In the comments on This Weekend at the Movies today, Smurfs! writes:

I first got interested in seeing Milk when I saw the great trailer on-line.

I, like many people, did not who Milk was, and sadly when I tried to find out about the film, there were so many spoilers in the information that I am kind of resentful now.

Ugh.

I mean, I try to avoid spoilers, but one web site or newspaper basically told me what role Brolin plays.

Um, history is not a spoiler. It's HISTORY. It happened! IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I'm pretty sure that when people go to see a movie about the assassination of Harvey Milk, they're not going to be too shocked when Harvey Milk gets assassinated. There would be no movie about Milk if what happened to Milk had not happened. Was your mind blown when bombs fell on Ben Affleck in Pearl Harbor? Spoiler alert! North wins Civil War. Spoiler alert! JFK does not complete first term. Spoiler alert! Humans walk upright and use tools.

Sorry. I don't mean to be such a dick. But let me reassure you, Smurfs!, the reason to see Milk is not for some kind of Shyamalanianian twist. Knowing the end of a story doesn't always make the story a waste of time.

Hello, everyone! Happy day after T-giving! Here is an idea for something to do today that is not sleeping or bickering: Why not smuggle a turkey leg and a thermos of gravy into a movie theater and watch a movie? Mmmmm, gravy! Smear some on your neighbor!

Opening today:

The obvious choice this weekend is Milk, the mostly-devastating-but-maybe-slightly-hope-inducing Harvey Milk biopic. David Schmader and Eli Sanders double-teamed this review: Schmader on the filmmaking ("the lion's share of credit for Milk's success belongs to star Sean Penn, whose devotion to the film helped secure its production, and whose performance in the title role is a major accomplishment: quietly amazing, simultaneously lived-in and spontaneous, his best ever"), and Sanders on the politics ("watching Milk in the afterglow of those Prop 8 protests, one is likely to experience an odd kind of political flashback, with the onscreen protest scenes from a decades-distant history triggering memories of real-life protest scenes from the very recent past").

Bonus! James Franco:

Then there's a bunch of shit that you should not see. You should, however, read the reviews, if hilarity is what you are into. This week's film section (Milk aside) is particularly hilarious.

Paul Constant on Transporter 3:

In 2005, Transporter 2 director Louis Leterrier suggested that the main character of the Transporter series, Frank Martin (Jason Statham), is gay. Homophobic action-movie fans nearly wet their little pink panties over the suggestion—many pointing out that Martin made out with a woman in the first film, as though gay men have never swapped spit with ladies under duress. With the third installment of the series, the sexuality question is beaten to death: Freckly Ukrainian sexpot/plot device Valentina (Natalya Rudakova, beautiful and occasionally lifelike) outright asks Martin if he's "the gay," and he categorically denies it.

Jen Graves on Four Christmases:

After I saw Four Christmases, I went home, put on red boxing gloves, and punched the posts that hold up my house very hard. I really did do this. I could not help it. I predict other children of divorced parents who are not picture-perfect will do this also. Why must heartwarming Christmas movies be satanic? Why must they be my personal kryptonite?

And David Schmader on Breakfast with Scot:

In Breakfast with Scot, an all-but-married couple of "straight-acting" gay guys—one actively closeted, the other just discreet—are granted temporary custody of a nephew, a 12-year-old boy whose mother has died. This boy looks like Miranda July, dresses like Mrs. Roper, and introduces himself with the statement "I only like musicals." This is Scot, and Scot is a budding flaming homosexual, or maybe a robot programmed to act like one, built by someone who read about homosexuality in an encyclopedia.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Mrs. Roper!

I have no idea what I wrote about in Concessions this week:

This movie might as well be Paul Hogan making love to a kangaroo, wearing a shirt that says: "CRIKEY! MY OTHER CAR IS A WITCHETTY GRUB," while the Crocodile Hunter's widow goes, "G'day, billabong! Joey wombat platypus marsupial. Walkabout! Men at Work, g'day! Crikey, Outback Steakhouse! Country? Continent? Both! Fuck you!" The end.

And in Limited Runs, you've got:

High school election documentary Frontrunners at the Northwest Film Forum. Says Paul Constant:

There aren’t a whole lot of dirty dealings or Machiavellian plots here; basically, if you were expecting a real-life Election, you’re going to be disappointed. Instead, it’s an interesting portrait of three gifted students in an incredibly competitive situation. Each is a different type of nerd (the socially awkward arrogant bastard, the hardworking cheerleader, and the laid-back big man on campus) and each of them wears the stress in a different way. The actual election is anticlimactic, but by the time it happens, you’re already invested in these geeks. You expect election drama and you get a clear-eyed high school documentary. It’s not a bad tradeoff.

Over at the Grand Illusion, there's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and Steel of Fire Warriors 2010 A.D., which is a sci-fi epic made by a bunch of local comedians using a video camera and some cardboard and string, and is totally fucking funny.

Central Cinema has The Princess Bride and In Search Of.

SIFF Cinema has Louise Bourgeois: The Spider, the Mistress, and the Tangerine.

And the Egyptian late-night is Across the Universe.

And lucky for you, there's still time (STILL TIME!) to see the absolutely fucking amazing Swedish vampire movie Let the Right One in. You should go see it. Go see it!

And have a great weekend. TURKEY LEG!

From Wikipedia:

Feathers McGraw is a fictional character who appears in the animated Wallace & Gromit film The Wrong Trousers.

A mute yet sinister penguin, Feathers appears after Wallace advertises for a lodger. As the story progresses, Feathers ingratiates himself with Wallace, gradually pushing Gromit out of the picture and causing him to run away.

Feathers takes an interest in the ex-NASA Techno Trousers that Wallace gives to Gromit for his birthday. He reconfigures the control panel, putting the controls into a remote, and taking control of the trousers. Spied on by Gromit, Feathers is revealed as a criminal mastermind who plans on using the trousers in his latest heist.

He disguises himself as a chicken by wearing a red rubber glove on his head. This is apparently enough to fool Wallace, possibly Gromit, and local law enforcement (at one point in the movie, Gromit spots a wanted poster of Feathers McGraw entitled, "Have You Seen This Chicken?").

This is Feathers wearing the disguise:

The genius of this work of art is found in the fact that there's no real difference between the actual Feathers and the disguised one. The rubber glove covers his head and not his face. In our world, Feathers is simply wearing a hat; in the other world, the animated world of Wallace & Gromit, the rubber glove makes Feathers look like another creature, a chicken. When Feathers wears the rubber glove, no one in Wallace & Gromit recognizes him—they can only see a chicken. Remove the glove: Feathers at once appears.

What is worth noting about this disguise and its incredible success is that it distorts by addition rather than subtraction. The people in Wallace & Gromit have an understanding or intelligence that breaks or malfunctions when information is increased. The addition of the rubber glove alters everything. Is this not a severe case or form or type of synecdoche? The part not only represents the whole but becomes it. The rubber glove imitates the comb of a chicken; the chicken's comb transforms the rest of the penguin into a chicken. Utterly amazing. I will never get enough of this Feathers McGraw character.