This is topic Brokeback Mountain in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001056

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 12-01-2005, 04:38 PM:
 
I knew this film had a gay subplot going into it ... thought it would be a Western with a gay subplot ... turned out the Western part was the subplot ... was not impressed. 67% of the screeners walked out on this one 40 minutes into it after a fairly long love scene.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-01-2005, 06:15 PM:
 
Hmmm. Should I, or, shouldn't I?
Do I want to see it?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-01-2005, 07:31 PM:
 
I haven't seen it yet. But Bruce, why would you have to ask a question like that? SEE IT! Then post a review... JFC!
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 12-01-2005, 11:35 PM:
 
I saw the trailer for this about a month ago. It made no bones whatsoever about the plot, and by the end of it, the audience was in hysterical laughter.

So I give the trailer two stars for unintentional comedy.
 

---

Posted by Bruce McGee (Member # 131) on 12-03-2005, 11:11 AM:
 
The previous post was unintentional. I had a friend over, and he typed that and entered it. I was outside at the time, and unaware what was happening.

I plan to see this film as soon as it hits the Asheville area.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 12-14-2005, 12:50 AM:
 
I think the most controversial thing about this movie is just how uncontroversial it feels when watching it. The so-called sex scene has nothing on an episode of Oz, for example, and the film plays at a lyrical, slow (but not boring) pace. It deals with love that basically is unfulfilled, and that is almost a universal theme everywhere, gay or straight. The film gives a sense of reality to the situation by downplaying showy "dramatic" scenes. The film really hits home that we really are a product of our upbringing, and how difficult it can be to break out of our comfort zone. Watch for Heath Ledger to get an Oscar nod.

(Screening: The Grove, Los Angeles, Sat, Dec 10, 11:15a. Complete sell-out, as it was on the other two screens showing the film at least through 7pm). Design question: What kind of idiot actually puts a green exit sign at the bottom left hand corner of the screen, protruding into it? And then projects enough overhang off the bottom of the screen to also light the rest of the sign? This couldn't have been an accident in this one screen. I've seen it in two others here).
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-14-2005, 02:12 PM:
 
I doubt I'll ever see this one, but it sure is making for some funny comedy on the late night talk shows.
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 12-14-2005, 03:16 PM:
 
I've been running this film for the last few months for critics and now academy/guild screenings. It's been doing full houses on every showing.

It has broken 2005 box office records by scoring the Highest per-screen average. It opened in just five cinemas in New York City, Los Angeles and San Francisco and took in an estimated three day box office total of $544,549, an average of $109,000 per screen.
 

---

Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 12-14-2005, 06:56 PM:
 
Everyone is just dying to know what the 'Greco Factor' is!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-14-2005, 11:43 PM:
 
I haven't seen it yet. But I'm really surprised at the pre-judged (well maybe not) at the dumbass comments from BOTH Mikes. I would have expected more from Montana Mike... the other Mike... Ummm Yeah...

Happy Holiday and/or Merry Christmas y'all!

[ 12-15-2005, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 12-15-2005, 09:11 AM:
 
What comment by either Mike is dumbass?

Montana Mike simply stated that he probably wouldn't see this one. I'm sure he has said that about many films that didn't interest him. I probably won't see "The Family Stone." Is that a dumbass comment?

Atlanta Mike simply stated facts about the screeners and then said he didn't like it. He also stated facts about the content of the Movie. What was dumbass about that comment?

I think you're being overly sensitive here. I appreciate the reviews from all angles so that I can decide if this will interest me. I see movies to be entertained and enjoy myself. Just because I don't think I'll be entertained by a particular movie doesn't make me prejudiced against people who's lifestyle is part of it.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-15-2005, 05:08 PM:
 
At least Paul actually posted a review on this thread.

(Although I'll admit, I'm dying to hear the Greco factor! haha)
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 12-17-2005, 09:29 PM:
 
It's good. Actually, it's very good. The trailer pretty much gives away the entire plot; thus, I don't see any need to recount it here. Both of the main actors performed well, and the scenery is gorgeous. My only real complaint is that I thought that the pacing was a bit too fast--I would have enjoyed more lingering shots of the scenery in the first third (or so) of the film; I find this sort of odd because most of the reviews that I have seen have indicated that the pacing is "slow"--I can't agree with this assessment at all. I can recommend the film to anyone who is not offended by the subject matter. The makeup of the audience was interesting--there were a surprising number of (apparently) married couples and seniors...it was a pretty mainstream audience, overall.

One other gripe: the print that I saw wasn't particularly good. Projection was fine, but the print itself just wasn't sharp. This is a film that is crying out for sharpness and accurate (but not necessary vivid) colors, and the print that I saw didn't do it justice. I'm also surprised that it wasn't filmed in scope. Whatever...it's still a good film and is up with "Good Night and
Good Luck" as my two favorites for the year. And I say this as someone who isn't normally fond of westerns or "gay" films.

Oh, and the Greco Factor is approximately zero.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 12-17-2005, 10:06 PM:
 
How about Anne Hathaway and Michelle Williams?

I do admit, I will see this just to see what all the hype is about. I hear it is great cinematically
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-18-2005, 01:07 AM:
 
I've seen it 3x this weekend.

A-
 

---

Posted by Stefano Boni (Member # 3304) on 12-18-2005, 04:41 PM:
 
I saw it on opening weekend in San Francisco. Every show was sold out, and I was lucky to get tickets for the final Sunday night show. I also don't agree with comments about the slow pace. It's true that it's not a fast-paced actioner, but I would have been fine with an extra half-hour or so. The characters are so interesting, I would have liked to know more about them.

I'm hoping to see it again, but this time on a larger screen. It's supposed to be playing in one of the large domed-shape theaters in the area.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 12-18-2005, 11:21 PM:
 

quote: Brad

---

At least Paul actually posted a review on this thread.

---

Oh com'on Grand-Poopie-BAH! Get off your high horse! While the film was "interesting" it sure lacked a lot of "HONEST" portrayals of how The West Was Won and what REALLY went on in the "WILD WEST" AND the covered wagons! HA!

I think I'll make a porno version of it titled "Bareback Mounting"... I'm sure I can make some big $$$.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-19-2005, 06:03 PM:
 

quote: Phil Hill

---

I think I'll make a porno version of it titled "Bareback Mounting"... I'm sure I can make some big $$$.

---

Already been done...
 

---

Posted by Dan Lyons (Member # 1454) on 12-21-2005, 03:51 AM:
 
12/20/05
Edwards South Coast 3, Santa Ana Calif.
Auditorium 1, 10:15pm
film is playing on 2 screens at this venue

After waiting in a line around the building till 10:20...

Show started at 10:30 with out of frame trailers, quickly corrected.
Focus was a touch off, but fixed as soon as i alerted the staff.
Screen dirty, reflective spots on it from candy? At least it has side masking.
House lights and sconces on DIM throughout feature, killing contrast and washing out colors.
One midframe lab splice showed up.
Opaque splicing tape used.

Good news is that the print is now in its second week with NO SCRATCHES.

Now, the picture itself. Quite good; very good acting, nice cinematography, good story.

The film lacked sharpness, though it was in focus.

Hate to dissapoint, but there are no "long lovescenes" in this film as some have stated. The 2 scenes the film does have are very brief and not graphic at all, no "frontal shots" in this film.

A very hard film to classify; it's not a traditional western, nor a typical "gay film".

So far, one of the best I've seen all year. I'll give it a 4.5 out of 5
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 12-21-2005, 11:00 PM:
 
12/19/05
Landmark's Magnolia Theatre, Dallas
Auditorium 4, 9:00 p.m.

I'd never been to this theatre before, so this was definately an experience for me. Parking at this theatre sucks, so come early so you don't have to walk 4 blocks. I showed up for the 7:30 show, but ended up seeing the 9:00 because the 7:30 and 8:30 sold out. The staff was very friendly, and I talked to the GM for about 30 minutes while I waited in line; really nice lady. As for the presentation, Dan is right, the movie isn't very sharp. Focused fine, but not sharp. Clean film, great sound, and a polite audience.

The movie itself was wonderful. The scenery was stunning, and the story kept a good pace. My friend thought it was too long, but I think it was the right length. Any longer would be pushing it, though. It's a tragic love story, and I'll admit I used a whole mini pack of tissues from crying so much. I'm a dork like that, I can't help it. Heath Ledger deserves an Oscar for this. A+ movie and presentation.
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 12-21-2005, 11:45 PM:
 

quote: Dan Lyons

---

no "frontal shots" in this film

---

Damnit! I'll guess I'll have to see the movie now for plot and not just eye candy.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-22-2005, 11:56 AM:
 
Well, there is the nude skinny dipping scene with them jumping off the cliff into the river...
 

---

Posted by Emma Tomiak (Member # 1862) on 12-22-2005, 05:23 PM:
 
They're too far away to see anything
 

---

Posted by Mathew Molloy (Member # 666) on 12-22-2005, 06:08 PM:
 
The Advocate

"It's very brave of them"
Everyone who’s tired of the media—and Madonna—calling Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger “brave” for acting in Brokeback Mountain, please raise your hands. Then say it with me: “poppycock”

By Charles Karel Bouley II

An Advocate.com exclusive posted, December 13, 2005

It started eating at me when I saw a little preview on Logo for upcoming movies. It said, “Logo salutes those who were brave enough to play gay...” or something like that. It stuck in my craw (or whatever the human equivalent is) for days: brave enough to play gay. But since I have ADD (no, not attention deficit disorder, aging diva disorder), I quickly forgot and moved on.

Then the topic again came into view, and craw, with weeks of prerelease coverage of Academy Award-winning director Ang Lee’s Brokeback Mountain, which stars two allegedly straight hunks, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. Even before the movie was released, the accolades for these two began pouring forth. Gay Goddess Madonna saw the film and told the British magazine Attitude, “They’re really good, those boys, and they did a great job. It’s very brave of them.”

And there’s the problem. The media seem to be running with a recurring theme around this movie: the “bravery” of the actors playing the roles, the “courage” it took them to do it, and the “speculation” about whether America is ready for a “gay cowboy movie.” Certainly not a position a liberal would take, so it befuddles me how the media is labeled “liberal.” Because the media has all but compared these two to war heroes for their portrayal of two closeted cowboys in a story of unrequited love and personal deception.

Say it with me: poppycock.

Now, there can be no doubt it took awhile for this movie to be made. And there can be no doubt there was a lot of fear surrounding it. And that’s what the media should be talking about. Instead of playing into the homophobia about how courageous it is to play gay, the media should be examining why it’s OK to play a rapist, a demon, a vampire from hell, a serial killer who eats his victims with fava beans and nice chianti, or any of the hundreds of sick, warped, twisted characters Hollywood puts out and we gobble up. Why do studios green-light films all the time that have gruesome plots or despicable characters, and why did this film languish for years?

If it really is the gay thing, then the media needs to take Hollywood to task, instead of lauding the courage of the people who ended up making the film.

According to the Hollywood Reporter’s story of November 11, the movie struggled for years to get made, in part because no actors would commit. According to the story, actors would read it, love it, and then their agents would advise them against it even though it was, according to most, the best script they’d read in years. Those actors obviously had no courage in turning down the script, according to the press, yet not one interview has been done with the interviewer calling such an actor a coward. We can laud the heroes but not call out the cowards, I suppose.

The media’s obsession with the “courage” and “bravery” is just plain crap. First of all, I thought Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal were actors, as was every person who turned down the script. And I thought actors were paid, often large amounts, to be somebody else. In other words, they are paid to play people who are not themselves. So why on earth would playing gay be a problem? Actors take on roles all the time embodying despicable or reprehensible characters. No one clamors to them and tells them how brave they are. But the media make a big deal when a straight guy kisses another straight guy on-camera. (Or a woman kisses a woman, for that matter—remember Mariel Hemingway and Roseanne?)

Are they, and thus America, so insecure that they actually believe if two guys kiss on-screen, they’re gay off-screen? Bi? Curious? Are we still that much in the dark ages when it comes to being gay? Can we all just finally agree that it is not learned, it is not forced, it is as organic as breathing? And just because a person “acts” gay doesn’t mean they “are” gay. So when an actor acts, he is doing just that, and when the lights go off he goes back to his Hollywood starlet.

Now, before I continue on this rant, another thought comes to mind. And yes, I’ll go down a slippery slope. Since there are so few gay movies made, this is supposed to be the first gay western ever made; and since there are many, many gay actors in Hollywood, would it have been too much to ask to find two for these roles? Oh, but that wouldn’t be a big deal. I mean, gay people playing gay people. Where would the hoopla be in that? And besides, no gay actor is talented enough/famous enough/could possibly pull it off, right? No, if we’re going to make a gay film, a groundbreaking gay film, we’d better use straight people.

Why has no one in the mainstream media studied why gay people can’t seem to make a mainstream gay film with gay actors playing the parts?

Yes, I know gay people play straight people all the time in movies, in life, at work—and no one writes on and on about their bravery. Oh, the courage they must muster, right? I mean, if it takes so much courage for a straight guy to play a gay person, then imagine what it must be for a gay person to play straight. How does Rupert Everett or Sir Ian McKellen do it? I seem to have missed the volumes written about the courage of gay actors playing straight.

Look, this may well be the best gay film ever made. Ang Lee is brilliant, and I am a fan of both Ledger and Gyllenhaal, and as a gay man I would pay big bucks to see them make out, so the $10 admission and $75 at the snack bar will be nothing.

But can we stop with the bravery thing?

First of all, they were paid. What would you do for a hundred thousand? A million? A couple million? I’d kiss a Republican woman on-camera for that—hell, I’d even kiss Ann Coulter for a few million. Talk about bravery!

Second...perspective, people, perspective. If gays and lesbians are to be truly recognized as full-fledged humans with all rights afforded forthwith, then we have to stop making such a big deal about things like Brokeback Mountain. Just as I believe we must stop awarding people like Tom Cruise damages and instead say “So what?” when someone says they’re gay. We have to progress to a point where being gay is not only not libelous but not newsworthy.

Yes, I’ve gotten a lot of press out of being an openly gay talk-show host, mainly because I’m one of the few. I’m a rare bird in a rare club. When I become less rare; when there’s many openly gay talk-show hosts on major-market radio; when there’s lots of mainstream movies with gay plots or subplots; and when courts stop giving people millions for being called gay, then we will have finally gained some perspective.

You know what would have been truly brave? If Ledger and Gyllenhaal had come out swinging. If they had come out and said “Yup, these guys are gay, and we played them, and what’s the big deal?” What would have been really brave would have been to green-light this “incredible” script years earlier instead of cowering in the corner. But even they, Heath and Jake, in trying to defuse the issue and get back to the story and the movie, have actually “de-gayed” the film.

During an MSN interview on a junket with Matt Damon for the Brothers Grimm movie, Ledger stated, “The idea I had to make out with Jake...just wasn’t the easiest thing to do. It is a beautiful story, a beautiful script. It was definitely a real sense of accomplishment once I finished. I had so much fear for the project and the story and, you know, had to be brave. I definitely came out thinking ‘[Expletive], I can do anything,’ you know?”

Odd that Ledger would find this role most brave. After all, he’s played the outlaw and revolutionary Ned Kelly; a “sin eater” who confronts evil in its purest form; a drugged-out skateboard-shop owner; and he’s about to play the nefarious Casanova. I would think playing a guy who eats sins would be braver than a fag—after all, you’re messing with God and the Devil.

Gyllenhaal has also been out doing the media rounds and has been quoted by everyone from here to Australia as saying things like “These aren’t gay guys, they’re two souls that fall in love.”

Each actor has actually trivialized the gay aspect of the film by removing the word gay from the character description. Instead, they’re two souls, two people, two hearts that fall in love, not two gay men. I understand why they are doing that. They’re trying to focus on the story, on the movie, and trying to focus the press on what it would be asking and covering if this script were about a man and woman in love. It’s a valiant effort, and I applaud them, but it’s also misguided. Because by doing so, by deflecting the entire gay issue, they make it an even bigger issue.

Bravery? No. When I look at Brokeback Mountain all I see is fear. In the story, I see the fear of two obviously gay people too afraid to actually commit to their love, so they run off and marry women and live a life unfulfilled out of fear.

I see the fear in two major stars of actually admitting they played gay, as they downplay in the press their characters’ sexuality.

I see the fear of movie studios too afraid to make the movie with Gus Van Sant years ago.

I see the fear of countless Hollywood actors who wouldn’t take the parts.

I see the fear of a still-homophobic corporate press, which grabs onto the stars’ sexuality instead of the script’s quality. A press that gives these stars an outlet to gauge their “comfort level” with playing these roles. A press that throws around words like bravery and courage when referring to pampered stars playing well-scripted roles.

I see the fear of theater owners, who already are hesitant to book this film in smaller markets.

I see the fear in filmmakers like Lee who make “gay” movies without the “gay,” meaning gay people are deluged with images of heterosexual lovemaking everywhere, but should a gay couple show it on-screen—oh, no, we must hide the sex.

I see the fear in those in Wyoming, who have already spoken out saying there’s just no such thing as gay cowboys. (Well, hon, 12 men, 100 head of cattle, three months away from civilization...somebody was getting some.)

I see the fear of the critics, who say things like New York Daily News critic Jack Mathews did when he predicted that it may be “too much for red-state audiences, but it gives the liberal-leaning Academy a great chance to stick its thumb in conservatives’ eyes.”

Yes, I see a lot of fear around Brokeback Mountain. As for courage? Did it take courage to make it? Did it take courage to play the parts? Will it take courage for the theaters to play it?

Alan Ball, director of American Beauty and creator of the award-winning series Six Feet Under, was asked about straight actors playing gay characters on his HBO series. His answer sums it all up best:

“I'm not a big subscriber to the idea that for a straight actor to play gay now is a huge act of bravery, but I do believe that for a straight actor to not want to play a character because he’s gay is a huge act of cowardice.”

Seems Hollywood is full of more cowards than heroes. So yes, kudos to Jake and Heath and Ang. But let’s get to a point where we can talk about the movie itself, not the sexuality of the characters playing the roles, as Jake and Heath have been trying to do. And let’s also get to a point where playing a gay person is not more courageous than playing a child molester or murdering mob boss.

And to all you straight actors who want pats on the back for playing gay: Until you’ve lived gay, until you’ve been denied a job because of it, or had to hide in a Hollywood closet; until you’ve had your jaw smashed or watched a generation of your friends die of a disease while government did nothing (like in the Reagan era), don’t speak to me of courage.

It takes courage to be gay and out, not to play it.



Karel (Charles Karel Bouley II) is a talk-show host for KGO AM 810 San Francisco and is heard Saturday and Sunday from 7 P.M. to 10 P.M. or online at http://www.kgo.com. He is a columnist for Advocate.com and In Magazine Los Angeles, and his book of essays, You Can’t Say That , is published by Alyson Books. He maintains a blog, podcasts, and message boards at http://www.karelchannel.com and can be reached at showcomments@karelchannel.com.
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 12-24-2005, 01:51 PM:
 
Good article!
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 12-24-2005, 05:19 PM:
 
Charles Karel Bouley II seems to be a grand master at judging other people, none of whom he's ever met or knows anything about, except what he's read in the media. Ironic.
 

---

Posted by John Pommon (Member # 648) on 12-26-2005, 03:10 AM:
 
Karel started his talk-show on KGO ABC AM San Francisco radio 810 newstalk with his high-strung 'super-queen I'm gay & damn proud of it schtick' . . yet now allegedly one of the poster boys for queerdom on talk radio.

Hasn't that always been the point of talk radio . . to stir the poop . . . i. e. All . . . . . all the time.

That's entertainment? no thanks . . trying to quit.

[ 12-27-2005, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: John Pommon ]
 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 01-05-2006, 05:30 PM:
 
This film will likely be received better by "arthouse audiences" than the mainstream masses who flock to the local Megeplex 25.

The arthouse crowd is usually more conditioned to viewing scenes of nudity, graphic violence etc due to the numerious "unrated" art films released each year.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 01-05-2006, 06:24 PM:
 
Umm, there isn't much nudity nor graphic violence in Brokeback Mountain. (And if it weren't for the gay thing it would be rated PG-13).

Graphic Violence (a la SAW 2, HOSTEL) do very well at the Megaplexes.
 

---

Posted by Mike Croaro (Member # 3123) on 01-05-2006, 08:43 PM:
 
Eric Hooper Wrote:

"...........Graphic Violence (a la SAW 2, HOSTEL) do very well at the Megaplexes".

Good point Eric. Perhaps I should have pondered the subject a bit futher.

Mike
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 01-05-2006, 09:31 PM:
 
Anyone know when this is coming to the Tampa Bay area?
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-05-2006, 09:59 PM:
 

quote: Richard Greco

---

Anyone know when this is coming to the Tampa Bay area?

---

quote: Phil Hill

---

I would have expected more from Montana Mike...

---

Phil - I wasn't editorializing about the film, just alluding to the fact that I live in small-town-rural-America and thus, the movie probably won't play here therefore I probably won't see it. I've heard it's very well made, but I just don't think there'd be much of a turnout for it here. (Half the people would be turned off by the subject matter, and the other half wouldn't want to be seen going into the theatre.)
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 01-08-2006, 01:28 AM:
 
CINEMA: Fleur Cinema & Cafe
AUDITORIUM: 3
PRESENTATION: Beats the heck outta me
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Well, none really
RATING: Three and one half stars (out of four)

WARNING: Would you like to upgrade to spoilers for just a quarter more?

SIGNS YOU PICKED THE WRONG PLACE TO WATCH A MOVIE: When the ticket counter has a full-page memo posted advising you why your car is going to get broken into and why the theatre isn't liable. Said memo started out explaining that there's an organized crime ring going around breaking into cars. It went into great detail about what people were stealing and how long it takes to perform a smash-and-grab. (Ten seconds, if you were wondering.)

As it happens, the theatre's parking lot is full. WAY full. "Brokeback Mountain" has filled the Fleur's lot to capacity, the dirt lot between the Fleur and a strip mall, and part of the abandoned Target parking lot. Previous to tonight, I have never seen the Fleur's lot even HALF full. I ended up parking in about the darkest place possible in front of a dumpster.

I arrived fifteen minutes before showtime, scheduled for 9:45pm. The lobby is packed with a line of people waiting to get into the movie. One of the employees is explaining to the ticket taker and a customer that they're going to be running about ten minutes late seating people, which is apparently supposed to start happening at 9:35pm. They actually have signs up noting this. At about 9:35, the 7:00 show gets out, and a mass of people come out of the auditorium.

So I'm standing in line when I realize..."Wait a minute...People are leaving!" I look out the window to see prime parking spots opening up. Yep...I went out and moved my car to right under the street light in front of the lobby.

Back in the line, guy behind me notes "I think we're above capacity", pointing at the lobby's capacity sign. The lobby holds about 120 fewer people than the auditorium. That's a little odd. Still, he's wrong. We're not filling that room. No way.

At 9:53pm, the auditorium was declared ready, and everybody filed in. The movie started at 9:57pm to about half capacity.

Most of the movies I've seen in Auditorium 3 have been in left-channel analog mono. The exception came with "Monster". I could have sworn they actually had a digital presentation. Then the next movie I saw there played in 2-channel analog stereo. Then the next. Then we were back to left-channel mono. Tonight, I'm in Row 3 center, and the first trailer plays in left-channel mono. Then the second trailer starts. Suddenly the volume comes up, the sound becomes clear, and there's a rather digital sounding three-channel soundstage in front of me. I give up. The surrounds, of course, are just for show. The picture is perfectly focused and steady. Century 20 has maybe ONCE approached this picture quality when I've been there. Maybe.

So basically "Brokeback Mountain" is about two guys tending to sheep in isolated Wyoming (the part of "Wyoming" being played by Alberta, Canada) who hook up with each other (to the relief of the sheep, I'm sure) in a spontaneous and rather violent looking quickie. The rest of the movie follows their lives for the next two decades in sort of a "Same Time Next Year" fashion because even though they went off and got married and had kids, they can't fight that feeling anymore (da da da da i'd forgotten what i'd started fighting for da da da da).

It's beautifully shot, it's well acted, it's happy, it's sad, it's tragic. The reason people are seeing this in droves is because of the love story. It grabs some people the way Jack and Rose did in "Titanic". And yet, it will absolutely be offensive to some. And I'm fine with that. How boring would the world be if we all thought alike.
 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 01-09-2006, 09:57 PM:
 
Ok, Let me start off by saying that I have recieved LOTS of teasing from my friends when I told them I was going to see this one.

It was at the Tampa Theatre , a wonderful historic theatre in downtown Tampa. Sitting on the balcony, I had a great view of the screen. The picture was very bright and I thought the scenery was amazing.

I let all bias go and found this to be a very touching story. It flowed very well and I thoroughly enjoyed watching this. Cinematically, it was great.

Greco factor is an 8 due to Anne Hathaway's and Michele Williams nice breasts.

Overall, I really liked this story and found it to be awesome.

8.5/10

In addition, The sound dampening in the auditorium SUCKS...Echos all over the place. but then again, it isn't specifically a movie theatre.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-09-2006, 10:00 PM:
 
So there's boobies in it? Maybe a reason to go see it finally.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-09-2006, 10:01 PM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

So there's boobies in it?

---

Yep. More female nudity than male nudity and more male-female sex than male-male.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 01-13-2006, 07:33 PM:
 
All I have to say is this is by far one of the best films I've seen in a long time...I put this way past Sin City as fav movie of the past year. 10 out of 10 for me, just a great movie, well told story and well acted on all fronts. Will most likley see this one again while its in the theater.

If your not sure because the "subject matter" dosn't float your boat, get over it and look past the 10 minutes of the entire movie that shows any sexual act between two men in the movie and you will find a great and well told story and well directed. But thats just my 2 cents, not that it matters too much.
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-14-2006, 07:31 PM:
 
Friday 1-13-06
AMC Studio 30 Houston, TX
Auditorium 7, 9:35PM

Mid-sized auditorium about 3/4 full.
I got lucky and was in an auditorium with side masking and a perferated screen.
Good audio that I'm assuming was analog (although the theatre opened with mobile SRD and DTS units; I don't know if they use them anymore) except the center channel seemed a bit low.
Framed a tad too high at first but was corrected.
Focus off slightly.
Screen lighting excellent.
Print condition mostly excellent, although there was a little bit of dirt around the changeovers.

SPOILERS AHEAD

I enjoyed this movie and thought it was good, but not great.
I agree with others that the scenery was great and some of those shots should have been held a little longer.
My favorite of which was the full screen shot of the sheep that seemed to flow like water over rocks.
I was really disappointed that this movie was not in scope.

There were times when Heath Ledger suffered from Boomhauer syndrome and I had a really hard time understanding him.
I was wishing for subtitles.

My main gripe (and this is the biggest reason why my girlfriend hated it) is that they didn't do a good enough job of making the couple seem like they were actually in love.
It seemed to me that the main focus of their time spent together was that they were meeting up to go have sex in the mountains.
Jack Swift even says so the last time they are together.
Obviously they wouldn't go through all that trouble just to fuck each other.
If that's all Jack Swift wanted, he could have moved to Mexico.
As stand-offish as he is, you get the impression that Ennis Del Mar also wants to be with Jack, but knows what could and probably would happen if they did get together permanently, so he was smart enough (in that sense) not to do it.
It seems that the development of their love for each other could have been given more exposure.
Were there scenes left out that I don't know of?

So we have two people who want to be together because of the cultural and moral climate of the time and I have sympathy for them.
They part ways once the job is over and lead "normal" live and get married to women and have children like they are "supposed to".
They lose much of this sympathy when they decide to lie to and cheat on their wives and children.
The film didn't seem to show the same sympathy for the wives and children that these two men lied to.
You saw some of the pain and frustration of Alma Del Mar, but hardly any of Lureen Newsome.
Although the movie wasn't as much about them as it was about Jack and Ennis, they could have done a little better with that.

The ending was sad.
You feel bad for Jack for the way he went out.
You feel bad for Ennis for losing his friend and lover and for not being allowed to carry out Jack's will and spread his ashes over Brokeback Mountain like he had wished.
I was actually worried for Ennis that he was being drawn to Jack's hometown to suffer Jack's fate.

The movie did end on a good note, however.
At various points during the movie, he put work before the people in his life.
In one of the final scenes, he makes a commitment to make his daughter's wedding a priority over his work.

I think I'd give it a 3 out of 5 stars.

[ 01-15-2006, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: James R. Hammonds, Jr ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-15-2006, 01:19 PM:
 

quote: Richard Greco

---

and I thought the scenery was amazing.

---

I agree. The 10 minuites I watched after installing a new rectifier looked nice. If any of you are ever out in this area here let me know and I can show you some amazing scenery.....

The Tetons......



Snow storm approaching the giant rift just south of Lander, WY.

 

---

Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 01-15-2006, 11:56 PM:
 
Wow, Nice pics Mark
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-16-2006, 01:00 AM:
 
..Good pix of the Grand Teton Range in Wyoming in the top pix. Mt. Moran isn't too far from this area. -Monte
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 01-16-2006, 04:11 AM:
 
Ok, time for me to “spur my guts out”

I gave it an A-, but it could possibly be a B+.

This *is* a great movie. The acting and directing are fantastic. The scenery is incredible. It’s something new, fresh, and different, and that makes the movie truly an ‘experience’.

But-

I agree with James, there is something “missing”. The development of their ‘love’ is really not shown to us. Even Jake admitted on Leno that people have said ‘the movie is not gay enough’. Well, the movie certainly is gay, and deals with gay themes, but, I think people are referring to this problem with the movie when they say that. Later in the movie, we get scenes of Ennis and Alma playing in the snow, and sitting at the drive in with his arm around her and the baby starts kicking and such. But what we get from the cowboys are just one quick make out scene, a little rastlin’ around seen through binoculars, a cute thing with the rope where Jack lassos Ennis, (but that scene eventually turns into something else important with the story), and then we have to wait until 3/4ths through the movie to get the ‘flashback’ scene of Ennis coming up behind Jack and holding him (the ‘sleeping on your feet like a horse’ scene). Yeah, the lack of intimacy does hold up the creditability of the rest of the movie in that way.

Now some have said “well they’re 19 year old cowboys with undeveloped emotions, and they’re not supposed to be all touchy feely when they were first up on the mountain”. I don’t buy that, because they *were* touchy feely as seen in the ‘flashback’ scene. And we needed a touchy feely scene like that to happen in the first part of the movie when they’re up on the mountain, to show that they were ‘falling in love’ and make it believable and the rest of the movie believable, not have that quick scene happen later on in the movie, during a different difficult emotional scene!

All we would have needed was one small 15 second scene, of them holding each other by a campfire or something, maybe even sharing a cigarette. They wouldn’t have needed to talk or anything. Just an image of them two together like that in the first part of the movie WOULD HAVE MADE ALL THE DIFFERENCE. I don’t know if any additional scenes like this were left out, and if they were, I would be suspect of the reason why they were left out. But if there is any additional scenes that portray them a little more ‘falling in love’ up on the mountain, I certainly hope they’re included in a ‘directors cut’ re-release or DVD release. It truly would have been ‘sweeping’ (as the ads say) if we had just had a little bit more development of their ‘love’.

Many people have complained about this issue with the movie. Ang, Focus, Screenwriters, are you listening?

(Imagine what an “extended director’s cut” re-released in theatres might do for the already good business for this movie. Hmmm.)
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 01-16-2006, 09:49 AM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Good pix of the Grand Teton Range in Wyoming in the top pix. Mt. Moran isn't too far from this area. -Monte

---

Just north of that shot it would be the next mountain.... it rises above Leigh Lake. These mountains are so huge and so spread out that everything is a long distance. Its a days hike just to get to the base of one of them! I found this shot that I had taken from near the one above. Its center right in the photo.
Mount Moran Info


 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-16-2006, 01:45 PM:
 

quote: Eric Hooper

---

The development of their ‘love’ is really not shown to us.

---

Yes, as American film goers, we have to have everything explained & shown to us... can't think about it afterwards.

quote: James R. Hammonds, Jr

---

Obviously they wouldn't go through all that trouble just to fuck each other.
If that's all Jack Swift wanted, he could have moved to Mexico.

---

you seemed to pick up on that just fine without being overtly shown.

I figure that that part of it was an artistic choice. These two had to supress that side of their lives for most of their life. Getting sex (male or female) was easy enough ... having a partner they loved, was not. We understand this by how the story is told. Could they have shown more lovey-dovey scenes? Of course ... would it have had the same impact (or better/worse) on the viewer? Who knows ... that's why it's art, not science.
 

---

Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 01-17-2006, 03:56 AM:
 
some time before the movie opened, a projectionist who had screened it in some context was gushing about how explicit the sex scenes were, in fact, that he found it hard to believe that the actors weren't actually doing the deed. now, this is a gushy guy by nature, but i feel like either the print he saw might have had more action in it than the one i saw, or it was a showprint with a lot more detail in the darkness than ours.

and yes, we're showing the complete film as shipped to us (right, eric?) .

carl
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 01-17-2006, 11:19 AM:
 

quote: Carl Martin

---

and yes, we're showing the complete film as shipped to us (right, eric?)

---

Yes, you are.
 

---

Posted by Stefano Boni (Member # 3304) on 01-17-2006, 09:48 PM:
 
Funny, but I did not interpret the "flashback" scene towards the end of the film, as being a flashback at all. In the context of the scene, and its placement in it, I saw that clip as being older Jack's fantasy about what could have been had Ennis been more committed to, and unafraid of their relationship.

I realize it could be a flashback too, but I think I would have bought that more if we had seen a portion of that scene earlier in the film (hence the "flashback"). As it is, it seems ambiguous as to if it really happened, much in the same way as Ennis' "flash" when he is in the phone booth talking to Jack's wife. Even in the short story, it's more suggestive then explicit.

I have to say I did expect slightly more explicit scenes between the two leads, when I saw this the first time, simply because of all the hype. Seeing it a second and third time, none of that seemed to bother me. I think what they did was fine.

As far as extra deleted scenes, if you happened to watch the Golden Globes, last night, there was a glimpse of something like that among the clips shown of the film; a brief shot of a shirtless Ennis standing on what looked like a fallen tree, as he stared down into the river.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 01-17-2006, 10:30 PM:
 

quote: Stefano Boni

---

there was a glimpse of something like that among the clips shown of the film; a brief shot of a shirtless Ennis standing on what looked like a fallen tree, as he stared down into the river.

---

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

Then Hollyrock would be given a response from the public that these are the types of movies that should be made.

---

Uh Monte, the Oscar isn't a "People's Choice" award. Oscar winners are determined by AMPAS members only - the public has nothing to do with it. The Oscars merely represent what Hollywood thinks of itself. Which renders any significance of the Oscar award to anyone not a member of AMPAS largely meaningless.

I suppose there will be some people that will go see this picture if it wins any of the major Oscars simply because it won, lured in by the supposed glamour of Hollywood and its bandwagon appeal. They are the mindless sheep that make up most of today's movie audience. But I suspect many more people already have their minds made up on this one. Many of those people will not pay to see this film no matter how many Oscars it may win.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-20-2006, 01:41 PM:
 
As much as I agree that studio execs like to jump on the bandwagon of a successful formula ... I don't think that the only criteria for "successful" of the execs is whether a film wins a best picture Oscar or not. Each of the three films [Monte] listed has been quite successful in its own way. I think to say that Hollywood is going to make one of these types of pictures, dependant on the outcome of March 5th is oversimplifying it quite a bit.

 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-20-2006, 03:43 PM:
 

quote: Paul Mayer

---

I suppose there will be some people that will go see this picture if it wins any of the major Oscars simply because it won, lured in by the supposed glamour of Hollywood and its bandwagon appeal. They are the mindless sheep that make up most of today's movie audience.

---

Is it possible some might be lured in by the opportunity to see a good movie?
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 01-20-2006, 04:02 PM:
 
Just my guess, but he may have been referring to prople who otherwise might not have seen it.
 

---

Posted by Paul Mayer (Member # 355) on 01-20-2006, 04:02 PM:
 
By mid-March? Nah. Anyone going to see it for that reason would have seen it by then.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-20-2006, 04:51 PM:
 
If they're persuaded to see it by all the publicity and awards, and they hate it, they can claim they were suckered in. Otherwise they get to see a good movie they might otherwise have missed.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-20-2006, 05:02 PM:
 
* text deleted *

[ 01-21-2006, 05:25 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-20-2006, 05:15 PM:
 
Well, like I said before, I don't think it would ever be JUST the fact that a film won best picture. But, more comments on this would be better suited for a new thread.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 01-20-2006, 05:18 PM:
 

quote: Monte L Fullmer

---

really wonder if the influence between the awards people (both Globe and AMPAS) could make the movie makers swing to a trend that the award winning movie's themes.

---

I doubt it. I don't recall a rash of movies about classical composers the year after "Amadeus" won, and there wasn't a slew of romantic disaster films after "Titanic" either. It all boils down to what the movie suits think will put $ in the till, whether the films are award-winners or not.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-20-2006, 11:02 PM:
 
Text deleted by original poster as it is no longer relevant.

[ 01-21-2006, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Phil Hill ]
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-21-2006, 01:38 AM:
 
Thx Phil for the "chewing out". I deleted such comments that I made and apologize to the FT forum. thx-Monte

[ 01-21-2006, 05:28 AM: Message edited by: Monte L Fullmer ]
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-21-2006, 08:30 AM:
 
Monte, my post was not meant as a "chewing out" but rather as a response and as to how Hollywood "really" works.

After many years of working in "Hollywood" I have NO love for any of the awards or their shows. They are ALL based on who has the best marketing campaign and hype $$$ (and many times who has the most influential friends) for a particular movie. Which means it's not necessarily the "best" film that wins. Although, thankfully it usually does.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I came across a little strong and I'm sorry you elected to delete your post.

I deleted my response post as it is not any longer relevant without your original post.

OBTW: Back on topic and as I've said before, I didn't like "Brokeback Mountain" and thought it one of the worst movies of 2005...Lame and waaaay too corny.
 

---

Posted by Monte L Fullmer (Member # 2797) on 01-21-2006, 01:24 PM:
 
Thx Phil, and apology accepted as always. I just need to be a bit more careful in what I say on certain topics.
 

---

Posted by Robert Burtcher (Member # 3227) on 01-22-2006, 05:56 AM:
 
Back on topic...

Caution: This post contains a spoiler or two.

I somewhat enjoyed Brokeback Mountain. The acting and scenery was good, but in my opinion, the story needed some work. In some parts of the film, the story was good and appropriately paced. In other parts, however, I found myself watching the screen, then suddenly the thought, "Oh, hey, look at that. The movie reflects off of the supports for the ceiling tiles," popped into my brain as my eyes got bored and began to wander.

The bit at the end was also disappointing. I would have liked to see more of what happened to Jack Swift... Like an investigation of some sort or Ennis following up with the police, etc. There's plenty of suggestion in the scene to suggest what happened (i.e. Lureen's flat, script-feeling explinaion of what happened to Jack), but enough is left to the imagination to leave some (me included) with a confused, unsettled feeling.

All in all, though, pretty decent movie. A lot more intriguing and original than most of the drivel being produced.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-22-2006, 12:38 PM:
 
OK, I admit I still haven't see it; I hate lines and have a very short list of theatres that I will patronize that do a half-way decent job of presentation worthy of my 10 bucks. BUT, let me put in a few 2 cents here. I find all the hoopla about this film perplexing, well, maybe not perplexing exactly as I certainly understand how the studios' marketing machines work and how they will do anything they can to promote a film. But to say BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is a "landmark" gay film that "takes great risks" is patently ludicrous.

The other day I saw MYSTERIOUS SKIN. People, if think BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN "pushes the envelope," it must be one mighty small envelope. MYSTERIOUS SKIN is BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN on steroids. It makes BM look like kindergarten at Disneyland.

MYSTERIOUS SKIN has mainstream actors who do incredibly outstanding work -- Joseph Gordon-Levitt portrays a gay young man who was molested as a child; he is so believable that it hurts. His work as well as the rest of the case is nothing short of amazing and every bit as worthy of a Golden Globe or Academy Award nod as anyone in the cast of BM. Has this film or the director or the actors even been acknowledged by the media, other than by film festivals all over the rest of the world? Not a chance. The scenes with sexual content are very graphic (but not overtly sexual -- everything is visually inferred like the shower stabbing sequence in PSYCHO); no question the subject matter is as taboo as you can get and as we all know, in Hollywood cowardice is a virtue. So talk about actors being "brave".... this is miles ahead of anything that's done in BM. MYSTERIOUS SKIN grabs you and doesn't let go till the credit crawl. How is it that no one seems to get it: actors worth their profession just play characters; they are not the characters. I'm not a doctor...I just play one on TV. HELLLLLLOOOOO!

So much of what is being said in the media about BM is nonsence when they talk about "a first" in gay themed movies. There is nothing first about it. Has anyone heard of MAURICE, or TOTAL ECLIPSE or the many other worthy gay-themed films, hell, there was a man-to-man, direct-on-the-mouth kiss in SOMETHING FOR EVERYONE way back in the early 1970s....so what's the freakin big deal about BM? The media should really get a grip here and not just regurgitate what the publicity departments spew out.

As for the actors, they really should just shut up already and read their lines because when they are speaking their own words the can really sound stupid. I give you all that crap about how hard it is to do gay characters. We get it Jake Gyllenhaal....your're straight....fine keep patting yourself on the back, as if you did anything to earn being straight, and then get over yourself; no one cares.

As for Hollywood being afraid of gay themes, that goes way back. My understanding is that Paul Newman bought the rights to the best-seller FRONT RUNNER, but couldn't get actors to sign on to the project and couldn't get it produced. He himself was said to have second thoughts about playing the gay coach. He chose the more couragous route and went into the salad dressing business instead. I know some macho stagehands who will not go to see BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN alone; they won't go unless they have a girl with them. For people who profess so very loudly that they are straight and macho, they really need to grow a pair.

[ 01-23-2006, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: Frank Angel ]
 

---

Posted by Don Furr (Member # 1469) on 01-22-2006, 01:37 PM:
 
You're right Frank. It's certainly not the first gay-themed flick to hit the big screen but IMO it was the first one done in this magnitude. The acting wasn't as strong as it could have been but nevertheless it was very enjoyable.
4* out of 5*
I did go back in this Film Handler's Move Review forum to the summer of 2002 and BM has had more reviews on this forum than every movie EXCEPT "My Big Fat Greek Wedding". Gosh, I'm not sure what that means

Don
 

---

Posted by Eric Hooper (Member # 1730) on 01-22-2006, 01:58 PM:
 
Mysterious Skin is more for a select audience. Brokeback Mountain has universal themes and a cross-over audience, without having an 'agenda', not to mention excellent acting, direction, and cinematography. That's what the 'hoopla' is about, and why it's being embraced and hailed the way it is.

Comparing Brokeback Mountain to some of these other 'gay' titles is like comparing apples and oranges.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-22-2006, 04:05 PM:
 
Great post Frank! You nailed it! There have been MANY "gay" films pushing the envelope since movies 1st started.

Perhaps a good reference would be the book: "The Celluloid Closet", by Vito Russo and/or the film by the same title.

(BTW: I wish y'all would stop saying "BM". While we all know "Brokeback" has a "gay" theme, BM sounds more like something my doctor would say.)
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 01-22-2006, 04:54 PM:
 

quote: Don Furr

---

BM has had more reviews on this forum than every movie EXCEPT "My Big Fat Greek Wedding".

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

1. By gay movie standards, alot of people are going to see it.

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

For a movie that is about a romance between two men, a lot of people are going to see it. If the exact same movie came out and nobody went, no one would be talking about it.

---

That is true and very deep. Kind of like the thing with the tree falling in the forest but nobody hears it. Although there are usually a lot of animals in the forest, so I guess in reality there is always someone who hears it. Some of the small animals might also get crushed by the falling tree.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-25-2006, 06:28 PM:
 
Anslem, thank you for the link. I found that list interesting...
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 01-26-2006, 10:36 AM:
 
I second that, Anselm....good reference material. But you know what I found missing? One of the biggest and at least in my time, one of the hottest titles and also the first really big, mainstream gay film that I had ever heard of as a youngster, was BOYS IN THE BAND. I booked it as one of the first films when I first got my job and immediately got into controversy. Seems a gay group on campus thought the film was offensive. Plus, they insinuated that I was booking over their objections because I was homophobic. I assured them that I had not seen the film when it was originally released and that the reason I was booking it was because it was wildly popular, at least here in NYC, with the gay and straights alike and it got good reviews. What other criteria do you need? I was nieve; I had no idea it was policically incorrect or that I had stepped into a hornets nest, and this only a few months into my new job.

But, I refused to back down (even though the higher-ups said what's the big deal, book something else). I did reach a compromise though (ironically enough, suggested by my girlfriend); I allowed the group to hand out fliers at all the showings which would state their position and why they were opposed to the film -- evidently they felt that being the only main-stream popular film about gays, it was very stereotyping. As one of them put it, if the only film anyone ever saw about straight couples was WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOLF, they would be upset too. He had a point. But they were OK with being able to present their opinion. I thought it was a very film and a pretty well rounded piece, but then again, I'm homophobic, so what do I know.

The funny thing is, I was at a party years ago with Edward Albee in attendance; he said that originally in WHO'S AFRAID OF VIGINIA WOOLF, he had written the Martha and George characters as two gay men, and if you revisit the work, you can see how that would work very well with the imaginary child, etc. But he said no one would publish, no one would produce the play and certainly no one would produce the film if it were written that way. Although given the success of BOYS IN THE BAND just a few years later, he might have been wrong.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 01-26-2006, 04:19 PM:
 

quote: Frank

---

But you know what I found missing? ... BOYS IN THE BAND.

---

Yeah, I noticed that too. Also missing was "The Ritz" ... another great film from that era. Perhaps they were not included as they were too early. The earliest film I saw listed was 1979.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 01-26-2006, 08:06 PM:
 
Surprised to see cruising so high on the list, lol . Goes to show any news is good news really. You never hear about that on Al Pacino's resume. "From the star of Godfather 1,2, and 3... And Justice For All... Heat... The Insider comes a new picture...", but notice they never mention Cruising! There was a funny Waynes World skit that mentioned that.
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 01-26-2006, 10:50 PM:
 
Just thought that I'd let ya know that Brokeback Mountain is indeed a Hollywood hit. The X-rated Bareback Mountain, uhmmmm... not Mounting...will be released shortly. It looks incredibly bad, with no Heath or Jake types in it!
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 01-26-2006, 10:54 PM:
 
Thank you for the news that Brokeback Mountain is, indeed, a hit. I shall sleep better tonight.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 02-01-2006, 05:44 AM:
 
Saw it the other night. What did they shoot this with, Super 16? Some of the gorgeous scenery shots were downright soft (no asides, Phil). That one long shot of the pickup truck driving in the distance across the screen, if I were looking out the booth window, I would be trying to focus.

As for the film itself, everyone's already pretty much said it all. I liked it alright; my girlfriend liked it BIG TIME. Wants me to see it again with her. I saw Brooklyn tuff guys with their girlfriends actually sitting through the credits because they didn't want to be seen with tears. Look, anyone who has any feelings at all will relate to the emotional pain of loosing a best friend; gay or straight is irrelevant, and that, I think, was the core of the film, and it made the point very well. Very powerful stuff, and the best thing is that Lee was careful to keep everything tight and underplayed, which made it that much more intense. When Ennis takes Jake's jacket out of the closet, you could hear a pin drop in the theatre, except for the sniffles.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Sefton-Parke (Member # 3623) on 02-06-2006, 03:02 PM:
 
Some of the negative comments by the Yanks are quite appalling. Such xenophobia [read homophobia]is a sad example of just how certain segments of the American population have not kept abreast of the times we live in. "BBM" is a beautiful film. As my business colleague, John Steven Lasher of Kinopanorama, remarked upon departing the Nova Cinemas in Adelaide on Australia Day, "I thank God that I live in a country where individuals are open-minded to the point where they do not offer negative remarks on subjects which, for the most part, are of no interest to them from either a political or sociological standpoint". Judging from the 5-star reviews in the Australia press, and the queues around the block, I am sure "BBM" will have a long-run here. Jeremy.
 

---

Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 02-11-2006, 09:31 PM:
 

quote: Jeremy Sefton-Parke

---

As my business colleague, John Steven Lasher of Kinopanorama, remarked upon departing the Nova Cinemas in Adelaide on Australia Day, "I thank God that I live in a country where individuals are open-minded to the point where they do not offer negative remarks on subjects which, for the most part, are of no interest to them from either a political or sociological standpoint".

---

Are you kidding me? This sounds like a bad line out of a made-for-TV movie ...
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-12-2006, 03:52 AM:
 
Well said, Mike!
 

---

Posted by James R. Hammonds, Jr (Member # 673) on 02-14-2006, 11:14 AM:
 
Apparently Brokeback has been doing so much business that they've actually begun merchandising for the movie.

SPOILER
In the movie, Heath Ledger thinks that he left his shirt up on the mountain but turns out that Jake Gyllenhaal had actually taken it and kept it.

That struck such a nerve they've actually begun reproducing and selling that shirt.. except just like the cowboys, it only comes in brown.
 

---

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 02-16-2006, 08:41 PM:
 
I just have one question. Do they ever eat any pudding?
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 02-16-2006, 08:47 PM:
 
Heck no, Dwayne! We all know cowboys are vegetarians and only eat Cut Green Beans on the cattle/sheep roundups!
 

---

Posted by Dwayne Caldwell (Member # 417) on 02-19-2006, 11:26 PM:
 
But Cartman said all independent films that show at Sundance are about a bunch of gay cowboys eating pudding! How can you possibly refute that!?
 

---

Posted by Jim Bedford (Member # 4) on 02-20-2006, 02:31 PM:
 

quote: Jeremy Sefton-Parke

---

As my business colleague, John Steven Lasher of Kinopanorama, remarked upon departing the Nova Cinemas in Adelaide on Australia Day, "I thank God that I live in a country where individuals are open-minded to the point where they do not offer negative remarks on subjects which, for the most part, are of no interest to them from either a political or sociological standpoint".

---