Mjeteconer Just perfect...

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

Maidexpl Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Married Baby Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

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").

sergepesic Outing somebody,s sexual preferences is a complex thing. People are certainly entitled to privacy, even when they are public figures. The trouble starts when people spew hatred for gay people, vote against their basic rights, and in a same time have gay relationships out of public eye. There is an exception to the privacy rule. When you have a man who testifies about sickness of gay people, tries to cure them from their "perversity" and then gets caught with a young gay male escort, he has it coming. " Outrage" is a very good documentary. It lets the subjects of the story tell us all we need to hear. It doesn't lecture or pressure us , it just tells it like it is.

pthornton-2 Most of the comments left previously do not address the actual legal aspects of this. The worst offender is lady moon.The Constitution of the U.S. guarantees each and every one of us Freedom of (and FROM) religion. The separation of Church and State is VERY important in this issue. The word "marriage" is semantics, yet it is the most commonly used term world-wide and that is why advocates use it in attempting to secure the rights they were born with but are being denied.It is organized religion which is fighting this tooth and nail. Yet it is not organized religion which issues "marriage" licenses; It is states, counties, and cities. States who have changed their constitutions denying same-sex marriage will eventually lose this fight because it it is unconstitutional (at the Federal level) to deny any group the same rights as others.Granting same-sex couples the right to marry will in no way affect organized religion. Why? Because of their right to practice their religion(s) without government interference; "The Freedom of religion" will protect them, which is as it should be.Additionally, saying those rights are available through various legal avenues is ridiculous! Does a heterosexual couple have to pay (as much as) $60,000.00 to secure only SOME of the rights? No.And I'm not gay - I have been happily married to the same woman for over 20 years. I just happen to believe that denying a segment of society the same rights that others enjoy is wrong. Plain and simple. Unfortunately, just as was the case for inter-racial marriages until 1967, it is going to take the US Supreme Court to guarantee those rights.

rockynuar The basic premise is beyond disingenuous. In a republican form of government, legislators are elected to represent the people who elect them. If a legislator is a closet homosexual or an open homosexual, should be completely irrelevant. A legislator is not elected to pander to special interest groups. Unfortunately, some relatively very small special interest groups are very vocal and have the cash to buy politicians votes. Naturally, when the greater public get wind of it, they really are outraged.For a closet homosexual politician to vote for the interests of his voter base against the legalization of homosexual practices is not hypocritical, but the only honest thing to do. If he were to vote for the homosexual practices he favors but do not find resonance in his base, that would simply be dishonest. For these reasons, I cannot recommend this film as anything more than simply disingenuous.