Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

Baseshment I like movies that are aware of what they are selling... without [any] greater aspirations than to make people laugh and that's it.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

filmalamosa This movie made me really angry. It is a partisan attack on republicans who happen to be gay. Where is Bill Clinton in all this the man who signed the Defense of Marriage Act? No where, but poor old Bush is made to be the devil incarnate. The documentary is so biased it made me sick.I am a conservative republican who happens to be gay. I vote for politicians I think will help promote the economy and make the country stronger and wealthier...if they have to pirouette on issues like gay marriage to get elected it does not matter to me. If you extend the logic of this documentary to its ultimate conclusion, I myself am some sort of dysfunctional cognitively dissonant closet case for voting for republicans. I am apparently only allowed to vote for people with pro gay rights agendas and records irregardless of whatever else they stand for and have accomplished in their careers. These people like Michael Rogers running around like gossipy old maids exposing gay republicans are the ones who are morally compromised. What right do they have to ruin these men's careers? The mind set of this documentary is the sort of thing that gives gays a bad name and sets us back. They should also remember when attacking these politicians that these politicians are supporting their constituencies norm; they are not actively seeking out novel ways to harm gays. 99.99% of their legislation does not involve gay issues. The end result of Roger's crusade will be to get people in those elected posts who truly have zero sympathy for gay issues. It is wrong from every angle.Apparently this country will be a paradise if only the Congress was filled with Barney Franks---now there is a real nightmare.

michael-3204 It's difficult to get a handle on just what "Outrage" wants its audience to be outraged about. Ostensibly, it's the hypocrisy of closeted gay elected officials who support anti-gay legislation (or, at least, vote against pro-gay legislation). Yet the film spends considerable time on Jim McGreevey, the former New Jersey Governor, who was progressive on gay rights issues even while in the closet. And it features commentary from several conservative gays with groups like the Log Cabin Republicans -- people who are not in the closet, yet still support many of the politicians whose voting records the film condemns. Even Mary Cheney pops up, another out lesbian working for the Republican establishment the film takes great pains to portray as virulently anti- gay. Despite all this, the film sidesteps any examination of why someone might be gay and conservative other than the tyranny of the closet, for reasons that escape me. Their presence undercuts the film's basic premise, yet the filmmaker does nothing in the way of offering counter-arguments. Go figure.The end result is a muddle, neither as thoughtful or penetrating an examination of the closet as it might have been, nor as trenchant or consistent an expose as director Kirby Dick's last film, "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" (about the MPAA Ratings Board hypocrisy). Dick is a skillful enough filmmaker to put together the material he has in a way that held my interest, but it doesn't add up to much and doesn't contribute much to the "outing" debate that, frankly, peaked about 20 years ago. It also doesn't help that the film spends so much time on Charlie Crist, whose political fortunes seemed much brighter when the movie was made than they do now that he has lost his run for the U.S. Senate. That just adds to the feeling that this film is plowing over well-trodden ground that not many care much about anymore, which is probably why the film didn't get very much attention (at least, not compared to "This Film Is Not Yet Rated").

Adam How funny that a film about the importance of forthrightness is so often dependent on anonymous sources and hearsay. Its politics aren't repellent at first, as Kirby Dick only outs politicians involved in public sex scandals. But then he just goes after whomever he pleases. Dick goes so low as placing a photo of Rep. David Dreier next to a disco ball and underwear-clad men at a pride parade. Then we're shown an embarrassing slip-up by news anchor Shepard Smith, a lead-in to outing him too. Many of these individuals' sexual orientation is none of our business. Being outed for hypocrisy is one thing; being outed anecdotally is quite another.The more aimless the documentary gets — and it meanders ceaselessly — the more frustrating its politics become, concealing an inconsistent moral standard with flashy graphics and rousing, but outrageous political claims. "If every gay person would come out of the closet, the gay rights movement would be over," claims one interviewee. This is the film's concluding point, with Harvey Milk discussing the importance of gay visibility. Inexplicably, the film fundamentally refrains from analyzing the irony that most of the high profile public figures outed here would never have gotten their positions if they were openly gay. Dick fails to realize his good intentions aren't a substitute for deeply flawed logic.43/100

scope_72 Here is a much better logistical argument.1.The government is involved in marriage. 2.All adult citizens of the United States are guaranteed equal protection under law.3.Therefore, the government has two choices.A.Not be involved with marriage at all -OR- B.Treat all adult citizens equallyThis whole debate is not complicated guys. So if you do not like the idea of gay marriage get used to it, because the authors of the constitution laid down the groundwork for this centuries ago.p.s. as for your "slippery slope" theory about people one day marrying their pets, it should first be noted that a pet does not have a choice in the matter so it would not be able to be defined as marriage. The pet would not even know that it had been married. In other words, that part of your comments is laughable, and can be construed as very rude. Very similar to a comment like this, "I mean, why would anyone be religious, thats just left over tradition from cavemen." Don't be inconsiderate of others please.