"I am going to go see a manly movie"

So, very many people here seen it yet?

Anyone going this weekend now that it's expanded to a few more cities and theaters? Now that it's the clear Oscar frontrunner for Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director?

I saw it at the first L.A. general public screening at The Grove--the Thursday midnight show before the official opening. Drove 5 hours round-trip to see it at the first possible opportunity, had to skip work the next day; my little birthday present to myself.

It was pretty much what I expected. It really shook me up. I find I can't talk about it much, though. Really personal for me. Yes, an excellent movie, and one that will stick with me forever. Also really makes me want to change my life right now--do something, anything, to have a chance at love...

Your reactions to it? Too much critical hype?

Glad you liked it Adam. It is a very emotional movie and I'm sure, one that will touch a lot of people if they give it the chance.

Exactly, guys -- just saw it this afternoon. No, I don't think too much critical hype or maybe I've missed it. It's surprisingly "quiet", even though I felt this almost subliminal sense of desperation throughout the movie due to the circumstances of these two people's lives. It's as though the filmmakers and the actors in it had no idea that the movie would be referred to as the "gay cowboy" movie. The story is totally believable and although I come from the Kinsey 6 side of the scale, I would recommend it to anyone; gay, straight or undecided.

A fine film!

Did anyone see Nathan Lane on the Today show this week, doing his impression of lines from this movie? He was doing impressions of the "I wish I could quit you" and "If this thing gets a hold of us at the wrong time, we're dead" lines. Katie Couric was crying with laughter.

This film is currently playing only in one theater in Atlanta (on 3-4 screens, though), but I drove into town and was pleasantly surprised by the high number of people in line for the 11 a.m. showing (thankfully there was also an 11:30 a.m. showing that I was able to attend since the line was so long, and the theater only had one ticket window open that I didn't get my ticket until after the 11 a.m. showing commenced). Suffice it to say, the Friday showings were totally sold out, and the 3 showings I peeked in on were all sold out today.

Now with a film that received so much critical praise early in the "best of 2005" season, is it possible to keep an open mind about its touted "greatness"? I tried, limiting myself to the trailer of the film, and eschewing most of the other details about the film.

My initial thoughts on the aspect ratio was one of "why is this 1.85? It just screams 2.35 to me, but I will have to entertain the notion that director Ang Lee wanted to paint a more intimate portrait of the yearning and love between the principal characters, Jack and Ennis, and from that standpoint, 1.85 is a more proper aspect ratio. But the gorgeous scenery from Brokeback mountain would have benefited from a 2.35 aspect ratio.

Surprisingly, for a film with a running time around 135 minutes, the scenes blend in and move without a lot of inconsequential material, the film just quietly pushes through the passage of time at a pace that almost feels natural because as you get older, time does whisk by, with only highpoints from the years to mark its passage.

Set in 1963, buoyed by a summer of shepherding sheep, Jack and Ennis develop a friendship that turns into something deeper for the two of them, but at the same time, it's something with dire consequences and outwardly forbidden. The film hits the right notes in depicting the shackles of societal convention that forbidden love engenders. The pain from living a less-than-truthful life can take its toll, and the quality of the storytelling is worthy of motivating viewers to re-examining their own lives should parallels exists.

The performance of Heath Ledger (Ennis) is very good, just a smidge better than Jake Gyllenhall's (Jack), it was easy to buy the onscreen chemistry between them. Also, Michelle Williams does some good work as Ennis's wife. Ang Lee and the screenwriters do a wonderful job of never losing the viewer, and choose the right angles to present the scenes to sustain the storyline in a confident manner, with nary a mis-step.

Is it worth its hype? All I can say is that it didn't disappoint.

I give it 3.75 stars, or a grade of A-.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051205.gif
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051206.gif
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051207.gif
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051208.gif
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051209.gif
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com.../lbo051210.gif

It expands 300 screens next week right? I hope KC gets it.

I just love when movies such as "BM" bring out the heterophobes. These types and their ilk don't hesitate to fling nasty names at anyone who knows that homosexuality is immoral. I suggest that many or most of these same "open-minded" hypocrites would be highly offended if Ol' Heath were carrying on with...say, his horse ("If this thing gets hold of us at the wrong time, we're dead") or his grandmother("I wish I could quit you"). Not that there's anything wrong with it, as they say on Seinfeld). Heck, I'd even bet that many "open-minded" types who don't mind the 'chaste' scenes and male kissing would be aghast if Ang(st) Lee would put up or shut up by showing Jake & Heath in scenes that simulate in as graphic a way possible (while still retaining an "R" rating) homosexual sex showing anal intercourse and oral sex. You can omit those scenes on the pretense of "subtlety" or admit that you know that most audiences do NOT want to see their male heroes engaged in graphic, simulated sex scenes as explicit as the same scenes would be portrayed if the two lovers were heterosexual. That is a true test of the reputed 'tolerance' of the masses. And let Lee suggest that Heath & Jake enthusiastically go at it with each other in that light and see how 'brave' these actors will be.

So, shut up, you agephobes, incestphobes, and zoophobes unless you would embrace a "beautifully crafted and acted movie" about beastiality, incest, etc....unless you truly do welcome the days when these "love stories" will be "bravely" portrayed onscreen and be applauded enthusiastically by empathetic audiences who love a good love story. Until then, get a life.

What?

creekdipper: You're obviously confused. Who exactly is your post directed at? What do incest and beastiality have to do with homosexuality, except that some consider all of them aberrations? It's a difference between what you condone and what you don't. No topic should be off limits -- it all depends on how the topic is handled. I, personally, don't condone paedophilia, and thus would consider a movie that portrays paedophilia in a positive light to be immoral, whereas I have nothing against an intelligent handling of the topic, such as "The Woodsman".

Don't feed the trolls...

King Kong is looking to be #1 this weekend. And is about as graphic as Brokeback Mountain.

This thread is definitly a bit too serious, that said, the movie is doing amazingly in limited release.

:lol:

That is exactly my point. Rather than discussing the merits of the acting, directing, cinematography, script, etc., quite a few of the earlier posts concentrated primarily on the homosexuality angle (I thought the point of the movie was to treat the story as "just another unrequited love story"...at least that's what the critics suggest). What upsets me is when those same supporters of the movie attack anyone who finds the subject matter offensive as bigoted, unenlightened, fanatical, crazy, ad nauseaum...and makes those attacks in a manner designed to intimidate and threaten those of dissenting views before the 'detractors' have even said anything. It's this knee-jerk reaction that I find hypocritical. You say that you would find a movie portraying paedophilia to be "immoral"--yet you would probably not expect to be attacked for expressing that view (or be referred to as a "troll" by someone who doesn't have an intelligent rebuttal to your views). My point is this: Replace Heath Ledger with Maggie Gyllenhaal (actress sister of Jake who has already been in roles some might consider 'kinky'...SECRETARY comes to mind) cast as her brother's lover. Same story--a love condemned by society. Would the same people who derisively label those who don't approve of the 'love story' displayed in BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN attack those who expressed disapproval of an incestuous relationship? Could anyone please explain the difference to me? Don't quote the illegal nature of incest to me: as anyone knows, homosexual acts have historically been illegal under sodomy laws until very recently (although usually unenforced). I am merely trying to point out the hypocrisy of those who automatically attack others for their views while reserving the right to be judgmental regarding other "morally offensive" actions that involve consenting partners. The fact that one cannot even express one's views without being attacked is the real tipoff. Even homosexual advocacy groups have admitted that their early expressed goal of "tolerance" were merely a stepping stone to their true goal: acceptance. To say that that one cannot equate homosexuality with incest, beasiality, sadomasochism, and other sexual 'activities' is to ignore the fact that all sexual practices have their practitioners and advocates for 'acceptance'. One should not object to some of those practices on "moral" grounds (including refusing to see a movie which purports to being able to "change minds and hearts" regarding the subject...as some critics are saying about BM) and then fling pejorative terms at those who refuse to see BM based upon the same rationale.

If anyone can refute what I've said, I'll be glad to read your comments...and I promise not to label you a "troll". BTW...I never read any disclaimers at the beginning of this thread warning anyone who didn't approve of the BM subject matter that they were not welcome to comment or respond to the insults thrown at them by the "open-minded, self-anointed" progressives who want to keep this a closed forum. Didn't know you had to be a member of that clique to voice your opinion. Thought this was America. My mistake.

It gets even worse: equality. Now that would be something.

Saw it last night here in Houston. Amazing, they are actually showing i down here in cowboyland! :) I liked it. It was a little slow, but as someone who has spent a lot of time in Wyoming, it was a beautiful film. The characters are exactly like people in Wyoming with their slow, stay-to-themselves sort of personalities. And I don't know how you could not think about Matthew Sheppard while watching this. I know I did.

Ok, I didn't read the book. Someone fill me in:

dear creek,
I have nothing wrong with Jerry Lee Lewis marrying his cousin. They could make a love story of that. Or the arc in Arrested Development, I am rooting for George Michael even though it is believed that they aren't related. People are a lot more open than you might think.

The film follows Annie Proulx's story almost exactly in this.

Probably beating a very dead horsie here, but (although I appreciate your point) my original premise called for a relative in immediate family (Heath & his father, for instance...or Jake with his sister). Still okay with that? I don't think we would hear a huge outcry of support for those types of relationships despite people being "a lot more open than you might think". And...speaking of that horse... (LOL).

As mentioned in an earlier post. I find Lane annoying and always "on" like some high school or college drama student.

Christ.

Is this REALLY the thread for this crap?

Go read and re-read every gay thread ever created in the "other" forum on this board if you want to shovel this horseshit. It's been done before.

I got news for you, that wasn't Wyoming, it was Alberta,Canada! In terms of the ending, I have heard that the author has said At least that's her viewpoint.


With all of the accolades this is getting for its love story, I don't know why the marketing team hasn't capitalized with ads touting it as "The Ultimate Gay Love Story..."

Fantastic, thanks for your point of view.

Now, this thread is about discussing the movie Brokeback Mountain. If you'd like to discuss the politics of "heterophobia", I suggest you follow digital's advice and find one of the 10,000 threads in the Other forum that discuss it.