Yes, a bad day I had, first & only time I ever voted for a movie I never saw.... but my parents did watch it on Pay-Per-View, but I chose not to watch, lol. Sorry everyone for the dumb grading.

Yes, random bump.

Saw it again last night, think I enjoyed even more on a second viewing, really just a well made film all around.

Bump my grade from B+ to A-

Very daring flick that gets points for attempting something new, even if it ultimately drags on for too long. It's well-made, but I felt no real connection to these characters, and felt that they weren't really developed effectively. The acting was good, but I felt Gyllenhaal was better than Ledger, who just seemed to mumble a lot, and I found Williams and especially Hathaway surprisingly good in supporting roles. The story never really gets going, and seems fit to meander along until the climax, which doesn't take on the importance it should because the characters aren't built up enough. Still, the film is nice to look at, with sweeping cinematography of the Canadian Rockies (filmed in my province!) and well-shot scenes. The music bothered me to no end, though. So, a flawed but well-made film.

Eh. I donno. The acting was incredible; Ledger was ABSOLUTELY astounding. It was a technical masterpiece. But....eh. I'll wait a day before I try and grade it, since, as I'm going through the thread, I'm sensing that is is one of those movies that hits you two hours after it ended.

Brokeback is a film that in direction, acting, etc. is fucking incredible, it's one of the most strongly made films I've seen in a long long time and easily the most of last year.

But is it a film I an anxious to watch again anytime soon? Admittingly, no. Away from the hype of last year, over time I'm not sure how I grade this film. I'm no homophobe, but I can't hide the fact that a gay love story is not something I'm dieing to revisit.

this is a movie you have to totally let go emotionally. people who didn't get or didn't love this movie are those who can;t identify with the feelings of repression, lost hope, new found hope that it brings.

it is NOT a feel good movie so it is not something you're supposed to enjoy wathcing. it is a painful movie. i just caught it on HBO. it is impossible to ignore. i think unless you can personally understand the emotion (or lack thereof actually) that ennis feels, then you won't "get" this movie ever.

still an A+ for me. it's a devastating movie.

Funny, just finished watching my DVD of it. Still as gripping as when I saw it Christmas Day back in 2005.

It's definatly one of my all time favorites.

I highly disagree. Heath gives one of the best performances of all-time in this film. Maybe you found Jake's character to be more likable, but performance-wise it's pretty much fact, not opinion, that Heath's performance is better. Jake was great too, but Heath blew me away. His character is conflicted and you really feel it. You get the sense that there's soooo much boiling beneath the surface. He really makes you feel that. Jake didn't have as much to do as Heath, but it was still a great supporting performance. But Heath.... WOW!

bump.

This is a question that I was asked by a friend, and I cannot answer it, but maybe some of you can. Which Heath performance do you think was best, Heath as Ennis or Heath as the Joker?

Well, it's much easier to play the Joker...

Yes it is, but Heath as the Joker was more than just acting crazy... it was a controlled chaos. Even when he was acting like the joker, he was so versatile to portray crazy/infusion of other emotions that just fit the particular scene. To me the Joker made TDK standout; whereas, in BB the story was what stood out. But Heath was so good as Ennis as well... that's why i'm stuck.

I loved this film, and there's only one thing I didn't like about Brokeback Mountain, and that was the rather boring (to me) first 20 mins or so.

A


Also, 9 "F's", really? And apparently they came right after Libs posted the thread.

I watched the last twenty or so minutes of this last night. It was actually pretty good, and I am not a fan of romance films. Ledger was very impressive, and he really was one of the most verisitile actors out there.

are people only opening up to this now because now its lead is also the Joker, and this is his second biggest role?

I suppose you've had experience with both roles.

I think this was Ledgers best perfomance, bar none. Not even the Joker had a patch on what he did here.

Don't be ridiculous. Criticism does not necessitate experience with any given role. If it did, you yourself would be in no position to discuss any film, any role, any thing at all.

How do you know it's not easier to play the Joker? Have you had experience playing both roles?

I hear ya. It's not surprising, but you know if someone actually saw the film and gave it an F then they'd have to be an idiot. It deserves higher than that for how damn well-made it is alone, even if you weren't into the movie. Most, if not all of the people who gave it an F were likely just bigots who didn't see it.

And I haven't seen The Dark Knight yet, so I can't say for sure, but I can't imagine his performance there being quite as great as his performance here, even if I'm sure it will be fantastic too.

Em, people, who cares about the Fs when this film has 50 As??? I cannot believe it got that many

The one thing I'd say in the Joker's defense is that the Joker was more left-field for him than Ennis.

In billy's defense, I act, amateur yes, but I act still the same, and I understand it is harder for some people to pull off certain roles. Honestly, I don't see the Joker as being that hard of a role for me, I have a lot of energy and playing psychotic characters comes naturally to me, don't ask why (and really energy doesn't have too much to deal with it). However I usually cannot play down to earth "real" characters very well.

I was very impressed by this.

This type of facile statement is of the same class as when those who criticize the political actions of Israel are branded antisemitic.