MovieChat Forums > Sleepers (1996) Discussion > Is this movie "homophobic" as some criti...

Is this movie "homophobic" as some critics have claimed?

posted 6 years ago by Wuchak (8855)
30 replies | jump to latest

In an eye-rolling knee-jerk response, liberal critics have dissed the film as “homophobic” when this isn’t the case at all. For verification, if the victims at the reformatory were girls the baseless criticism wouldn’t even be mentioned. It is not about gender or even sexuality; it is about children and the monstrous abuse of authority for selfish purposes. The film never criticizes what two adult males choose to do behind closed doors.

[–] captainbucky (15252) 6 years ago

Exactly . Chose is the word there

[–] kenburke (2396) 6 years ago

It certainly is not homophobic. Homosexuality involves love between two members of the same sex, not child molestation (which is what the movie was really about).

[–] BillySlater (4282) 5 years ago

I saw on Siskel and Ebert, Roger Ebert called it homophobic because the child molesters were given disproportionate punishment, death in one case, for raping children. I was flabberghasted. Made me think Ebert might have been a paedophile behind closed doors and Siskel agreed with him.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 5 years ago

Yeah, I read Ebert's review after seeing the movie last December and was flabbergasted that he denounced it for being "homophobic" (rolling my eyes).

It's hard to believe, but loony Liberals generally support/condone pedophilia. There's a growing movement in their ranks to legalize the sick phukk behavior.

[–] tom8 (3119) 5 years ago

It's hard to believe, but loony Liberals generally support/condone pedophilia. There's a growing movement in their ranks to legalize the sick phukk behavior."

not hard, the ones that are guilty of sick crimes will always accuse others just to look innocent themselves.

They claim they can't stand the current president, but behind closed doors they are 10 times worse themselves.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 5 years ago

Sad, but true. Shhhh, they don't want this to get out.

[–] CoriSCapnSkip (2755) a year ago

This is shocking and makes me think less of Siskel and Ebert. The movie clearly depicts horrendous abuse of young, helpless, and unwilling victims.

[–] lemonhead1 (424) 3 years ago

I have no words for this comment. I'm beyond repulsed!

[–] Wuchak (8855) 3 years ago

What the perverted guards do to the boys is utterly repulsive.

The point of my original post is that the Lib knee-jerk reaction that the film is "homophobic" is bogus because that issue wouldn't surface if the victims in the story were girls.

Thus the crime of the guards is rape and abuse of children, not to mention abuse of authority, none of which have anything to do with "homophobia."

[–] CapitalJJ (1) a year ago

It's nice to know I wasn't the only one surprised to read Ebert's disturbing comments. There is nothing homophobic about the story. It seems Ebert is mistaking homosexual activity between two consenting adults, and child molestation and rape. That's what the justified revenge is about.

[–] Jsully9 (377) 3 years ago

No this movie is a must watch for liberals, having gay sex with minors of the same sex. It's a liberal masterpiece.

[–] Wuchak (8855) 3 years ago

Good point.

[–] Geiri (864) a year ago

Most men who abuse boys are heterosexual anyway.

[–] Wuchak (8855) a year ago

Why Sure! You must've voted for OBiden and are fully boosted.

[–] Geiri (864) a year ago

Many who do are only interested in females when it comes to adult relationships. Pedophilia is it's own thing and many of them do not have a gender preference.

[–] BillySlater (4282) a year ago

Do you have any stats to back up this ridiculous view? Once you start diddling young boys/men, you lose the right to call yourself a heterosexual. The funny thing is, the unhinged liberals in here have no problem calling someone gay or closet gay for even less, but if you're a man and rape a boy, you're not necessarily gay. Hilarious.

[–] Geiri (864) a year ago

You're not necessarily hetero either when raping a prepubescent girl. But either way it would be weird to describe it as such rather than just pedo.

[–] BillySlater (4282) a year ago

lol what? Age is irrelevant. A man's sexuality doesn't change based on the age of the person they are raping. Homosexuals who start having sex with minors, don't just suddenly lose their homosexuality because they're committing a crime. That is an absurd, illogical take.

[–] Geiri (864) a year ago

Puberty changes your body so you start sending sexual signals. Not just how you look but even how you smell.

Its not a part of heterosexuality for a man to be attracted to little prepubescent girls. In the same way its not a part of homosexuality to be attracted to little prepubescent boys.

But sure some pedos have a preference for boys or girls. It doesn't necessarily align with their preference for adults (if they have any. Some pedos are only attracted to children).

[–] BillySlater (4282) a year ago

Men who molest boys identify as being homosexual, indeed homosexuals who are paedophiles are not exclusively interested in underage males, its only the PC brigade that refuses to call them that. Even the ones that don't are in denial. If you are a man but are married to a woman and serially molest/rape 100s of boys like a Jerry Sandusky, you are not heterosexual.

[–] Geiri (864) a year ago

Biden likes girls not boys.