Gus Van Sant has always been an excellent if somewhat eclectic director. Although I have enjoyed his previous efforts, I was somewhat apprehensive when I heard he was undertaking a film biography of Harvey Milk. A gay figure of this importance, I thought, should be handled by someone a little more mainstream. Like many gay people, I am weary of gay-themed films that reach no one beyond a gay audience, and the message I would want to emerge from a film about Harvey Milk should be heard by everyone.

As if reading my mind, Mr. Van Sant has fashioned a film that is accessible to all, while approaching his subject with sharp focus and a singleness of purpose that is at once definitive and topical. A stunning achievement, MILK manages to make its point without ever being preachy or trite, while remaining as true to the facts as any film bio could ever hope to be.

The film opens with snippets of gay history that many young gay people, let alone a straight audience, may be shocked to discover. During the opening credits, a barrage of vintage film clips remind us that a scant 50 years ago, gay men, lesbians and transsexuals were subjected to violence, harassment, physical abuse, arrest and humiliation by the very people that most citizens look to for protection; i.e. the police and judicial authorities. The newsreel images of gay bar raids that open MILK project a surreal yet somehow eerily familiar atmosphere that seems to alternate between the bizarre and the barbaric. Many people today are not aware that, in the 1940's and 1950's, right here in the USA, gay people were arrested for simply patronizing a gay bar (newspaper headline: "Den of Perverts Busted"). Many of those arrested had their names and employers published in the morning paper (!), and often found themselves unemployed and unemployable, branded with the label of "deviate". It is this chilling fact of social injustice that clears the way for the film's swing into a very important piece of gay history.

Skillfully telling us the story of Milk's rise as a leader in the Castro Gay Community of San Francisco, Harvey Milk is seen throughout the film as a living, breathing flesh and blood person. Van Sant adroitly propels Sean Penn through a warts-and-all portrayal of a frail human being with an idealistic bent and a politician's savvy. As with any good film, it is difficult, if not impossible, to discern which is more impressive - the balance of a perfect cast and lovingly detailed direction weave their way through a seamless portrait of an important historical figure, yet we are somberly reminded that many people remember Harvey Milk solely for the "Twinkie" defense of his star-crossed killer. The end result is that gay audiences emerge from seeing this film with a sense of pride and purpose, while straight audiences leave with a better knowledge of who we (gay people) are, what we want, and what we are struggling for. By word of mouth I expected a thrilling cinematic experience; what I got was a surprisingly near-perfect motion picture and some of the best acting I've ever seen. I heartily recommend MILK to any straight person who wants to get a grasp on what the last 30 years of gay history were really all about, and any gay person who wants to feel good about themselves. MILK is a triumph. See it.

There's not much I can really add to the reviews that have already been given to this movie, so I'll simply echo its brilliance and importance and the way it grabs onto your attention, and your emotions, and never lets go. There is some amazing acting to be found here and no one over-acts or under-acts. Sean Penn was extremely deserving of his Oscar; I can't tell you how happy I was when his name was called, as when as when best original screenplay one the Oscar.

I really hope more people will give this movie a chance now that it's out on DVD. There are no more excuses to be made!

i may be alone in my thoughts on this film. but before i get going, i want to say that i throughly enjoyed sean penn's work in this film. this performance is so thoroughly worked out and lived that it wipes out 'shanghai surprise'.

that said, i do not understand any praise given to gus van sant for doing the obvious. he has to be one of the most unimaginative directors in hollywood. and i feel the same way about the screenplay. when a film biography starts off flashing back, what's the point? why even try to tell a story, build climaxes? it's being done way too much and it's the easy way out. not to mention that the screenplay omits so much crucial information about the milk-moscone assasinations and just about anybody of color that may have been around the castro in the late 1960s and 1970s. the man that harvey kept calling 'tiger lily' (which wasn't funny after one time) and sylvester at the party just wasn't good enough.

if only the work had delved in to milk's failings more incisively besides some half-uttered remarks of self-awareness, if only he hadn't been portrayed as super-human because we know he wasn't and if only dan white's character had been portrayed with more impartiality. i'm surprised josh brolin got as much out of the man as written as he did.

the best thing about this film is that i want to see the documentary about harvey milk again. i hope that it will be made readily available so that those not so well-informed will have something more tangible and rich to think about when they think about harvey milk.