An absolute masterpiece... I can't remember being so moved SO much in as long as I've been watching movies.

Wow.

Just a comment to some remarks here and in other threads.

Yes, I'm gay, but does that mean I'm instantly supposed to love this film? Not at all. I think the reason a lot of gay people are raving about it is many can identify with it in some way or another. The same could be said about films about someone surviving cancer. Sure, it could be a great film, emotionally impacting, but I can almost guarentee someone who has survived cancer will identify with the film more then someone who hasn't.

At least that is what I think.

So no, I didn't love the film because it was "gay", I thought it was great because I was able in some ways to identify with it.

You don't really need to explain yourself, Jeff. If people think that gay people just love the film because of the subject matter, let them think that. Straight people love the movie, too, so that pretty much throws away the theory entirely. I thought it was good. Not great, but certainly not a bad movie in any way.

And hey, I thought "Saw 2", "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalow" and "Man of the House" were all good or great 2005 films, so my opinion of this or any film really doesn't mean jack shit.

Now let me remark something that I know will attract a lot of negative comments probably, but I think it is simply the trut.

I do not think that the gay people liked it only because it was..um...about a gay romance. Libs loved it, xiayun loved it and many others did too who are not gay.

However, I have noticed very distinctly that it is pretty much ALWAYS the gay folks ferociously defending this movie against any attacks, any criticism etc. while still trying to contend that it is not really a movie about two gay people.

: )

Ah, but on the contrary, it seems as if it's always the nongays labeling or even attacking this movie as queer or whatnot in a very derogitary way, etc, while still missing the point that this is a story of universal *love*, not of fashion or anal sex or whatever other misconception people have about the archetypal gay person. Thematically, this movie is more a story of forbidden or impossible love (something everyone has experienced)... more so than it is a political message about homosexuality.

Maybe you are even right, that is not what I am saying. My point above still stands.

I guess my point was, you are looking at this from the wrong point of view. It's easy for you to get preoccupied with any homosexual's appreciation for BBM as it is for any gay person's agitation from a straight person's dislike or criticism of the flick. All the more reason for people to put up a review and prove their point to show them beyond their own circumstances (ie- im gay, so I loved it... im straight, I was disgusted). Otherwise, you pretty much one of the two people we just described.

Applying that, you associate gay people with this movie far too much. Consistently, it seems like anyone writes off defense of the movie if it comes from a gay person. I don't know it that's how you really feel, considering you at least note straight people - like libs and xia- that really liked it.

Actually, you should probably stop opening BBM threads until you've seen the movie and and can make the most pure, unbiased opinion. That's what I've tried to do...

Otherwise you're just another homophobic asshole.

Now, but the thing is that it is actually being most ferociously defended by dar, Rod etc. even though others liked it just as much at least, so I don't think you are getting me.

Yea, I get that. And, like I originally said, I only see straight people passionately bashing the movie- then there are those who are gay and straight that are perfectly balanced.

The point is, it goes both ways. It's stupid to single out gay people as the sole passionate defenders of this movie, just as it is to say it's straight people that hate this movie. It's stereotypical and it doesn't apply in most of the situations here.

Of course, gay people are much more likely to rush out and see this, more so than straight people. Statistically speaking, it's much more likely that a gay person sees this and likes it rather than the same for a straight person. It's not noteworthy and really doesn't imply anything about the movie (other than its initial popularity being in the gay crowd- something that is certainly not true as I noticed only straight couples in the showing I was in)

No, the thing is that by now the movie has already crossed into mainstream more than any other serious gay-themed flick (save for Top Gun) ever will. And many many non-gay folks loved it, yet I see only the gay folks ferociously defending it. It just seems that if someone attacks the movie they feel personally attacked or whatever...

I guess you'll have to live a life of persecution, damnation, abuse, and violence to truly understand "our" eagerness to bite back. If a child abuses a dog, the animal will bite any other child you tries to play with it (fun or not) without hesitation.

Until you try living or at least properly understanding what its like to be a nonstraight, nonwhite, nonmale, please don't be so critical of something you can't quite appreciate. I don't mean to sound pretentious or obnoxious, but that's the best I can do at defending the homosexual point of view. I don't think every gay poster thinks like this- especially those who grew up in a more accepting or less controversial environment, but it seems to be an innate characteristic of some who are constantly stepped on for their beliefs.

Again, this has more to do with psychology (something I can't pretend to understand all that well) than it does the actual merit of the movie in the eyes of those with different sexual orientations.

Did I ever say it was wrong? All I say is that if you do that than it least stand to it and say that the fact that it does have a serious gay romance in it is part of the reason why it is being so ferociously defended. But whenever anyone points it out, all the guys do is getting defensive.

Brokeback Mountain is one of the best films of the year, and I understand why it's getting all of it's buzz. I went into this expecting a strong followup to Ang Lee's brilliant Hulk, which was sadly as misunderstood as the character himself, so I wasn't at all surprised that I really liked it a lot.

Heath Ledger was fantastic! He reminded me a great deal of Tommy Lee Jones in his role as Ennis, the bisexually confused
Wyoming sheep hearder. Definitely deserves an Oscar nomination. I have referred to the sheepish moviegoers and the mindless heard many times throughout my travels, and now thanks to Ang Lee, I have a nice visual of exactly what those groups act like when manipulated by savvy marketing.

Jake Gyllenhaal was also very good and deserving of a best supporting actor nomination. He's rather...different looking...isn't he?

Michelle Williams was also very good, and is very deserving of a nomination, though I think Adams and Weisz had better parts. but she was

The man sex stuff isn't my cup of tea, but that was part of the curious part with me, as this is a stepping out of sorts for male homosexual relationships. They couldn't pay me enough to kiss a guy with fire and passion like these two guys did. I believed in the relationship the actors created.

I do feel the score at the end when Ennis found out that Jack was dead was a missed opportunity to make it a tear jerker,
but it's a beautifully shot and well written and acted film that I fully expect to be 2005's Best Picture winner at this year's Oscars.

A great film!

A-

Good review, Mav!

Oh and actually some of my friends here want to see it (all straight) and that's pretty remarkable.

Mav, I don't think Ennis was bisexual. Not at all. He loved a woman, but not sexually- obvious by his preference to have anal sex with her. He was trying to imagine Jack in her place.

Yeah, it's not anything disgusting for anybody turned off by two guys getting in on. That stuff turns me off, too, but their relationship in all aspects didn't have that kind of affect on me at all because it wasn't done in an offending way. Some of it can even be looked at as funny. The man love stuff was handled respectfully, not in an "in your face" type of way.

I only see the defensiveness kick in when someone says something that could be perceived as derogatory. That, and the fact that people love to make the distinction that it is a "queer" movie.

As in "Gay Love is a Force of Nature" as the new tag line.

Well, he had two kids so I would say it qualifies as bi sexual.

See, everyone in my theater thought it was laugh out loud hilarious when they go to have sex the first time. I don't think that's funny, but I sort of see where you are coming from. Maybe it's the same humorous awkwardness you might notice between two teenage virgins?

I'd qualify it as satisfying the unspoken demands of society. Nowhere does Ennis seem to take pleasure in being intimate with Alma as a woman. If that were so, he wouldn't have had anal with her.

Hmm, maybe oversensitive is the term then because I don't think I have said anything derogatory about the movie so far, yet I have been in several situations with people getting defensive towards me over the movie.

I read about that scene actually and to be honest it sounds a bit cliché to me (the closeted gay guy who turns over his wife in bed...), but then again it does not even need to be anal according to what I read, but just the position in which he is, trying to reconstruct his first time with Jack (yeah, I read a lot about the movie).

Good good, so when I talk my friends into seeing it and leave out some "details" they won't be too upset, heh.

Anyway, the reason why they want to see it is simply the huge acclaim that is slowly, but surely reaching Germany from across the ocean.

The only reason I think it was anal was Alma's lack of enthusiasm during sex, but considering he did father two children it could go either way.

As for the scene itself, its not the sex that's important but what they say to each other, imo.

Nowhere except the proof that he pleasured himself enough to have two kids. The second child showed it wasn't an accident the first time. That doesn't mean he liked women the same, but he doesn't have to to be bisexual. He was arroused enough by a woman and her vagina enough to burst his load into her. That's enough to qualify as taking pleasure.