Brokeback Mountain

Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.



Ronny
Brokeback Mountain

"A raw, powerful story of two young men, a Wyoming ranch hand and a rodeo cowboy, who meet in the summer of 1963 sheepherding in the harsh, high grasslands of contemporary Wyoming and form an unorthodox yet life-long bond--by turns ecstatic, bitter and conflicted. The new film from Academy Award-winning director Ang Lee. An epic love story set against the sweeping vistas of Wyoming and Texas, Brokeback Mountain tells the story of two young men - a ranch-hand and a rodeo cowboy - who meet in the summer of 1963, and unexpectedly forge a lifelong connection, one whose complications, joys and tragedies provide a testament to the endurance and power of love."

-IMBD

It stars Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger

I just saw the preview for the movie when i went to see The Constant Gardener and it really looked great, not just because I m an intense homo-erotic but It really looked like a fascinating love story and it seems to be one of the first movies about homosexuality with big stars. I Am really looking forward to it.

MildPossession
I am looking forwards to the film also, looks excellent, always have time for an Ang Lee film.

.Dance_Inside.
my friend is dying to see it, so i guess I'll go with her...

2 hot guys having sex..who wouldn't wanna see it stick out tongue

KillTheLight
yep i will be seeing this.. two hot guys making out on the big screen im so there.. wink

davecullen
I saw Brokeback at the Denver Film Fest last week.

Wow. Even better than the book. And I loved that book. (Short story.)

Can't wait till it opens, to see how much of America is ready for it. Please get a group together to see it the weekend it opens in your city. (Dec 9 in NY, LA and SF. Sixteen more cities Dec 16. Then rolling out through Jan and Feb.)

My review and tons of links at my Brokeback site in my signature.

davecullen
Ronny, that is one hot pic in your signature block. yes

Solo
I'm not the biggest fan of "man-on-man" action, hopefully there is a redeeming quality to this film.

Mando
Originally posted by Solo
I'm not the biggest fan of "man-on-man" action, hopefully there is a redeeming quality to this film.

Consigned.

davecullen
Originally posted by Solo
I'm not the biggest fan of "man-on-man" action, hopefully there is a redeeming quality to this film.

The man-on-man action is slight. Mostly when they are together they are just wrangling sheep or riding out into amazing Wyoming canyons . . .

And I think this story will move just about anyone. The NY Observer piece said press screenings had rooms full of hardened cynical straight male critics blubbering in their seats.

It's gay thing is the source of their problem--it is what is forcing them apart most of their lives, ruining their marriages--but it the conflict it creates is universal.

As for redeeming qualities, don't take my word for it. The Gurus o' Gold--a site compiling Oscar rankings from roughly a dozen of leading "experts," from Newsweek, Entertainment Weekly, etc.--has Brokeback in first place as most likely to win Best Picture. All those people obviously see something pretty redeeming.

(I can't post a link on this site until I'm "better known," but if you want the link to Gurus o' Gold, follow the link in my signature, and it's listed right near the top. FYI, Munich is in second, Walk the Line third, then a big dropoff in points to Memoirs of a Geisha and Good Night/Good Luck.)

Mando
How would you rate "Brokeback Mountain" on a scale?

Is it the best movie so far this year?

davecullen
Originally posted by Mando
How would you rate "Brokeback Mountain" on a scale?

Is it the best movie so far this year?

Well I thought Crouching Tiger--his second-to-last film--was one of the best of the decade, and I would put it right on a par with that. Similar sweeping grandeur, but without flying off rooftops or fighting in trees. (hahaha.)

Definitely a 10 on a 10-scale.

I have not seen all the big films yet this year--most have not gotten to Denver--but it's the best I've seen so far, by a long shot.

The two other best I've seen this year were Millions (tragically overlooked--from the director of Trainspotting), and Capote.

It's definitely my favorite since at least Eternal Sunshine, and it's oddly similar. Two people madly in love, being torn apart, who are fighting like crazy to stay together. Essentially. Though in dramatically different ways. (And in both films, one of the two is fighting much harder and very differently than the other.)

BackFire
I've heard good things about this movie. Hopefully it doesn't use it's homosexually driven characters and theme as a gimmick for attention and actually does the story justice.

But, from what I've heard, it does. I'll see it when it comes out for rent.

davecullen
Originally posted by BackFire
Hopefully it doesn't use it's homosexually driven characters and theme as a gimmick for attention and actually does the story justice.

Let's see, if I were trying to one of the world's leading filmmakers who had already directed two recent Oscar winners, and my main objective was to cash in my reputation for big bucks--to the point where I was going to stoop to "a gimmick for attention"--what kind of film would I make? Oh, of course! A film about two gay cowboys, what could be more bankable than that?

You can love this film or hate it, but that's the first I've heard anyone accusing the team of doing it as a gimmick to grab attention.

After the Denver screening I attended, Ang Lee was interviewed at length on stage. He said he read Annie Proulx's story after he finished Crouching Tiger, and it really moved him, drove him to tears. Then he went off to spend a few years on The Hulk, and when he finished, Brokeback was still in his head. For four years it was calling out to me, he said, just wouldn't let me go. So he knew what his next project had to be.

And I can't imagine how you would think Annie Proulx wrote the story or Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana adapted it and watched it languish for years, out of anything but love for the story.

Whether they succeeded, that's for you to decide. But I think you are way off base questioning their motives. This is about the furthest thing you can get from a cynical Hollywood money grab as you can get.

davecullen
The Independent Spirit Awards noms announced this morning.

Brokeback was tied for second with four noms (Behind "The Squid & The Whale"wink, for best pic, director, actor and supporting actress.

I can't post links, but google (in google news) "Independent Spirit Awards," or follow the link in my sig, and I've got several links at the top of my site.

Myth
This movie looks so gay. wink

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by Myth
This movie looks so gay. wink

laughing Yeah, it really does.

This movie just doesn't seem like my kinda thing... Even if it had nothing to do with homosexuality... But because there is... sick

BackFire
Originally posted by davecullen
Let's see, if I were trying to one of the world's leading filmmakers who had already directed two recent Oscar winners, and my main objective was to cash in my reputation for big bucks--to the point where I was going to stoop to "a gimmick for attention"--what kind of film would I make? Oh, of course! A film about two gay cowboys, what could be more bankable than that?

You can love this film or hate it, but that's the first I've heard anyone accusing the team of doing it as a gimmick to grab attention.

After the Denver screening I attended, Ang Lee was interviewed at length on stage. He said he read Annie Proulx's story after he finished Crouching Tiger, and it really moved him, drove him to tears. Then he went off to spend a few years on The Hulk, and when he finished, Brokeback was still in his head. For four years it was calling out to me, he said, just wouldn't let me go. So he knew what his next project had to be.

And I can't imagine how you would think Annie Proulx wrote the story or Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana adapted it and watched it languish for years, out of anything but love for the story.

Whether they succeeded, that's for you to decide. But I think you are way off base questioning their motives. This is about the furthest thing you can get from a cynical Hollywood money grab as you can get.

Poor reading comprehension on your part.

I never accused anyone of anything. I said "hopefully this doesn't happen, and from what I've heard, it doesn't". That is not an accusation in anyway. That is me merely saying that it could be very easy for some film makers to use the homosexual nature of the story as a gimmick for attention, never said that I THOUGHT that's what was being done.

Mando
I'm not planning to see this.

As far as I'm concerned homosexual movies are for the homosexual. Stupid movies are for the ignorant, and pieces of art are for admirers. I personally am not looking forward to this. According to reports, Heath Ledger nearly broke co-star Jake Gyllenhaal's nose while filming a kissing scene. I'll stick to King kong, and Chronicles of narnia. And yes. I will also stick to my non-homosexual porn.

It's not that I have anything against gays, but I'm personally not interested.

Solo
Just because there are gay characters in this movie doesn't make the movie gay.

Although, I think this won't exceed my expectations, I'm going to try pretty hard to not base an opinion of the film just because the two main characters are homosexual.

Mando
Originally posted by Solo
Just because there are gay characters in this movie doesn't make the movie gay.

Although, I think this won't exceed my expectations, I'm going to try pretty hard to not base an opinion of the film just because the two main characters are homosexual.


Especially if one of your favorite actors is one of the homo-sexual characters.

Solo
Originally posted by Mando
Especially if one of your favorite actors is one of the homo-sexual characters.
Definitely.

davecullen
Originally posted by BackFire
. . . Hopefully it doesn't use it's homosexually driven characters and theme as a gimmick for attention and actually does the story justice.

But, from what I've heard, it does.

Originally posted by BackFire
Poor reading comprehension on your part.

I never accused anyone of anything. I said "hopefully this doesn't happen, and from what I've heard, it doesn't".

Hmmmmmm. I note a discrepancy.

Funny how those not's can make all the difference.

Miscommunication corrected.

davecullen
Originally posted by Mando
As far as I'm concerned homosexual movies are for the homosexual.

So I guess you're not going to see Memoirs of Geisha then, assuming you're not Asian, much less a Geshia. Or The New World, since you don't live in the 17th Century. Or Capote because you're not writing a book on a pair of killers. Or Syrianna because you're not Arab or in the oil industry. Or . . .

Doesn't sound like you'll be going to many of the big movies this year.

I have been going to films with straight protagonists all my life, but I never brushed them off as "straight movies" not to be bothered with.

If this were porn, I would totally see your point. But it's not.

And I can totally see you being a little wierded out by seeing two guys kiss. Maybe even a little revolted. I get that. I can symathize. But it's less than one minute of the two-plus hours that that happens. There are some really gross moments in a lot great movies--people brutally killed, etc.--and we get past the few parts that are hard to watch and still leave really happy that we went. Nobody really ENJOYED seeing that horse in the bed in The Godfather, and I'm sure plenty of old ladies refused to go specifically because they had heard about it, but most people were wise enough to just deal. It was worth a momentary gag.

That could well happen to you here. Yeah, you'll have a few moments of discomfort, but you will also experience a great work of art.

And could I suggest that the queasiness is largely because we, as a society, have hid it from ourselves all our lives. Yeah, I thought I was going to puke first time I saw two guys kiss too--back when I was trying really hard to be straight. Guys holding hands, made me really nervous. But I got over it pretty quickly and so did all my straight friends. They don't bat an eye now, just like I don't bat an eye seeing straight couples on the screen or walking down the street. Anything foreign is a jolt. So maybe one film or two and it won't be so foreign anymore and you won't spend the rest of your days cringing at the thought. Maybe.

(Meanwhile, I'm not usually so argumentative. It's just hard not to get a little touchy when the first mainstream film in 20-some years actually has a couple like me, and people write it off for having people like me in it. Funny how it's totally acceptable to say that, but if someone made a similar crack about black people or Jews or Mexicans or whatever, jaws would drop. Yeah, I'm not going to see Munich, Jew films are for the Jews. Yow. Still OK to say about gays, though. OK, I'll try not to be touchy. But it does sting.)

Mando
Originally posted by davecullen
So I guess you're not going to see Memoirs of Geisha then, assuming you're not Asian, much less a Geshia. Or The New World, since you don't live in the 17th Century. Or Capote because you're not writing a book on a pair of killers. Or Syrianna because you're not Arab or in the oil industry. Or . . .
Doesn't sound like you'll be going to many of the big movies this year.
I have been going to films with straight protagonists all my life, but I never brushed them off as "straight movies" not to be bothered with.



Well, It's not that I'm trying to stereotype these kinds of films. But I'm not exactly going to see this movie and say things like "you go boy!" or take any action whatsoever. I'm just not interested to say the least. Like I'm not interested for other films like things by uwe boll, or chick flicks. I'm not stereotyping, I'm jut saying They don't really fit with me. I'm not tring to offend.

BackFire
Originally posted by davecullen
Hmmmmmm. I note a discrepancy.

Funny how those not's can make all the difference.

Miscommunication corrected.

Perhaps I worded it badly.

When I said "From what I heard, it does" what I meant is that "from what I heard, it does do the story justice" not "It does use homosexuality as a gimmick.

Regaurdless, my point stands. Plenty of stupid artsy movies use homosexuality as a gimmick, as if it makes the film unique simply because it has a story centered around gay characters and gay relationships, all the while the movie is generic, pretentious crap using it's gay gimmick as a crutch. As South Park said "Gay cowboys eating pudding".

Whether or not this particular movie commits this type of flaw I'll decide for myself when I see the film.

davecullen
Originally posted by BackFire
Plenty of stupid artsy movies use homosexuality as a gimmick, as if it makes the film unique simply because it has a story centered around gay characters and gay relationships, all the while the movie is generic, pretentious crap using it's gay gimmick as a crutch.

OK, clearly we misunderstood each other. That's cleared up, hopefully no hard feelings.

But on to your main point, restated above. I have to admit, that really threw me as well. I was completely baffled by it initially, and now that you've laid it out more explicitly, I'm still kind of unsure how to even respond. But I'm intrigued by this fundamental difference in perceptions. I've seen a fair number of gay films, mostly with gay people, and talk about film constantly, and this is the first I'm hearing of this idea. Which is not to discredit it, just to say it does seem to come up in my world.

But let me back up, and agree on one essential point, and maybe go even further: most gay films suck. That was a line I read in (Southern Voice? some gay pub) writing about Brokeback about a month ago. I linked to it on my blog and wrote a long response agreeing and trying to figure out why. I mean, more films fail than succeed to start with, but gay films seem to have a much worse batting average. They just tend to be awful.

Why, I'm not sure. I figured it was a combo of three things: low budgets available for niche product; most of the really talented people want to work on projects with some hope of a decent audience; and some quasi-militant gay filmmakers are always trying way too hard to push some kind of message or envelop, fooling themselves into believing a message or an agenda could take the place of good skills. It's got to be good art first, before it speaks to anyone, right? Hyped up artists of all stripes often forget that.

But this idea of using gayess as a gimmick. That, I don't get at all. I have a feeling these guys are just really shitty filmmakers, making shitty films set in their world which happens to be mostly gay. The gay part may look like a gimmick to you--I think it's usually just life to them. And to gay audiences.

It's interesting that you may be interpretting this as a gimmick--because you see nothing else of value, obviously they're trying to be unique by being gay. I have a feeling that in a way you are giving them too much credit, as well as too little. Most of the time, those poor saps really did think their twaddle was unique and interesting. Yeah, they really did make a film that dull and idiotic. Lots of them are dull and idiotic people--or at least lack the talent to express their ideas artfully. So in a way you're being too charitable, assuming they at least had the sense to add a gimmick to try to carry it. No, I doubt it.

(For starters, most out gay people don't think of gayness as being all that unique or inherently interesting. We're about as likely to even conceive of it as a gimmick as a left-hand person is to think that would make his film premise unique. We do tend to get excited to see a film about us, just like black people are relieved when a network sitcom actually includes black people. But then we're just sad that it's probably going to suck.)

I could be wrong, but I have a feeling you are reaching conclusions which make sense from your POV, but have nothing to do with the motivations driving these would-be artists. And it ocurrs to me that maybe you are not alone. Have a lot of straight people been thinking this a long time? Have you--or anyone else on this thread--talked about this with other straight people?

And I'm even more curious: have you discussed this idea with any gay people? I'm assuming that would look at you with puzzlement, but who knows. Enlighten me.

BackFire
No, no hard feelings at all. My fault for stating my point in a fairly sloppy manner.

Anyways, you say that these filmmakers may actually be making a sincere attempt at making a film with real artistic merit and thinking that by having a gay theme that it does make it unique and interesting. I don't disagree with this. I'm sure, to them, that they really DID think that having a gay theme would make it unique, though, as you said, that's not always the case.

I see it as a gimmick because it's usually the ONLY "unique" attribute about a given movie. A movie with a gay theme will generally have little else special about it other then it's homosexual nature. Take out the homosexuality, and you have a generic film, most of the time.

With that said, I'm no expert on films with a theme such as this, I've not seen many, but from the ones I have seen I found myself thinking "okay, would anyone care about this movie, or be interested in it at all, if it didn't have this gay theme?" The answer, to me, at least, is usually "no".

This isn't seen in only gay films. You mentioned black sitcoms, which made me think of the recent crapfest "The Honeymooners" which had a gimmick of taking what was initially a "white" show and turning it into an all black cast. Some people thought this made the film unique "oh wow, look at that, they're black, how odd". Of course, this didn't change the quality of the film and annoyed more people then it intrigued. It took a very trivial physical/character change and centered the whole movie on it. Same basic idea that I'm talking about. Take a simple, generic, say, romance film, nothing particularly special about it, starring a man and a woman, and it gets no press, it's just seen as "more of the same". Now, change nothing but the sex of one of the characters, and the film gets much attention and is seen as unique for changing something that, in reality, has nothing to do with the film itself. All because it's about a gay couple now instead of a straight couple Hopefully you see where I'm coming from here.

Perhaps you're right though, I'm straight, maybe that's why I see it as a gimmick while gay people don't even give it a second thought. Regardless, homosexuality is the minority, most people see it as "strange" or "different" because it's not the norm, as such, I think some studios, not necessarily the film makers, do release movies with a gay theme to try and intrigue movie goers. Straight people will often be intrigued because it's a different (though trivial) change to the typical cinematic formula, while many gay people will often embrace it simply because it is about their lifestyle and what not.

Is this a gimmick? Sometimes, I think. Not always, it depends on how relevant it is to the story and the quality of the film itself. Also depends on the desires of the film maker and the studio.

To answer your final question - No, I've never discussed this idea with anyone, straight or gay. Until now, of course.

davecullen
Originally posted by BackFire
you say that these filmmakers may actually be making a sincere attempt at making a film with real artistic merit and thinking that by having a gay theme that it does make it unique and interesting.

No, I was trying to say the opposite, actually. I was saying they were trying to make a film with real artitic merit and thought SOMETHING about their story was unique and interesting. The fact that it was gay was merely incidental.

Try this: You live in the U.S. (I'm guessing.) If you made a film, chances are it would be set in the U.S., filled with Americans. Just because it's the world you know. It would never occur to you that that in itself would be seen as your unique angle, or some gimmick for attention. And you created a story that you thought was cool and interesting, but to just about any viewer it was dull beyond belief, and all they could think was, "What was he thinking? Why would he think anyone would care about this?" But imagine if one of those viewers was from India, and was very cognizant of the fact that the U.S. is less than 5% of the world's population. So he came to the conclusion that you set it in America, filled with Americans as a way to get attention, because that would make it interesting. Obviously, he would say--it's the only thing unique about your story. You would probably be incredulous.

I think that's how these gay filmmakers would see your remarks. They would be pissed and distressed that you thought their film was so insipid that you had to look around for reasons they might have found it interesting. (Even though you would be right.) But they would be flummoxed to find that you thought the gayness was meant as the hook or the hype or whatever. It's just the world they knew, so they started there.

Believe me, I've taught creative writing to undergrads and sat through countless workshops with grad students who write the most innane crap about nothing and are quite sure their stories are rivetting. There is nothing there just because they are shitty writers, and think their innane little hack plot and generic characters are interesting. They imagine a fascinating situation, but lack the skills to bring it to life. Few of these people are gay, and stories are about straight people. If you happen to have a gayguy in the class, he is likely to write gay stories that are just as bad--but he is not intending the gay thing as some sort of hook, he is just writing what he knows. You might see his story and assume he must be trying to use the gay thing as the hook, but no, he just sucked and happened to be writing a sucky story that happened to have gay characters.

The Honeymooners is clearly an example of what you're talking about: taking an existing concept and just flipping one element. But I can't think of any gay films like that, unless maybe In And Out--the "what if he was gay!" idea, but that's not even a gay film, it's just mistaken-identity straight people.

You're right, obviously, that gays are in the minority, so there is some shock potential, but only if they were being marketed to shocked straight people. Most gay films are made for gay audiences--they're certainly not expecting those gay people to be shocked. I just don't think this is happening. It's the kind of shock almost certain to turn off your audience, rather than draw one. Any exec using that strategy would be looking for a job pretty soon.

BackFire
Hmm, those are some interesting points, Dave. Giving me some stuff to think about, I like that.

However, I don't the the setting of America is really very good. Tons of films are made in the US, it would be nothing new or exciting. However, there are some movies that come from other, more remote and less common areas, and perhaps these would be a better comparison. Some of these movies, much like the gay films, seem to have nothing unique to offer other then an odd setting, as opposed to characters. Same deal, I suppose.

This probably isn't done intentionally by the creator, and you're probably very right - most probably are just writing what's familiar too them. However, I'd be hard-pressed to find a gay film that really does have anything else to offer. They more or less seem to rely on their gay themes, and nothing more. Again, I'm not saying this was done intentionally, but it's the consequence for making an otherwise generic film with one, glaringly apparent difference.

I also do think studios make these films, not ONLY for gay audiences, but for gossip and attention. I'm not saying they don't aim them for a gay audience, merely that I think they're, at the same time, attempting to gather as much hype as possible from the straight crowd at the same time. There's a lot of straight people who are into these "artsy" type films that will go see a movie just because it has a "unique" theme, and think that they're great and brave because of that, when in reality they're nothing more then a simplistic, generic film with simply a gay theme.

But even if I'm wrong, and even if the studios do soley aim these films at the gay community, I'd still consider them using it as a gimmick. They're relying on this ONE attribute to lure in a specific type of crowd that wouldn't otherwise be there were it not for said attribute.

Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Like I said, I've never really discussed this with anyone before so I don't know what others think of the issue. But, like the old saying goes, no press is bad press, I'd say the same is for shock value. No shock value is bad shock value, it will still gain attention, and as such, people will want to see it.

Also, it's nice to have a new member who is actually willing to have indepth discussions about films, too few around. Welcome to the forum.

Mando
Originally posted by davecullen
I think that's how these gay filmmakers would see your remarks. They would be pissed and distressed that you thought their film was so insipid that you had to look around for reasons they might have found it interesting. (Even though you would be right.) But they would be flummoxed to find that you thought the gayness was meant as the hook or the hype or whatever. It's just the world they knew, so they started there.

There are several gay filmmakers out there who make great movies. Much like 'West side story'. Personally I love that movie. I don't think of the fact that It was directed by someone who swung a different way then me. I just enjoy his workings and give credit where credit is due.

Originally posted by BackFire
Maybe it's just me, I don't know. Like I said, I've never really discussed this with anyone before so I don't know what others think of the issue. But, like the old saying goes, no press is bad press, I'd say the same is for shock value. No shock value is bad shock value, it will still gain attention, and as such, people will want to see it.


Thats's what I was thinking, Shock value. Why else would they cast stars such as Jake Gyllenhaal, and Heath ledger? Not becuase they neccescarily fit the role, It's that they are rising stars. And people get entertainment out of watching a kissing scene between two of the media's rising and loved Actors. Now just think, If it were 2 guys we've never heard of, would the audience really want to see this? No. It's not that im interested in seeing it in the first place.Bbut with 2 unkown actors, Chances slim down. Girls love gay guys am I right? Does seeing two guys kiss turn them on, like seeing 2 girls kiss for us males? Maybe they go to the theater to find out. Think about it. I'd probably go to the cinema to see 2 hot stars make out like Angelina Jolie and Kate beckinsale make out. Why wouldn't feamales do the same?


Originally posted by BackFire
Also, it's nice to have a new member who is actually willing to have indepth discussions about films, too few around. Welcome to the forum.


Indeed it is. Most people on the movie forums don't even come here for the movies. They just live in their little cubby hole at OTF, and never come out. Either that, or are banned within the 10 minutes they join, because they are comlete imbeciles.

As Backfire said, Welcome to the forums.

Draco69
Hopefully this will be a good movie. It's already up for an Oscar.

Mando
Originally posted by Draco69
Hopefully this will be a good movie. It's already up for an Oscar.

Well, It's not up for an Oscar actually. All the nominations and winners are presented just prior to the actual award being given.

Draco69
Not LITERALLY. Oscar predictors all agree that it's most likely up for an Oscar. And they could be right considering the dismal amount of movies this past year...

Mando
Originally posted by Draco69
considering the dismal amount of movies this past year...

I will agree with you on that one, I could count all the good movies on one hand this year. Unfortunatley.

Solo
Originally posted by Mando
I will agree with you on that one, I could count all the good movies on one hand this year. Unfortunatley.

Definitely, but it looks like '06 will be packed.

Mando
Originally posted by Solo
Definitely, but it looks like '06 will be packed.

It's almost as if the cinema rolled over.


I hope King kong makes up for it.

gshkris7272
I'm really looking forward to this movie, but i was laughing when i saw tghe trailer at the movie theatre.smile

Draco69
No movie theater in my area is showing this goddamn movie. It's only being shown in "selected" theatres. God that's annoying.

Aravis3
I think it's sick. sick

Solo
I'd like to pretend I never saw this.

Mando
Originally posted by Solo
I'd like to pretend I never saw this.

Bad? What did your Girl Friend think of it?

stick out tongue

Solo
I'm pretty sure she made up her mind before she even saw it.

As far as I could tell, she loved it.

DeVi| D0do
This film has managed to nab itself 7 Golden Globe noms...

Best Picture, Best Director (Ang Lee), Best Actor (Ledger), Best Supporting Actress (Michelle Williams), Best Screenplay (Larry McMurtry & Diana Ossana), Best Score (Gustavo Santaolalla), Best Song ("A Love That Will Never Grow Old"wink.

Maybe I should check this one out...

davecullen
Originally posted by gshkris7272
I'm really looking forward to this movie, but i was laughing when i saw tghe trailer at the movie theatre.smile

What made you laugh?

davecullen
Originally posted by Draco69
No movie theater in my area is showing this goddamn movie. It's only being shown in "selected" theatres. God that's annoying.

It's expanding to twenty-some more cities Friday. A reader at my site compiled a list of most of the theaters in the various cities, here: http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/stories/2005/12/13/brokebackMountainTheaters.html

If not your town, then you'll probably have to wait till Jan 6, or even later. I completes its rollout in Feb. Where do you live?

fini
Hmmmm, gay storyline or not, 7 golden Globe noms has given me enough reasons to go watch it.

Yet another perfect example of a young actor embracing a seemingly "out of character" and making it their own and thus showing their true talent. Does names like Hilary Swank and Charlize Theron ring a bell anyone??

But I doubt many people here will go watch it, cause of the misconception of it being a homosexual related story--- particularly with men. While we wait for the rest of the world to grow up, dont let prejudice stop you from looking at a fine film.

Draco69
Originally posted by davecullen
It's expanding to twenty-some more cities Friday. A reader at my site compiled a list of most of the theaters in the various cities, here: http://blogs.salon.com/0001137/stories/2005/12/13/brokebackMountainTheaters.html

If not your town, then you'll probably have to wait till Jan 6, or even later. I completes its rollout in Feb. Where do you live?

Oh good. I thought it was one of those "this movie is too good for theaters that aren't posh!" movies....

Draco69
Originally posted by fini
Hmmmm, gay storyline or not, 7 golden Globe noms has given me enough reasons to go watch it.

Yet another perfect example of a young actor embracing a seemingly "out of character" and making it their own and thus showing their true talent. Does names like Hilary Swank and Charlize Theron ring a bell anyone??

But I doubt many people here will go watch it, cause of the misconception of it being a homosexual related story--- particularly with men. While we wait for the rest of the world to grow up, dont let prejudice stop you from looking at a fine film.

I don't understand why it's considered a "out of character" role to play a homosexual.

I mean, jesus, when a person plays a WWII veteran or a UN worker, nobody blinks. But when someone plays a gay man everyone's like "he's SO brave. Such a challenging role!" What so challenging about it? Is it that hard for a straight guy to kiss another guy. From interviews, apparently they had to "prepare" themselves mentally for kissing....

fini
out of character, being a serious role. NOT a homosexual role. Something not completely mainstream. THATS what I meant.

U know something that a young actor can flex some acting skill

Draco69
Ah.

Bardiel13
I have no interest in seeing it as it looks kinda boring and uh... gay big grin .
I heard it got great reviews and it either got A's or F's, so either you love i, or you're a homophobe.

The thing about man/man movie and woman/woman movies is that when it's about two guys, people take it seriously and it's dramatic and romantic. When it's to "chicks" it's usually a gimmick to "get male viewers to watch." And of course there's always some 14 year old boy going "WWWOOOOOOO! Yeah, baby!" in the theatre everytime they engage in "hot girl on girl action." Thus, women think we men are pigs. Yet I see these girls saying "Two hot guys having sex? I'm game!" WHAT?!?!? So lemme get this straight... when girls wanna see gay guys have sex it's fine, but when guys wanna see girls have sex it's perverted?

Of course, this is absolutly true, except for the fact that women these days are tending to be equally perverted, yet no one cares.

What I need is an epic love story of two women without it being to th point of softcore pr0n and instead of the "girl/girl action" being the gimmick to get guys to watch and replace the gimmick with violence! Becuase God knows I won't so much as look at the movie poster of a movie unless someone gets shot/stabbed/slashed/blown up/etc. Of course the movie should be well directed and acted with a great story.

Sorry about all that, I kinda had to get that off my chest... confused

Mando
Originally posted by Bardiel13


What I need is an epic love story of two women without it being to th point of softcore pr0n and instead of the "girl/girl action" being the gimmick to get guys to watch and replace the gimmick with violence! Becuase God knows I won't so much as look at the movie poster of a movie unless someone gets shot/stabbed/slashed/blown up/etc. Of course the movie should be well directed and acted with a great story.


To be completely honest. I'd prefer watching a QT film, over watching Girl on Girl action in the theater. I mean, I can do that at home. I don't need to pay for a ticket to do so.

Solo
Originally posted by Mando
To be completely honest. I'd prefer watching a QT film, over watching Girl on Girl action in the theater. I mean, I can do that at home. I don't need to pay for a ticket to do so.

Word, I can jerk off to lesbian internet porn whenever I want, but seeing a Tarantino film in theatre is something that has to be done.

Bardiel13
How about Quinten Tarantino makes a movie with lesbians? Eh? Eh? rolling on floor laughing

Mando
Originally posted by Bardiel13
How about Quinten Tarantino makes a movie with lesbians? Eh? Eh? rolling on floor laughing


yes

SnakeEyes
...

silver_tears
I am so excited about seeing this, although I just found out my local cinema will not be carrying it no expression
And it's a huge cinema with like 24 screens, butit's to do with content or something erm

Morning_Glory
I just saw Brokeback Mountain yesterday and I loved it! Can't wait to go see it again. in_love

Morning_Glory
Originally posted by silver_tears
I am so excited about seeing this, although I just found out my local cinema will not be carrying it no expression
And it's a huge cinema with like 24 screens, butit's to do with content or something erm

the content isnt even that bad... there are movies with worse content than this movie... there wasnt much "love" scenes - it was all in good taste... it was a good love story smile

XxXDomLoverXxX
This looks like a good film..so i might go and see it sometime.
I do like Heath and Jake as actors so i will see what i think of it.

Morning_Glory
Heath was amazing in this movie. happy

Eis
Heard good things about this movie... I might rent it when it's out in DVD

fini
* waits patiently for the movie to reach the cineplex here*

I just checked the online schedule and it isn't up there , and those are the movies being shown till MARCH.

somehow I doubt it would show, Heck Alexander got pulled from the cinema after a week cause of its "homosexual content" . LOL general audiences here are a few decades behind in maturity.

So not gonna give this much hope or reaching the cinemas. DVD it is then

Eis
Originally posted by fini
* waits patiently for the movie to reach the cineplex here*

I just checked the online schedule and it isn't up there , and those are the movies being shown till MARCH.

somehow I doubt it would show, Heck Alexander got pulled from the cinema after a week cause of its "homosexual content" . LOL general audiences here are a few decades behind in maturity.

So not gonna give this much hope or reaching the cinemas. DVD it is then
LOL, that is so lame... Alexander should've been pulled from the cinemas because it sucked, not because it's homosexual content. (There wasn't that much anyway)

fruits
gay..............cowboys......................gay cowboys? im pretty sure im gonna pass on seeing this one

fini
OMG, you wouldn't believe the kinda shit movies that gets really popular here. Thats why I dont go cinema very often.

papabeard
more like BROKECRACK MOUNTAIN big grin

Tired Hiker
So, do they call it Brokeback because they break eachother's backs from too much hardcore butt sex? Just curious. embarrasment

Morning_Glory
no its called Brokeback Mountain..because that is name of the mountain area where they heard the sheep... there really isnt much physical anything in the movie... maybe 2 kiss scenes..and some shirtless wrestling around...and one butt sex scene-that you cant see anything happening, all you see is their faces while it's all happening

Wolfie
Originally posted by BackFire
Regaurdless, my point stands. Plenty of stupid artsy movies use homosexuality as a gimmick, as if it makes the film unique simply because it has a story centered around gay characters and gay relationships, all the while the movie is generic, pretentious crap using it's gay gimmick as a crutch. As South Park said "Gay cowboys eating pudding".
That's pretty much what I was gonna say.

papabeard
"Gay cowboys eating pudding".

laughing

Morning_Glory
pudding droolio

River Wild
I heard a lot of good feedback about this movie, so i'll definitely check it out!

Sorgo
No thanks. I ain't wasting my money.

Tired Hiker
I just saw it! It's my favorite movie ever! I can't wait to buy it on dvd so I can slow down the butt sex scene.

Morning_Glory
ermok

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Solo
Just because there are gay characters in this movie doesn't make the movie gay.

Yes it does! I still can't belive this shit got the Golden Globe. CTHD was a kick-ass flick: Yun-Fat was being the usual badass, and Ziyi was the ass-kicking fine piece of ass that she is. After making that tyte flick, did Ang just wake up one morning and say to himself "Gee, I think I wanna make a movie about 2 dudes fukking...and since Hollywood is fulla fruits it'll probly do well!...Yeah that's an idea!". And what made Gyllenhall go from "Jar Head"--a great war flick--to this gay-ass movie???

BTW: Did anyone hear about the theater in Salt Lake City that refused to show Brokeback Mountain? (there's still some sanity and good taste left in the world) What d'yall think about that?

*Georgina_A*
Some of my form are going to go see it for a "form outing" and we'll be accompanied by a teacher, and apparently it's going to be really embarrassing...We'll have to find out, but I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

Morning_Glory
nothing embarassing about it

*Georgina_A*
In front of a teacher...

Morning_Glory
naw...did you see it already?

the critics made a big deal about it, and its not that bad

*Georgina_A*
Nah, not yet.

But my friend has and she said it might get a bit awkward, because the teacher who's coming with us is male lol. Just a bit embarrassing.

Morning_Glory
ahh... its really not that bad.

*Georgina_A*
lol that's okay then happy I'm really looking forward to it.

Morning_Glory
you'll like it. It's really good smile

*Georgina_A*
I'm sure I will, and I'm sure it is big grin Is it sad?

Morning_Glory
yea it's sad!

I thought Ann Hathaway would bug me or it just seem like she wouldn't quite fit in the movie, but she was ok. I like Michelle Williams too smile

Heath Ledger was amazing!

*Georgina_A*
Yeah, I was thinking that when I heard she was in it...Hmm...I remember Michelle Williams from Dawson's Creek! lol.

And I'm so gonna cry cry I'm really emotional about films lol and Heath Ledger is gorgeous! droolio heard he's really good.

Morning_Glory
I never watched Dawsons Creek - but I knew she was on that show but still she wasnt the one i was really worried about.- if it would have been Katie Holmes instead of Michelle Williams...then ..*gag*

Jake is gorgeous in the movie too... even when he gets "older" and has this hideous long mustache

*Georgina_A*
It was awesome yes And yeah, I agree. I like Michelle Williams.

laughing out loud

Morning_Glory
so you liked Dawsons Creek?

Deathblow
I took my girlfriend to see this the other night, have to say, I wasn't hugely impressed. It was probably because of all the hype surrounding it, but I was let down. I really like Jake Gyllenhaal and ever since Monster's Ball, Heath Ledger has shot up in my estimation, but both of them failed to engage me, I just found them far too broody.

Overall, struck me as just another unsubtle stab at Oscar glory.

Morning_Glory
yea the critics made a big big hype over this movie, if this movie was just between a guy and girl- the movie would be a bomber

noelluvspotter
Jake was Amazing this movie rock out hard i loved it this movie possessed all the qualities of a great movie and me and my friend loved it.

Ripcord
Originally posted by Morning_Glory
yea the critics made a big big hype over this movie, if this movie was just between a guy and girl- the movie would be a bomber

I dont know if it would be a bomber, but you're right that the story isnt anything amazing. Its your run of the mill love story. Just happens to be between two guys. That's what the hype is all about. Im not saying its a bad thing. Just stating the facts. It was a good movie, but didnt quite live up to the hype in my opinion.

Nevermind
Great movie. A unique and wonderful love story.

gshkris7272
aww the end of the movie is so sad.:'(

BackFire
Finally got around to seeing this movie, and it's very very good. Incredibly haunting.

Darkman87
Watching two men having sex is disgusting and making of this movie is even more. I am sorry if I made you angry but this is how i feel about this type of events...

BackFire
Originally posted by Darkman87
Watching two men having sex is disgusting and making of this movie is even more. I am sorry if I made you angry but this is how i feel about this type of events...

^^ These are the types of people who should see the movie. It will challenge your views and break the predertermined ideas most people will have about this movie.

PinstripePapaya
ive never cried in a movie before, ever! and ive seen some pretty sad stuff but i just broke down at the end of this - it was so beautiful, the fact that they loved each other so much right to the end, and when heath ledger opened that cupboard at the end......*sobs*

i think every homophobic should see this movie, everyone thinks its just about two men f*cking on a mountain, but its actually a beautiful love story and i think it would challenge most people's views of homosexuality

SnakeEyes
Meh... I think I'll pass.

Even though it probably is this "beautiful love story" like you say, I just couldn't bring myself to sit through the gay porn scene(s) to see it.

For me personally, the cons outweigh the pros.

bordom
What a sad movie. I was very impressed with the acting both lead actors were presenting. Although I wouldn't go to see it again, once is enough for me stick out tongue

Rapscallion
I didn't really like it that much. It's extremely over-rated. Well-done, but shallow. It had great cinematograghy, good direction by Ang Lee, and I thought Jake Gyllenhal was excellent. however, Heath Ledger gave a one note performance, and the writing I thought was abysmal. I expected some sort of intelligent insight on how gay people are treated in society today, and instead I got "the Laramie Project on 'roids". The writers didn't even try to say anything worth hearing. They just told us what we already know. It is for me to criticize such well-intended film that has so much talent attached to it. But with the exception of Gyllenhal, everyone underachieved. It's not that they were necessarily bad, but for this film to resonate requires everyone involved to bring their highest level of performance, and no one did. A film of this importance requires our most scrutinizing attention, and our deepest reflection. The only reflection in this film is of the narcississtic writers who are to busy looking at themselves in the mirror, and patting themselves on the back to realize that they were wasting a golden opportunity to tell a story that needed to be told.

But that's just my opinion.

Draco69
I am horriically offended by this movie. We CANNOT have homosexuality in films. It is sin. Anyone who sees this movie is going STRAIGHT to hell.

Makedde
Originally posted by Draco69
I am horriically offended by this movie. We CANNOT have homosexuality in films. It is sin. Anyone who sees this movie is going STRAIGHT to hell.

I do hope you are kidding.

I saw the movie, like it, but it was very overrated, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

Draco69
Originally posted by Makedde
I do hope you are kidding.

I saw the movie, like it, but it was very overrated, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.

Of course NOT! Homosexuality must not be shown in movies! Only heterosexual porn, degradation of women, war, murder, blood, gore, pedophilia, genocide, guns, knives, and torture can be shown in movies. Homosexuality on the other hand is completely unacceptable.

Rapscallion
Originally posted by Draco69
Of course NOT! Homosexuality must not be shown in movies! Only heterosexual porn, degradation of women, war, murder, blood, gore, pedophilia, genocide, guns, knives, and torture can be shown in movies. Homosexuality on the other hand is completely unacceptable.

you forgot rape and drugs. Those aren't nearly as bad as two guys...dare I say it, Bieng AFFECTIONATE!! Oh God! The horror!! We don't want our children growing up in a world where they can see two people love each other.

Rapscallion
I killed it didn't I.

fini
LOL, yeah I think u did!!!!
hehe

DarkWizard
Originally posted by Draco69
I am horriically offended by this movie. We CANNOT have homosexuality in films. It is sin. Anyone who sees this movie is going STRAIGHT to hell.


It's not like they are supporting homosexuality. BBM is showing the troubles that gay people have to go through in order to maintain secrecy. It's reality. So let me ask you this. Would you rather see 2 guys kissing? or someone getting raped? Movies like this one aren't meant to be decent. They are meant to Show Reality for what it really is.

Draco69
Originally posted by DarkWizard
It's not like they are supporting homosexuality. BBM is showing the troubles that gay people have to go through in order to maintain secrecy. It's reality. So let me ask you this. Would you rather see 2 guys kissing? or someone getting raped? Movies like this one aren't meant to be decent. They are meant to Show Reality for what it really is.


confused

Ahem....

Originally posted by Draco69
Of course NOT! Homosexuality must not be shown in movies! Only heterosexual porn, degradation of women, war, murder, blood, gore, pedophilia, genocide, guns, knives, and torture can be shown in movies. Homosexuality on the other hand is completely unacceptable.

wink

lil bitchiness
I saw this last night and I really liked it - I also cried which I tend not to do often.

I think it was good that there was only 1 sex scene and lots of affectionate love type scenes, where they kiss and look at each other in a way many hetrosexual couples are shown in movies.

Im glad this was so, because many people associate homosexuality with sex, and only sex. This is wrong, as gay couples love and feel affection for the other person in the same way hetrosexuals do, and I think this movie showed that really well - it isn't all about sex.

It isn't a movie I would want to see again, because I found it so hard, because its so tragic - it would probably make me cry agian.

(i did like the sex scene though embarrasment Jake is hot and Heath is too, getting all hot and bothered, was...well...hot!)

papabeard
Drainedsack Mountain

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by DarkWizard
It's not like they are supporting homosexuality. BBM is showing the troubles that gay people have to go through in order to maintain secrecy. It's reality. So let me ask you this. Would you rather see 2 guys kissing? or someone getting raped? Movies like this one aren't meant to be decent. They are meant to Show Reality for what it really is.

Um.....I'd rather watch someone getting raped, thank you.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by lil bitchiness


It isn't a movie I would want to see again, because I found it so hard, because its so tragic - it would probably make me cry agian.




What the f**k?........ sick

BackFire
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Um.....I'd rather watch someone getting raped, thank you.


You are a bad person.

Makedde
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Um.....I'd rather watch someone getting raped, thank you.

You are a very sick person.


Just because a movie is made about gay people doesn't mean that homosexuality is being promoted, although it should be promoted a hell of alot more. It should be shoved in your faces. Homosexuals should be yelling at you 'We are here, and we are here to stay' so all you homophobes should get used to that.

Christ, no wonder the world is full of homophobic dumb ****s, bashing the shit of others who simply have different preferences. roll eyes (sarcastic)

SnakeEyes
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Um.....I'd rather watch someone getting raped, thank you.

laughing

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by SnakeEyes
laughing

Glad u liked that! wink


Aside from being funny, it's true.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Makedde
You are a very sick person.


Just because a movie is made about gay people doesn't mean that homosexuality is being promoted, although it should be promoted a hell of alot more. It should be shoved in your faces. Homosexuals should be yelling at you 'We are here, and we are here to stay' so all you homophobes should get used to that.

Christ, no wonder the world is full of homophobic dumb ****s, bashing the shit of others who simply have different preferences. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Shoved in my face? What would that accomplish, other than further alienation? Thats one thing that is very annoying about gay people---they're loud and so in yo' face about everything.

I can honestly say that I think Utah and Alabama did the right thing by banning that movie altogether. Too bad the other 48 states didn't follow suit.

Draco69
Yep. And black people are even louder and are more likely to steal your ride.

Oh yes, let's follow hickville "lowest rate of graduation in the country" Alabama and Mormon "I LOVE polygamy!" Utah. roll eyes (sarcastic)

I would ban stupid people...

Flavio
imho, usual movie, with a very predictable end. Important because of society and tolerance, but not really something i would call a wonderful film. From the hype everybody was making, i thought it would be way better.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Draco69

Oh yes, let's follow hickville "lowest rate of graduation in the country" Alabama and Mormon "I LOVE polygamy!" Utah. roll eyes (sarcastic)



Objection: relevance?

What does that have to do with banning a movie?

Utah is a beautiful well-educated state thats very diverse, and you're exaggerating about 'Bama. Too bad the other states didn't follow.

BackFire
There are no valid grounds for banning this movie. The only reasons are ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by BackFire
There are no valid grounds for banning this movie. The only reasons are ignorance, prejudice and idiocy.


With that same thought, you can say there is no valid grounds for banning ANY movie-----but the reason for banning this one is easier to understand and makes more sense.

Draco69
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
With that same thought, you can say there is no valid grounds for banning ANY movie-----but the reason for banning this one is easier to understand and makes more sense.

Sense? What sense? You don't like homosexuals fine. I find this incredibly ironic since you're half-black as well. Should we ban rap albums and African-themed movies as well? It makes sense. They're highly immoral and they promote the degradation of women, the proliferation of drugs and the glorification of crime.

If you compare and ordinate the ills of homosexuals to blacks, blacks win by friggin landslide.

Draco69
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Objection: relevance?

What does that have to do with banning a movie?


Your arguement has no point. You're a highly prejudiced invividual against homosexuals. You don't a movie about them in the media.

Here's a quick question: Why have movies about genocide, the Holocaust, rape, crime, violence, pedophilia and several other thousand ills of society yet homosexuality is so completely taboo and somehow worse than all of the aforementioned combined.

Originally posted by DiamondBullets
Utah is a beautiful well-educated state thats very diverse, and you're exaggerating about 'Bama. Too bad the other states didn't follow.

Diverse? You speak of diversity when you wish to ban a movie based on a group of people. Hypocrite.

Typical frat boys. They don't think. roll eyes (sarcastic)

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Draco69
Sense? What sense? You don't like homosexuals fine. I find this incredibly ironic since you're half-black as well. Should we ban rap albums and African-themed movies as well? It makes sense. They're highly immoral and they promote the degradation of women, the proliferation of drugs and the glorification of crime.



In all actuality, that wouldn't get to me that much--I actually identify more with being Hawaiian than Black. Just like the Rock, I look way more Polynesian than Black, and I was born and raised there so its more my cultural upbringing and what I relate to.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Draco69


Typical frat boys. They don't think. roll eyes (sarcastic)


laughing Yeah, I'll give ya that.

Draco69
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
In all actuality, that wouldn't get to me that much--I actually identify more with being Hawaiian than Black. Just like the Rock, I look way more Polynesian than Black, and I was born and raised there so its more my cultural upbringing and what I relate to.

Yes, I know you're Hawaiian. I read your profile. I also know the cultural backgrounds of Hawaiians and other islanders. Islanders are typically very homophobic. With good reason back then, since

A) If they accepted gays, the population would stagnant or decrease. It's not like they could travel much...

B) Children had a very high mortality rate back then. So women needed spit out babies like rapid-fire.

DiamondBullets
Originally posted by Draco69
Yes, I know you're Hawaiian. I read your profile. I also know the cultural backgrounds of Hawaiians and other islanders. Islanders are typically very homophobic. With good reason back then, since

A) If they accepted gays, the population would stagnant or decrease. It's not like they could travel much...

B) Children had a very high mortality rate back then. So women needed spit out babies like rapid-fire.

Impressive, where did you learn that?

As for "A", Hawaiians were the best navigators of the pacific--we did trade and commerce from New Zealand to the shores of South America.

Quiero Mota
Now I'm not homophobic, but as a person who was born and bred in Arizona (which is the epitome of the southwest), I honestly can say that this movie is an affront to cowboy culture and the entire cowboy genre. I'm pretty sure that John Wayne is rolling over in his grave because of this movie. Neither the Duke, nor Burt Lancaster would do this movie if they were alive and in their prime, and neither would Eastwood for that matter. Which is why they had to find a couple of pansies like Gyllenhall and Ledger. The fact that it was directed by a Chinese national is relevent, because he likely doesnt fully understand cowboy culture.

Being directly south of Utah I wonder why we wouldnt ban the movie either....its probably because we share such a large border with California-aka-30 million liberals.

WrathfulDwarf
Quite frankly.....I'm just waiting for the DVD to be released so that I can skip the chapter in which the two gay cowboys are making out.

I won't comment on the movie since I haven't seen it. And reviews and other people's comments won't divert my honest and direct opinion.

But I'm willing to bet that if this movie would have feature two very largely obese and ugly looking actors....there wouldn't be any hype. They need two good looking actors to play the roles of homosexuals cowboys.....I'm not surprise.

Cowboys aren't suppose to look like soft baby face. They're rough and tough....

...coming soon a review!

*waits for the DVD*

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Cowboys aren't suppose to look like soft baby face.

Which is exactly what those two actors are, ese.

Theyre not exactly Wayne or Eastwood.

WrathfulDwarf
I grew up watching Cowboys actors like Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Charles Bronson, and Gary Cooper...just to mention a few of them. Tough as nails.... actors. wink

Quiero Mota
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
I grew up watching Cowboys actors like Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, Charles Bronson, and Gary Cooper...just to mention a few of them. Tough as nails.... actors. wink

thumb up

I think the reason Lee settled for Jake and Heath, is because tougher, more manlier actors refused to do it. I really cant picture any of the cowboy actors you named doing Brokeback Mountain. And I'm not completely unconvinced that Jake and Heath are not gay-curious, and that this movie was an opportunity for them to act it out.

WrathfulDwarf
Simon Limon! wink

Quiero Mota
laughing yes

BackFire
Originally posted by DiamondBullets
With that same thought, you can say there is no valid grounds for banning ANY movie-----but the reason for banning this one is easier to understand and makes more sense.

In this country there is no valid reason for banning movies. Film is art and with it comes rights of expression and creativity. It makes less sense banning this film because of some gay material, which honestly is done all in good taste, rather than a film of horrific violence. Only in a society full of idiots, retards, hillbilly's, and prejudice rednecks wo think to men consentually kissing is worse and more offensive than rape. I can just predict your logic - "Well rape between a man and a woman is better then consentual sex between two men". This mentality just scream "I'm a closet homosexual too afraid that I might LIKE what I see".

I'm betting that you haven't even seen the movie, and all predesposed opinions of this movie are based on obvious ignorance and prejudice and possibly fear of what the film portray's. Thus, your opinions carries no credibility seeing as you're basing it on the films subject matter, rather than the film itself. All the more reason people SHOULD see it, so foolish opinions such as yours become worthless to more and more people, as it should be.

Inspectah Deck
What's so good about two homosexual cowboys? confused

BackFire
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Quite frankly.....I'm just waiting for the DVD to be released so that I can skip the chapter in which the two gay cowboys are making out.

I won't comment on the movie since I haven't seen it. And reviews and other people's comments won't divert my honest and direct opinion.

But I'm willing to bet that if this movie would have feature two very largely obese and ugly looking actors....there wouldn't be any hype. They need two good looking actors to play the roles of homosexuals cowboys.....I'm not surprise.

Cowboys aren't suppose to look like soft baby face. They're rough and tough....

...coming soon a review!

*waits for the DVD*


Nah, if the two ugly obese actors were able to actually portray the character with the same accuracy and vividness, it would be just as praised. Of course, they wouldn't be able to because it just wouldn't be believable.

Also, you could probably use that same awkward logic to dismiss any movie. Batman Begins wouldn't be nearly as credible or popular if John Goodman or Gary Coleman played Batman, and so fourth.

BackFire
Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
What's so good about two homosexual cowboys? confused

Again, you obviously haven't seen the movie because you're commiting the same fallaciously cruel simplification in regaurds to this movie that everyone else commits. It's not them being "gay cowboys" that makes the movie good. It's the quality and deepness of the characters and the honest and heartbreaking nature in which the story is told that makes it good, along with outstanding acting, directing, fitting music and cinematography.

Draco69
Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
What's so good about two homosexual cowboys? confused

Both extremes are overblowing. The proponents are saying it's the best movie EVER. The antagonists are saying it's the work of Satan and should be banned from every country and shot into the Sun.

BackFire
Few people say it's the best movie ever. I'm a proponent and I certainly don't think it is. I don't even think it's necessarily the best film of the year, simply that it's a very very good movie.

Draco69
I can't see it anyhoo. For some odd reason, they're only showing it in indie theaters or something. Even my local Loews isn't show it.

BackFire
Yeah, I know that's the case in many areas of the country. Unfortunately the DVD doesn't have a release date yet.

Draco69
I have no problem catching the abomination of "Date Movie" yet an Oscar-nominee is hard to find...? blink

BackFire
Yeah, the joys of our society, eh? People would rather be able to see bad parody than great film.

DarkWizard
Originally posted by BackFire
Yeah, the joys of our society, eh? People would rather be able to see bad parody than great film.

*shudders*

<< THERE IS MORE FROM THIS THREAD HERE >>