Since directing a scene-for-scene remake of Hitchcock’s classic Psycho in 1998, Gus Van Sant’s CV has looked decidedly unimpressive. Milk is not only a return to form for the director, but also a return to back to basics, film-making roots.

Harvey Milk, played by Sean Penn, was the first openly gay elected official in America. The film follows his political journey in San Francisco during the seventies.

The first thing that grabs you instantly about Milk is the period setting; Van Sant’s eye for detail for the seventies is there for the whole world to marvel. It almost feels like the film was shot with a Polaroid instant camera, with its slightly washed out coloured pictures flicked in front of a camera.

Sean Penn proves he's got plenty of bottle.

The next thing you notice is Sean Penn’s performance. In any other actor’s hands, Milk could have easily been portrayed as a mincing Larry Grayson. With Penn however, he creates his version of Harvey with a backbone of subtlety, layered with levels of humour and humanity. Worthy of an Oscar nod indeed.

He gets good support from James Franco, who plays his lover Scott, and Josh Brolin, as his political nemesis Dan White, who racks up yet another highly watchable performance.

Where Van Sant comes slightly unstuck is in the pacing of the film. In a word, it drags. For a two hour plus effort it’s simply too long. With some creative editing, Milk’s story would have been a better film at only 90 minutes in length. In fact, the film could have been helped all round with a bit more creativity. Van Sant may well have gone all out to achieve a fly-on-the-wall documentary-style film, but this may well be the film’s downfall. Despite some excellent acting, there are moments of pure dullness.

It also doesn’t help when the outcome of the film is set up at the beginning. Some film-makers may think of this as a great narrative tool, but an audience has to be given more if you are to lead it to an ending that you have already revealed to it. And unfortunately, Van Sant doesn’t give quite enough.

With the amount of good press the film is picking up – and the performances are certainly deserving of that – it will hopefully give the director the opportunity to make the kind of idiosyncratic films he is more than capable of making.