycho"). This one is perfectly fine, but it doesn't quite have that "extra something" that makes it stand out from the sea of similar movies. That’s probably my biggest gripe. Also, that ending with the candles... well, I guess it was expected given the story.

That said, this is definitely the kind of movie that should touch anyone with even a shred of emotion left in them. It's worth a watch.

Maybe it's because he's gay? 😉 Also, speaking of Franco, did you catch Freaks & Geeks? He was amazing in that... too bad it only lasted one season.

I thought the movie was alright, but it would've been great if it didn't have such a pathetic ending. For me, his death during that opera scene felt way more forced than the actual procession; I just don't get why they try to force the melodrama when the event itself is already so heavy and powerful.
The best part for me was how much it hit me in the gut—you really get emotionally invested in the characters, which is awesome. But that ending was a letdown; they didn't need all that extra stuff... Anyway, both Harvey Milk and Nixon/Kennedy are solid films, but I think Harvey Milk hits a bit harder. I'd give it a 7/10.

Yeah, Brilliant Sean Penn mumbles almost as much as Stalin, so I had to watch the movie with subtitles. Since there weren't any English ones available, I ended up using Mexican subtitles, which kind of ruined the whole vibe for me 🤣

I just finished watching the film, and I have to say, it’s quite a strong piece of work, though I suspect it isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea.

Regarding the cast, Sean Penn delivered his usual stellar performance; at the very least, an Academy Award nomination seems almost inevitable for him. On the other hand, Josh Brolin is such an incredibly grating character for me, and he didn't exactly bring anything revolutionary to the table here. Speaking of which, I thought he was significantly better in No Country for Old Men. As for James Franco, he’s a fantastic actor and this was just more proof of that. Even in something as fun as Pineapple Express, he was brilliant—honestly, he was the absolute standout in that film.

In my estimation, the film doesn't quite merit a "Picture of the Year" nod, yet it would feel like a genuine travesty if the Academy bypassed this one in favor of something like Slumdog Millionaire, which I personally find to be a much more compelling film. Then again... my experience watching the Oscars has taught me that's exactly the kind of thing that happens. But then again, who cares?!

7/10

velvetcrane57 said:I just finished watching the film, and I have to say, it’s quite a strong piece of work, though I suspect it isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea.

Regarding the cast, Sean Penn delivered his usual stellar performance; at the very least, an Academy Award nomination seems almost inevitable for him. On the other hand, Josh Brolin is such an incredibly grating character for me, and he didn't exactly bring anything revolutionary to the table here. Speaking of which, I thought he was significantly better in No Country for Old Men. As for James Franco, he’s a fantastic actor and this was just more proof of that. Even in something as fun as Pineapple Express, he was brilliant—honestly, he was the absolute standout in that film.

In my estimation, the film doesn't quite merit a "Picture of the Year" nod, yet it would feel like a genuine travesty if the Academy bypassed this one in favor of something like Slumdog Millionaire, which I personally find to be a much more compelling film. Then again... my experience watching the Oscars has taught me that's exactly the kind of thing that happens. But then again, who cares?!

7/10

No way... Slumdog is definitely getting a nomination.

The film was decent enough.

The repetition of that opening scene at the end really grated on me. It felt entirely gratuitous, a narrative loop that served no real purpose. I can't say for certain if it was intentional, but it struck me as a tired trope; we saw similar structural echoes in films like Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

It’s honestly quite frustrating how they spoil the entire trajectory of Harvey Milk right from the jump. Knowing exactly how his story concludes before you've even settled into the narrative just cheapens the whole experience.

7 out of 10.

Yeah, honestly? That’s just awful. It’s like someone telling you exactly how a movie about Jesus is going to end...

goldenhound32 said:The film was decent enough.

The repetition of that opening scene at the end really grated on me. It felt entirely gratuitous, a narrative loop that served no real purpose. I can't say for certain if it was intentional, but it struck me as a tired trope; we saw similar structural echoes in films like Slumdog Millionaire and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

It’s honestly quite frustrating how they spoil the entire trajectory of Harvey Milk right from the jump. Knowing exactly how his story concludes before you've even settled into the narrative just cheapens the whole experience.

7 out of 10.

Why though? I mean, the whole movie is based on actual events anyway—even if it’s about a gay activist most of us never even heard of before this.

silentbear49 said:Why though? I mean, the whole movie is based on actual events anyway—even if it’s about a gay activist most of us never even heard of before this.

Because I had no idea the man was actually going to be murdered.

hmm, every single trailer we’ve seen lately seems to be a biopic about the first gay politician who gets assassinated while in office... 🤷 but hey, you didn't know, you didn't know, so what's the big deal now.

Emily Thomas3 said:hmm, every single trailer we’ve seen lately seems to be a biopic about the first gay politician who gets assassinated while in office... 🤷 but hey, you didn't know, you didn't know, so what's the big deal now.

Let's play devil's advocate here... suppose I actually did know. What then? Why on earth would they lead with the fact that the man was murdered if it was meant to be a surprise?😕

goldenhound32 said:Let's play devil's advocate here... suppose I actually did know. What then? Why on earth would they lead with the fact that the man was murdered if it was meant to be a surprise?😕

Can we get some variety for once?? 🙂

goldenhound32 said:Let's play devil's advocate here... suppose I actually did know. What then? Why on earth would they lead with the fact that the man was murdered if it was meant to be a surprise?😕

Ah, I see, simply because that was the director's prerogative, then?
One would assume they also took the fact that we are all familiar with Hershey's biography into account...

Maybe he just didn't want that death to be the biggest moment in the movie, so he brought it up early to clear the way for other themes 🤷

Emily Thomas3 said:Maybe he just didn't want that death to be the biggest moment in the movie, so he brought it up early to clear the way for other themes 🤷

Every viewer determines their own most significant moment. Or rather, one doesn't simply decide it—one feels it.

It’s for him, not you. I honestly think some directors still make movies for themselves first and then worry about the audience later. Totally with you on this one.

So, I just finished watching Harvey Milk, and honestly, it’s great. I’d give it an 8/10.

The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.

SPOILERS

There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?

End spoiler

I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.

Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.

FANTASTIC MOVIE. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND IT TO EVERYONE!!! 😁 (except maybe guys who aren't exactly comfortable with their own sexuality
)

James Garcia58 said:So, I just finished watching Harvey Milk, and honestly, it’s great. I’d give it an 8/10.

The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.

SPOILERS

There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?

End spoiler

I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.

Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.

Exactly... especially after seeing him in Opar, where he was so shy, insecure, slow, and unconvincing—basically anything but a powerhouse actor—which makes it all the more paradoxical that he truly is one.
Playing a moron, a macho guy, a "crybaby," and now a gay man... it really places him in the upper echelon of elite actors.

James Garcia58 said:So, I just finished watching Harvey Milk, and honestly, it’s great. I’d give it an 8/10.

The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.

SPOILERS

There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?

End spoiler

I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.

Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.

He was recording them in case there was an assassination attempt on him. I can't recall the exact moment, but I think it could be taken out of context. In my view, his mood is exactly like that because of the very reason he's doing it. It’s obvious he feels his life is under serious threat, and frankly, given the circumstances, why wouldn't he be...

James Garcia58 said:So, I just finished watching Harvey Milk, and honestly, it’s great. I’d give it an 8/10.

The movie is based on true events, which makes the core story interesting enough, though nothing groundbreaking there. What really stands out is the synergy between the writers, the director, and the cinematography.
Building on that is the stellar acting, led primarily by Brilliant Sean Penn, who—in my opinion—never once overacts. It’s actually fascinating to watch how many different types of characters he can portray with such conviction. Josh Brolin is also solid.
First off, despite having a massive cast, the film never loses its way or feels cluttered. I think the credit for that goes directly to the tight collaboration between the director and the screenwriters.
That said, the real highlight is the direction. Some of the directorial choices were genuinely impressive, so I’ll highlight a few.
First, there’s the introduction of Scott. Nothing flashy, but that side profile close-up looked fantastic; they could have leaned into those shots more often, especially when you have actors capable of conveying so much through small details.
Then there are those sweeping pan shots, particularly the one in the tight indoor space during one of Harvey's meetings.
But my favorite technical move happens at Milkov's birthday, where they use a deep focus shot. You see Harvey talking to someone in one frame, then as that conversation wraps up, the camera moves in, a second person enters the shot, and they transition into a new close-up for their dialogue.

SPOILERS

There is one thing I didn't quite catch or notice, so I’d love if someone could clarify.
What was the purpose behind him recording those tapes, and why does he seem so exhausted and drained while doing it?

End spoiler

I should also mention the excellent work by the costume designer and that relatively young screenwriter, even though he was working from a true story.

Anyway, my rating is an 8/10. Personally, I think the film deserves an Academy Award for Best Director and Best Actor; as for the other categories, we can discuss those later.

Totally agree. Once again: STALKER CARE!!

An absolutely stellar film! My only gripe was how somewhat manipulative it felt during that scene where he gets shot while staring at Tosca. I’m generally not a fan of Gus Van Sant, so this was a genuine surprise to me. 😍 To top it off, I actually walked out of the theater with a free DVD of The Lives of Others 😍

redowl90 said:I just finished watching the new Gus Van Sant film, and it definitely deserves its own dedicated thread.
First off, I have to mention the surprise that was James Franco. Up until now, I’ve mostly seen him in roles where he was pretty much consistently mediocre. Here, it feels like a different person—like he’s actually inhabiting a real character. For some reason, I couldn't stop thinking about how much he reminded me of Heath Ledger. Not sure why, though.

On the other hand, Sean Penn and Josh Brolin will likely be picking up Academy Award nominations this year, each in their respective categories. Both are excellent—though if I’m being honest, I think Josh edges out Sean slightly, but hey... I already mentioned over in the Nixon/Kennedy thread that I'm not really a fan of heavy imitation acting.

While I haven't seen a huge amount of Gus Van Sant's work, this is the first one of his where I can't immediately label it as either a masterpiece or a disaster. His previous films have always been either phenomenal (like "Good Will Hunting" or "Elephant") or totally misses for me ("My Own Private Idaho," "Finding Forrester," "To Die For," or "Psycho"). This one is perfectly fine, but it doesn't quite have that "extra something" that makes it stand out from the sea of similar movies. That’s probably my biggest gripe. Also, that ending with the candles... well, I guess it was expected given the story.

That said, this is definitely the kind of movie that should touch anyone with even a shred of emotion left in them. It's worth a watch.

I haven't seen Harvey Milk, but I'm getting a little nervous here. It seems like the movies you call bad are actually good to me, and the ones you love are the ones I can't stand.😍