Tuesday, November 2, 2010

MILF Is The Gayest Movie Ever Made, Literally

As dedicated readers of the blog probably already know, I am a sucker for teen comedies. Note that I did not say a sucker for good teen comedies, because nearly every one of them is absolute shit. I was ecstatic to find out about a new movie called MILF.

This was not just a normal, poorly written, poorly acted, poorly executed teen comedy. It was surprisingly much more than that. This is the gayest movie I have ever seen. I do not mean that this movie is bad (although it is quite awful). I mean that this movie is gay. It was filled with homosexual undertones throughout the entire film. It got to the point where I wouldn't have been surprised if there was a dick sucking orgy thrown in there. Let's break it down in chronological order:

:08 – The best friend is in a trance, and the main character was awkwardly touchy feely with him. Not to the point to draw a ton of attention, but he basically held his hand before leaving. Tell me this doesn't look gay.
I have never held a man's hand like that. I've rarely held a woman's hand like that, as it is a level of intimacy that I try to avoid.

:09 – This movie is now getting weird with the gay undertones. There was a girl talking about her ex-lover Randy, turns out it was Randi. Now, this guy meets a girl named Alex. Every girl has a guy’s name. It's a subtle thing, but I don't think you can dismiss it as nothing, especially with all the supporting facts that I will be going through.

:11 – We’ve been introduced to our bad guy, and he’s overtly male. He is obnoxious, drinks bud, and uses the term broski. Yet despite this manly man's manliness, he has a buddy who has a dog that is almost exclusively owned by females.
That dog is a pretty blatant symbol of their homosexuality. I am not saying anyone who owns a dog like that is a homosexual, but when you position characters as overtly male and then give them that sort of dog, you want the audience to see that and notice that their overt masculinity is actually to compensate for their homosexuality. That being said, I'm not sure if anyone involved in this movie is smart enough to notice this; they may have just thought it'd be funny to give them a tiny dog.

:12 – They have a hole in their wall where they watch heterosexual sex, but three of the guys are literally crawling all over each other to get to the hole.
It's three guys, laying on a bed, crawling all over each other to get to the hole. Again, this is a fairly simple metaphor for guys going for the pleasures the asshole creates in homosexual intercourse.

:13 – The bullies throw them on trash, and they get sticky white goo all over themselves. I’m not making this up; this is really happening.
Clearly, the white goo is a representation of semen. I don't know why trash would be covered in a goo. This makes absolutely no sense in any way other than a fantasy of covering these four guys in ejaculate.

:15 – We find out the two main characters’ mothers are at least bi-curious as the two of them are playing with sex toys together.

:17 – Friend feels bad about seeing mother naked so he says he’ll be his non-gay servant. I don’t know why he needed to put non-gay in there. I wouldn’t think servant implies any sort of hetero or homosexual connotation. Clearly, the writer had homosexual thoughts on his mind and felt it necessary to throw it out there that these guys aren't gay. Anything that is pointlessly defensive like this makes me believe that these characters are, in fact, homosexuals.

:26 – They go to a bar called The White Swallow. I don't need to explain this one, right? Right.

:31 – Main guy sits outside door of apartment listening to his friend have sex, because his friend begs him to stay because he can’t have sex without him there. Again, this is pretty simple where the friend needs a male there to have successful sexual intercourse.

:35 – Two main guys wake up to find that Indian friend sent them a video of him getting laid, and they are excited to watch it. Best bud said he’d jerk off to this if he didn’t know his buddy. This one can be broken down like so:
First Thought: I'd jerk off to this.
Second Thought: If only my buddy wasn't in it.

He likes watching sex, but his main focus is the male in the sexual act and not the female. For me, the female is my focus in pornography, and I don't feel as I'm in the minority in that regard among heterosexual males.

:42 – This next part was what bothered me most about the movie, which is impressive, because a lot of things bothered me about this movie. The main character is having sex with a mom, and the guy who lives next to them is also having sex. The neighbor hears the other sex and stops having sex with the female. He decides he is going to investigate.
Here is the problem. He has to pull back part of his poster to look through their peephole. Somehow, the guys from the other room can see through this poster to watch him have sex. But as big as that plot hole is, let's get back to the main focus. This neighbor stops having sex with a girl, so he can watch other people have sex. He has the ability to see anything he wants of a female as he has a naked one in his room. The only reason he would want to peek at other people having sex is to see a male. There is no way of getting around the homosexuality of this action.

Of course, if that wasn't enough of you. The main character has to ejaculate, so he sticks his penis through the peephole and unknowingly gives the neighbor a facial.

:55 – Two nerdy guys were sleeping in the car together, British guy was stroking other nerd’s hair.
Again, this is just another easy example of implied homosexuality.

1:17 – Most movies have chicks wrestling around and jumping into water. This movie did it with dudes.
This is a pretty classic lesbian fantasy, so the fact that it is done with males definitely implies the desire that these two are homosexuals.

Now I am sure you can find a couple of these in just about any movie, but this movie had this many blatant examples of homosexuality (and probably about a dozen others I didn't feel like expanding on). Either this movie was made by gays, people who find gay stuff really funny, or really shitty writers. I’m hoping for one of the latter two choices, because I would feel bad to put this piece of shit movie on the gay community.

-Joe

P.S. Here is a review of the film from imdb from user guestar57:

Better than the title,And Its a Good Title !
This is a really well written comedy.

Some laugh out moments,That We are used to paying $15 at the multiplex to achieve Mike Gaglio almost steals the movie and definitely his scene as a yoga guru.

These college boys having sex with older women seems mean at first,But these are no ugly babes at no matter What Age !

Well developed characters in some very different situations. Should do big money on Red Box, Netflix and where it can be consumed.

The 'John Mayer' lookalike can handled angst and comedy,From Scene To Scene. This could easily have been another American Pie... This could have starred Jonah Hill and Seth Rogen,The script is at that level.

These are all lies. The one that irritates me the most is the first sentence, as I could have written a better script as a sixth grader, and that movie probably would have just been about people picking their noses and farting. This movie had one good part where the British nerd said he was reading a book that would help him get laid. The book that was supposed to help? The Mystery Method.

The last line of the review made me laugh as this person is surprised that this didn't get A-List celebrities. One of the reviews notified me that most of the women in the movie are softcore porn actresses. Do they even count as D-List celebrities?

2 comments:

  1. So you're basically a homophobe?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nothing about this review had any angst towards the gay community, I am just really good at looking for undertones in media. There is a difference.

    ReplyDelete