erm....he just quoted a part from the msnbc article. I honestly haven't seen anyone here say anything about those who DON'T wanna see it homophobic. I'm SURE there are gay guys that don't wanna see this as well, and that would certainly not make them homophobic.

My friend just saw the press screening last night here in Toronto, and he said that Spielberg shouldn't try to be Costa-Gavras and that it was accomplished enough but strangely uninvolving.

It's true.

Well, I saw it last night. The theater was packed full of gay guys and straight women. I don't think I saw anyone over 40. I'm not sure what this means for a wide release.

Very good audience, though. Probably the best one I've seen a movie with in months.

The movie itself is interesting. I'm still not sure how I feel about it, but rest assured it's good. Very deliberate pacing.

:wave:

:wave: me too.

Well, awards season is starting, and the LA CRITICS AWARD for Best picture goes to ..... <b>BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN</b>, with Ang Lee named as Best Director.

Interestingly enough, Michael Medved (well-known conservative and former full-time movie reviewer) has seen Brokeback Mountain. While he said that while the homosexuality might be a bit much for viewers, he thought generally the movie was quite well done with superb cinematography. However, he also said the movie should not have given oblique references to the infamous killing of Matthew Shephard, though.

In short, I have this feeling from Medved that if they had played down the homosexuality just a tad the movie would have been much more widely accepted, since everything else about Brokeback Mountain has gotten plaudits from everyone out there.

Don't be silly - it's a love story between *two men* - how the hell can they "play down the homosexuality"? Heck, it's ALREADY played down to resemble a friggin' Victorian period drama. In fact, my main problem with it is that the film is nearly asexual. Come on, there's already films like O FANTASMA and BURNT MONEY out there that's 100x more sexy than this inert film.

Michael Medved is an idiot - "oblique references to Matthew Shepard"? Where? Was he looking for politics where there is none? Sorry, but that is really reaching.

Really, who cares if the film is not bought by millions of bigoted masses? The film cost $16 million, will easily make a profit, and will earn a number of Oscar noms and even win some. Heck, it'll be successful, whether it's not as "widely accepted" or not. People who have a problem with it can shove it.

It already has.

I don't think their was a lack of sex in the film. The story is not about sex, it's about love. If you put "too much" sex in a gay movie, people say there's too much because being gay isn't just about sex. But, if you put "too little" in, you're damned for the opposite reason.

Amen.

Taking the homosexuality out completely would make it even more widely accepted. In it's place they could have made Rush Hour 3 or another Scooby-do movie. But I don't think that was the idea. They know there are people who just won't see it because of the subject matter (and of course, people gay and straight who just don't care for love stories/drama), but that goes for a number of movies that do well anyway. If they offered 'safe' homosexuality (flamboyant cartoon characters or gay guys who don't touch or have sex) this movie would not come across as honest and no one would be talking about awards for it, and there would be no humanity felt for these characters. Imagine a love story with Brad Pitt and Angelina Joli that shyed away from showing sex or intimacy. No one can force you to go see it between male characters, but to not have it in a love story is simply rediculous. I really hate the idea of movies that are only about what the largest audience would want, anyway.

As for straight people wanting to see this, as others have said, females seem interested for whatever reason... I know a few girls who want to go, and even a straight guy at my job said he wants to see it. From my experiences, it's never as black and white as "I'm gay, I will see this" or "I'm straight, I will not see this" when it comes down to stuff like this.

There is sex in BROKEBACK , but it's very....dull and dry (literally?). And sorry, I don't buy it - if straight films can have moments of sexual intimacy, so can gay films. The aforementioned BURNT MONEY is a perfect example - a great love story AND it's really friggin' hot. It has big Spanish-speaking stars (Eduardo Noriega) and was a box-office success in its native country. This bespeaks more of how backwards Americans are in their attitude toward gays compared to other places in the world, really, that we can't make films like this.

I agree. Tragic Love. I think the film handled the sexual angle of their relationship very well. It was subtle yet effective.

Baby steps. When was the last time you saw a movie with mainstream stars about two men falling in love?

I loved the movie. I thought it was a wonderful story. Thes men's lives were ruined (along with most everyone else around them) because they were trying to be what Society told them they should be and they couldn't change no matter how hard they tried. I thought Heath and Jake did a wonderful job and the cinematograpy was amazing.

Just the same you can compare a spanish movie with straight sex scenes to an American one, and the spanish one will be 100x's more revealing and erotic. America has a problem with sex, period.

I think you're arguing for what you'd want to see in this movie, not what the movie needs.

Personally, I'm waiting to hear Doug Danger's review of the film before I go see it. As a gay man and a gay journalist, Doug's insight is usually spot-on.

You know he's gay, right?

No, I'm arguing that if MULHOLLAND DRIVE can have eroticism between two *women*, then so can BROKEBACK. I'm actually being quite nice to BROKEBACK. Some critics, not so:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-...-_b_11492.html

"The name for Brokeback Mountain is chicken shit."

Which is what I'm trying to say, but not in those words.

That's hardly a critical review. It's a rant. I don't even know about what. Peter Paige is a bigger name than Heath Ledger or Jake Gyllenhaal?? Lunacy. Could he pull off playing a gay guy who is able to fake a straight life? I seriously doubt it. Randy Harrison from the same show, maybe. That article just sounds like anger over there not being more actors out of the closet in Hollywood and taking it out on the movie. A movie that, if successful, may cause a few to decide the time is OK to do so.

Actually, more specifically, America has a problem with the penis.

You can show bare tits and ass all you want in American films - the more, the better apparently. But flash half a second of flaccid cock and suddenly, the very fabric of society will rip open and the world consume itself.

I've seen more penises in (non-porn) American films than vaginas.

It's nice to know not only that you're looking, but that you're also keeping track.

I think.

You too.

But the movie didn't need more "eroticism". You've seen it, right? Tell me how the film would have been improved.