Well, yes, yes it does. It almost can't but do that. I'm just saying that the women are unjustly treated, and that that itself is immoral. I don't think the men are fully responsible, as they'd hardly choose to be in that situation if there were alternatives.

That is the stuff of great drama.

Everybody gets hurt and there´s not that much they can do about it.

* Cries *

How Shakespearian

I'm not sure how to review this movie. I'll start there. I don't want to give it away but it's almost impossible to say anything without really going into the plot developments and other things.

This movie isn't Queer as Folk or Will & Grace. It is completely ignorant of urban gay culture that has developed since Stonewall. There's no drag queens here. No coming out story. No AIDS tragedy. This ain't a cutesy gay flick a la Trick, Touch of Pink, In & Out, etc. Point being, this really isn't a "gay" movie, something I wasn't expecting.

I have seen the movie twice now. The first time I saw it, I left the theater in a bit of a confused daze. Did I like what I just saw? How come I don't feel great about this movie? There was a sense of disappointment there. But hours later, I was still thinking about Ellis Del Mar, Jack Twist, and their story on Brokeback Mountain.

Technically, the movie is almost flawless. There's so much subtle elements going on that it demands multiple viewings just to ensure you caught everything. The score is quiet yet memorable (I' keep humming that guitar riff from the trailer now). The pace: purposely slow and controlled. Dialogue: not one cheesy line (I was afraid that all too popular "I wish I knew how to quit you" would disappoint).

And of course, the acting. Heath Ledger. Wow. I've never really seen someone express sooo much on their face without ever saying a word. You can see the fear, disgust, anger, consufion, and defeat in his face - the things of a man whose only accomplishment in life is his ability to repress all that's inside him. Jake: cute and actually better than heath in some senses. Michele Williams stole the show for me. Her Alma handles the shock and pain of discovering her husband's secret with real sensitivity. Ann was ok but just didn't have the scenes to really shine.

The movie is slow. But the scenery and the anticipation to discover how this turns out keeps you chugging along. While I want to say that the slowness is a flaw, I keep thinking that there was no other way to tell the story.

There's so much that can discussed that I could go on and on. It's a very somber movie so any prospects of this little art house film breaking out have a diminished. I just don't think the average movie goer is going to care that much. Not because they're gay but because the movie IS an art house flick.

It's weird because I think a lot of gays are expecting this romantic gay love story from Brokeback Mountain that we're used to. But this is something more. It reminded me of the pain that not allowing yourself you love somone out of fear brings. It kills you.

Anyway, not sure how much of a review this is. The story of these cowboys has been forever implanted in my psyche. I don't know what grade you give that.

On a purely techincal movie level, it's a solid A. I've seen many movies and there's no way anyone can argue that this movie wasn't made well. What you get out of the story is another whole different discussion.

I agree with Sammy! YAY

Additional Comments:
- I dunno, but I think those few scenes of Anne Hathaway were really good - she did a great job being the quiet wife who KNOWS something is up without prying too much... and in the end, you could feel her bitterness when she's talking to Ennis on the phone. Not to say Michelle Williams wasn't good either. ("Jack Nasty")

- Anna Faris has again managed to temporarily give a movie a little comic relief in her short, almost unrecognizable role. She will win an Oscar someday.

- I'm still thinking about the "flashback" scene - shown right when Ennis left after arguing with Jack towards the end of the movie. Did it actually happen in the past or was it just Jack's imagination of what Ennis' goodbye would be like? And if it's the latter, could this be Jack having some sort of premonition of the darker thing that would happen to him? Boy, Jake Gyllenhaal really showed that his character was smitten and LONGED for Ennis. Heath Ledger showed the right balance of masculinity and confusion.

- The score is haunting, cinematography is appropriate, makeup work is really good.

- I noticed that the movie is a simple love/adultery story whose main characters just happen to indulge in same-sex activities. I didn't really see anything pushing the envelope or something that will blow away skeptics/non-believers/prejudiced people (I am still on the fence if it's a little disappointing that it didn't take the potential to just go "further out there"). In summary, it's a beautifully made movie only with a slight twist.

A

This is one film that stands alone. That's the simple way of putting it. Not only is the film beautifully shot, but it is arguably one of the best films to come from Hollywood in recent memory.

While some will criticize its "gay" storyline, the film does not shy away from presenting a story far out of the mainstream. By doing so, it makes a lasting impression beyond what even I expected.

So much of the dialogue is just perfectly written. The final words, "I promise, Jack" are as undeniably unforgettable a closing sentance then any film I've ever seen. The score is haunting, and on its own is simply superb.

I can't even touch on the story. It just defies words and that's all I can say. I have, thus far, refused to discuss the film with those I know who have seen it, simply asking whether or not they like it. Its just a film that has to be seen, observed, and absorbed. There is no other way to put it.

A+, my first for a 2005 film.

Well, I'm not very good at writing actual reviews and I hope whoever is really interested in what I thought either already knows from various posts I made or will find out soon enough.

I think I may have felt most like Sammy. I was a bit baffled by my reaction to it, initially. Then, later that night I started thinking about it alot. I realized what I didn't like about the movie as well as what made it very good.

My biggest problems would probably be not enough development and fleshing out of not only the central two but overall scheme of all the characters involved. It's hard to put into words the thoughts in my head, so don't take evrything so definitively. Bottom line is that I thought there was more potential there and we have been, or maybe I maye have, cut a little short of something completely brethtakingly amazing.

That being said, I loved the film and thought it was among the best of the year. It's been such a weird year for movies, at least to me that it seems I can't really make a list comparing somany that I've seen. Every single movie has its moments and its strengths, yet none of them really stand out and that's why I don't tink I, myself, will be happy with my top 10 of the year.

I thought the performances were absolutely captivating. It took me longer than expect to see how deep Ledger actually went and the one time he broke down, I went mad that they cut it too short. This was truly a character piece and probably the best, overall, acted film of the year. Gyllenhaal was very good as well, though in a movie with so much subtleness, his performance may seem a bit too much and showy; but you just have to isolate him and think if its him or the character: it's most certainly the character and that's one of the true beauties of this film, the stark contrast among all the character... how they express their emotions, and how they deal with pain.

In my opinion, the two ladies in this fine movie were just as awe-inspiring as their leading men. Michelle Williams was just plain amazing. That look of love, hate, and confusion on her face is the core of her character. She truly shines in this and I think the movie truly picks up the moment she sees her husband and Jack "nasty" Twist kissing.

The most underrated of the bunch is Ann Hathaway. Her last scene on the phone was absoutely brilliant. She dug quite deep in what may not look like a very layered character. But she did and she succeeded very effectively.

I agree with Sammy, again, that this wasn't what many would call a "gay" movie. And I actually don't think it was groundbreaking at all in its subject matter or what not. The only thing was truly groundbreaking was how they handled the film... that's what mattered the most and that's what's going to make the difference in the long run.

O well, what do you know, I guess I did end up writing a pretty comprehensive reviews...

A-

Red Eye?

It is still a movie with two dudes getting it on (excuse my simplifying)...so how is it not a "gay" movie?

A-.

Check my ratings in the "How Many Movies..." thread

Go see the following, then see BBM and you'll understand:

Tales from the City
The Fluffer
Jeffrey
The Trip
Boy's Briefs
Touch of Pink
It's My Party
Broken Hearts Club
Trick
Beautiful Thing
In & Out
Interview with a Vampire
Lucas' Story

\so any movie the features praying is a religious movie?

As the main point of the storyline? Yes. There is a movie like Wonder Boys (by C. Hanson) with two guys ending up in bed as well, but that is not a gay movie, obviously. The relationship of Ledger and Gyllenhaal is still a central plot point in this one...so anyone care to explain with a better version than this?

Interview with a Vampire?

hehe well, brad and anotnio and tom almost all make out at some point. LOL

A majority of "gay" movies feature AIDS, drag queens, flamboyance, promiscuity, cruising, etc. to some extent (and in a negative/stereotypical manner at times). I am hesitant to call "Brokeback Mountain" a "gay" movie.

Well, from what I have gathered it is a gay movie, just one that does not play with stereotypes, but portrays the main characters as absolutely normal people who..well...happen to be in love with each other. It STILL deals with the issues of their relationship being impossible due to social environment.

What is the definition of a 'gay' movie. I'm pretty sure that is not a genre, nor should it be. But if 'gay movie' simply means 'focused on gay characters,' there is no denying it is a 'gay' movie. If it implies all the negative things Christian just pointed out, then again, there is no denying that BBM is NOT a gay movie. If it means a movie made for gay people, then...once again, I don't see how you could consider it 'gay.'

Those cowboys lived in a place and time where the idea of homosexuals as completely different from the one we have today in liberal places (and akin to that in most parts of the world). To be homosexual was and is not normal, but an abomination. It's not something you are born with, it's a disease you need to get rid of.


So to those men, what they're doing is not 'gay' in the sense we understand it now, it's a sick trait, like playing with your nose or raping cows. They would see themselves as straight men who are doing something nasty which they need to get rid of.


Making a film about something like that, with those kinds of characters and such a setting, it's not likely you'll end up with something that one can identify as a gay film.

So is that right on?

Yes.

It's like saying a film in which an interracial relationship is featured as the main storyline is ABOUT interracial dating, or an interracial dating movie??

I don't know, you're not gonna change your mind and that's fine

It's a movie about a time period, a place, two people. It stays true to that time period, and that means their sexual orientation will be an issue in their relationship...but it's not the focus of it. It's a lot more universal than that and saying it is a gay love story IS oversimplifying it. And if you see the movie, and are open minded enough to see what I'm talking aobut...you'll know what I mean

I like Christian's response better. And from all I have gathered it seems more correct to me as well.

And if there is a movie with interracial dating that specifically focuses on the problematics of this dating and resulting dilemmas and heartache and whatnot, then it IS an interracial dating movie, no matter how you spin it.

The problem is that, by categorizing the film as such, you're missing its point.


I think this film is about isolation and loneliness. I liked something Ebert mentioned in his review, that "their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups -- any "forbidden" love". The film is in the same genre as Titanic or Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, if you wish to bundle it up into a group, heh.