So last week I head on down to the old movie theatre to catch "The Constant Gardner" (which for the record, you should check out...it's a great film which is a good example of how a good director can take a rather uninteresting story and turn it into a very good movie with creative pacing, good use of flashbacks, and great performances.)

 

Anyhow, during the previews for this movie I discovered that some guy named Jake Gyllenhaal plans to take over the world by being in every movie from now on. The first three previews? All had him in them. One was for some movie called "Proof" which looked quite lame. The other was for a movie called "Jarhead" which might be okay.

 

The third?

 

It was for "Brokeback Mountain" a movie by Ang Lee. About two cowboys in love. Here's the word from the IMDB...

 

"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."

 

Here's the problem. You've got two wannabe tough guy cowboys (we'll save the debate about how tough Heath Ledger and Jake look for another day) who are shown making out, and being all tender for each other.

 

The best part was when one of them looks at the other with teary eyes, and says in a great old west accent:

 

"I don't know why I can't quit you."

 

I swear to you...I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, and for him to end the sentence with "boy." As in...I can't quit you boy and you got a real purty mouth.

 

So the thing is...people in the theatre were literally laughing their heads off at this preview. I have to admit that I myself did a fair bit of snickering. The thing is...I'm not a homophobe, nor do I have any trouble with gay love stories being shown in movies. I remember being moved by Philidelphia, especially the scenes with Hanks and Bandaras as a couple.

 

This preview however, looked so...forced. It was almost like somebody wanted to try and prove that gay guys can be macho, manly, and cowboys too. The problem is, that the reaction was so comedic, I wonder how this movie will do. I wonder if America is ready to have one of their ultimate symbols of masculinity...the cowboy...professing love for one another and rolling around the countryside in a long kiss.

 

Has anybody else seen a preview, and do you see what I mean...or am I really a homophobe and I don't know it?

Just the description of two gay cowboys in love as directed by Ang Lee drew a chuckle from me. Not because of the gay cowboy part, but from me remembering how long and overdrawn The Hulk was. I wonder if the gay cowboys have to fight CGI Hulk dogs and Nick Nolte on a 3 day bender.

 

Previews can be misleading, but when two leads that are supposed to be in love have no chemisty it's embarrassing no matter if it's a gay or straight relationship.

I have nothing against gay people or cowboys but I dont see this movie doing well with the general public.

According to Drudge, this movie is an awards front-runner. As the liberals in Hollywood see this as a way of sticking it to the man, as in "the red states".

Thats hilarious, I love when conservatives think everyone has an agenda. Like how that show with Geena Davis as a woman president is an evil liberal plot to prepare people for Hilary running in 2008.

Here's the actual article because its hilarious for many reasons. I found the funniest part to be the woman from Wyoming takes offense to the fact that this movie is stating that gay cowboys live in her state.

 

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN NOV 06, 2005 19:28:02 ET XXXXX

 

HOLLYWOOD ROCKED: 'GAY COWBOY' MOVIE BECOMES AN OSCAR FRONTRUNNER

 

Arriving with nudity and explicit gay sex scenes between two cowboys, UNIVERSAL/FOCUS FILMS's BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN has quietly become an award season frontrunner, interviews with Academy members reveal.

 

"It could very well be the last film standing at this year's Oscars," a top Hollywood producer not associated with the film explained from Hollywood.

 

"There was not a dry eye in the house at the screening at Telluride [Film Festival in Colorado]," says the producer, who asked not to be named out of respect for the cast and crew of the producer's own Oscar contender. "Watch it come out of the gate at the Golden Globes with super controversy."

 

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS critic Jack Mathews predicts the gay cowboy movie, which takes place in Wyoming, 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."

 

Director Ang Lee's movie staring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger won the Golden Lion, the top prize at the Venice Film Festival earlier this fall.

 

But will a movie even Madonna calls "shocking" sit with the heartland?

 

Playwright and lifelong Wyomingite tells the STAR-TRIBUNE of Casper this week that she has never encountered a gay cowboy, and doesn't think it's right for Hollywood to portray Wyoming as a state with gay cowboys.

 

Her message to the writers of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN: ?Don't try and take what we had, which was wonderful -- the cowboys that settled the state and made it what it was -- don't ruin that image... There's nothing better than plain old cowboys and the plain old history without embellishing it to suit everyone."

 

Meanwhile, Michell Howard of the state's Travel and Tourism Division says her agency is already hearing a buzz that people in other countries are expressing interest in visiting Wyoming because of the film.

 

?It's gotten rave reviews from the international community,? she said. ?I don't know if they're more tolerant or something, but they're viewing it as a great Western movie.?

 

Developing...

Oh man, that's the funniest and saddest thing I've read in a while.

sek, you might be a liberal, and I might be a conservative...but...

 

I don't know why I can't quit you, boy.

Yeah, in Wyoming, gay cowboys don't live. Instead, they tie them to fences and beat the shit out of them until they die. As for the movie, there's been a buzz over it for a few months now and who knows if it'll be any good or not. I'm a fan of Jake Gyllenhall, at least I was in Donnie Darko, but Heath Ledger is still sort of unproven with me.

 

I hate that this movie is going to become a political issue, or at least that's the way things seem to be going.

 

Only you know if you're a homophobe or not, Dave. I'm inclined to think you aren't.

 

I think the following line from Q is more (un?)intentionally funny than anything in that article:

 

I have nothing against gay people or cowboys but I dont see this movie doing well with the general public.

Anyone else hear the buzz about this movie and think of the South Park episode that talks about independent movies all being about "Gay cowboys eating pudding"?

 

 

While the buzz on this movie is that it's well-made, which I certainly believe if Ang Lee is involved since he did "The Ice Storm" and "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", the publicity mill around it referring to it as as a "gay cowboy movie" rather than something more orthodox is going to be a serious negative.

 

 

If they'd painted it as "An epic drama of cowboys surviving in the Wild West" where the two protagonists happened to be gay, that would be one thing.

 

However, this somewhat flaming "It's about two gay cowboys!" buzz is more of an Ellen Degeneris "I want attention! Look at me!!!" ploy.

 

Now if the movie fails, the publicity people will come out and talk about how middle America wouldn't accept the wonderful film, a la "Alexander", which was Oliver Stone's failed movie about Alexander The Great which he still bitches about the audience not accepting.

I hope it ends up better than Ang Lee's last effort, although gay cowboys fighting hulk dogs would be entertaining.

Also, for all the usual cries of "OMG LIBERAL HOLLYWOOD~!" I'm only hearing conservative media outlets bringing attention to this movie. Kind of like when they tried to turn Million Dollar Baby into some Hollywood crusade to kill disabled people.

 

All the fuss they're making over this movie is just giving it more of an audience than it would ever have hoped to have before it was the headline of every conservative blog and family group.

I have no doubt that the studio will be thrilled that people are complaining about this movie. Any publicity is good publicity, and if it gets people to go and see the movie to see what all the fuss is about, or to show the people who are protesting that they are standing up for free speech and all that...then it will work out for the studio and Ang Lee.

 

I'm conservative as they come, and as such, I could give a shit what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, so long as they aren't trying to force me to do it, or ramming it in my face to make some sort of statement.

 

I have no issue with gay people. My understanding is that America is the home of the free, and gay people should be just as free as straight people. My only point about this movie was that the trailer made the entire audience laugh when they saw it...which since it's not a comedy, that was probably not how it was intended. It wasn't an embarassed laugh either, it was a "spare me with how corny that was" laugh. So I will be interested to see how this movie does. I won't be seeing it, since Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are not two stars who get my money, and I find Ang Lee to be iffy at best.

Anyone else hear the buzz about this movie and think of the South Park episode that talks about independent movies all being about "Gay cowboys eating pudding"?

First thing I thought of when I saw the subtitle.

The film got rave reviews on Ebert & Roeper this week.

 

I haven't seen it, but I thought the trailers looked interesting.

 

And Ang Lee wasn't always bad. Watch Eat Drink Man Woman; it's great.

'Brokeback Mountain' Sets Records

 

Controversial new western Brokeback Mountain has broken 2005 box office records by scoring the highest per-screen average take for any film released. The film, featuring Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger as secret gay lovers, 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. The film opens all across America on Friday. The film was named the year's Best Movie by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association on Saturday. The film's director, Ang Lee, was also named Best Director.

 

- IMDB.com

caught it last night, and it's pretty phenomenal. it's certainly not perfect, but god damn if it doesn't get you where it counts. it doesn't work as well as it should as a love story (it's pretty obvious that they tried really really hard to create a mythic Great Screen Couple for the ages, but sometimes it just comes off as trying too hard), but it fucking EXCELS at the devastating long-term consequences and conflicts of being a homosexual & trying to assimilate into "normal" life while still trying to find some small degree of happiness. the characters make real decisions and try to figure things out (ledger & gyllenhal actually come alive more when they're dealing with their respective individual lives than when they're with each other), and the film does a stellar job of how such a social taboo is capable of quietly destroying all sorts of lives. the movie isn't just all "woe are these two star-crossed lovers;" it's very honest about the effects on wives, parents, kids, everybody.

 

it's definitely made in such a way that it demands the issue be taken seriously; it's far too brimming with everyday messiness, far-reaching consequences, and change over time for anybody who sees it to still laugh it off as "that gay cowboy movie." i won't dwell on its flaws (although, admittedly, there are a fair amount), cause what works in it works really well, and that's more than good enough.

Saw it and wasn't really impressed by it at all. There were some really strong parts, but Heath Ledger's character mumbled too much, and I missed a lot of important storyline developments as a result. I also thought the portrayal of gay people was way off, and I never got the feeling that the two main characters gave a shit about anyone except themselves and each other.

Well, to be fair, they weren't really supposed to portray "typical" gay people. It was 2 guys who fell in love but had no words to express it in an environment that was foreign to the notion of "Gay". I agree about the mumbling and I am sure my wife will force me to buy it on DVD anyway so I'll have the subtitles to pick up on it.

I understand that. I'll elaborate.

 

There wasn't much initial love in this love story. Their first sexual encounter came as a simple result of an anal insertion. No kiss. No build to it. They just woke up in the middle of the night and fucked. Very weird.

 

I think I might have liked the movie more without all the hoopla, but for the first 30 minutes or so of the movie, every time they're in a scene together, you're just expecting them (not really wanting them to, but expecting them to) to jump each other's bones at a moment's notice. That's what ended up happening, so I guess expectation is the creator of disappointment after all.

 

I can understand marrying their wives out of obligation to society, or whatever you want to call it. It was a different time. I don't think they loved them, and I think that's part of the story, so I can accept that. But did they care about them at all? I finished the movie and wasn't even sure if the two leads were even good people with good intentions or not. And really, all I kept thinking was that they had only themselves to blame for 90% of the problems they had making a long-term relationship work. There's no one else at Brokeback Mountain that could see them long enough to have a problem with them. It's a gigantic ecosystem where only they exist. So why couldn't they continue living there? I guess that would be too easy, and wouldn't allow the plot of the movie to occur.

 

The scenes with the children really bothered me, at least with Heath Ledger's character. Jake Gyllenhall's child was pretty much ignored -- no consequence, no thought ... he was willing to leave it all behind and stick his wife with his responsibility just for the opportunity to be with his secret lover. All that's known is that his father-in-law was a major control freak and didn't see him as "a man". The only time in the entire movie I found myself rooting for him was when he stood up for himself at Thanksgiving dinner.

 

Heath Ledger's character was more willing to make choices, but even then, it was too little, too late. He blows off his daughter's pleading for him to take a more active role in her life, ignores her request to move in with him, constantly sticks her mother with all the difficult tasks of being a parent and leaves overnight constantly to have an affair.

 

#1 - He's married.

#2 - He has children.

 

The rules change at that point. He acknowledges that, but it's less out of moral obligation to do right by his children and more out of just obligation period.

 

As much as I hate to say it, Hollywood is just glorifying this because it's a gay-themed movie. Sure, the acting is great, even phenomenal at times, but the fact that the movie's main characters are so reckless -- and here's the key, they *know it and don't care* -- makes this a major turnoff for me.

Drudge Exclusive

 

As the first wave of Oscar voting closes, a sibling rivalry between films at UNIVERSAL has turned sour.

 

The enthusiastic backing of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN by UNIVERSAL chief Stacey Snider has come at the expense of MUNICH, a top source involved with the Steven Spielberg drama tells the DRUDGE REPORT.

 

"Stacey and her team believe BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN is their winner this year," claims a well-placed insider. "The movie has been spoiled, spoiled and spoiled again, with endless promotion and support. MUNICH, on the other hand, has been horribly neglected. Steven has been thrown in the backseat. It has been painful."

 

Tensions flared further with news that BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN passed MUNICH at the boxoffice in total receipts!

 

BROKEBACK has been far more profitable, costing only $14 million to make, while pulling in $34 million so far in domestic sales. While MUNICH cost $70 million, with a $33 million return.

 

A UNIVERSAL source strongly denies a BROKEBACK preference at the studio.

 

UNIVERSAL President Ron Meyer is said to be MUNICH's top advocate and supporter, calling it a masterpiece.

 

"We are behind the movie 1000%, and strongly believe it has a great shot at winning Oscars," says the studio source.

 

"More money has been spent on TV advertising [for MUNICH]."

 

Hollywood players watched Spielberg's polite reaction as Ang Lee's controversial western won award after award Sunday evening during the nationally televised GOLDEN GLOBES.

 

But behind the scenes, a quiet anger has developed over the handling of MUNICH during the award season run-up.

 

"She says she loves all of her children equally, but Stacey [snider] and her team have given every priority to BROKEBACK," charges the MUNICH source. "Gay romance is easier to sell to the academy than a complex study of an Israeli assassin."

I really do not like Steven Spielberg at all, and if this story is true and the success of Brokeback Mountain is really getting to him, I think it's fantastic. Now I haven't seen either Brokeback Mountain on Munich, but the fact that he's mad about the studio backing Brokeback morseo than his movie is downright absurd. The whole reason why the success of Brokeback is so astonishing is because Universal has barely spent any money at all in promoting it, instead letting all the reviews, controversy, and nominations do the promoting for them. Munich has had a ton more commericals and promotion behind it. Spielberg is trying to blame others because he has a potential bomb on his hands, which costs $70 million to produce and has only grossed $34 million in 26 days, currently on it's way out of the top 10.

I haven't seen this yet, but I'm a huge fan of Ang Lee's early work. Glad to hear it's doing well.

I guess Speilberg doesn't consider the possibility that people are getting tired of his previously formulatic movies.

Actually, Munich is very different from the normal Spielberg popcorn forumula and it's an excellent film. I think Munich isn't doing as well as normal Spielberg fare because it's not a Spielberg popcorn flick.

 

While I loved Munich, I can see why it's not doing so well. The ads for the movie don't do it justice and it's sort of hard to decide what it is. Also, it may turn people off since the jump off to the story is the slaughter of the '72 Isreali Olympic team. Not exactly feel good stuff and that kind of flick is hard to promote to the masses.

I saw Munich and loved it. It will make my Top 10 for 2006, I would bet. Excellent film, well made, well paced, well acted, and fairly presented. After everything Speilberg has done for his people and WWII vets, I respected his viewpoint regarding the conflict in the Middle East, although I am not as optomistic as he is about peace. Great film.

 

You know what just struck me? Back when if first came out, I made an effort to see a movie called JEFFREY. I knew it was a so-called "gay" movie, and yes I am a so-called "conservative" but I wanted to see it, because it looked interesting to me. So I did see it. Then I remembered a little movie called MAMBO ITALIANO which was also marketed as a "gay" movie, but which I also went out of my way to see.

 

I LOVED both of those movies. They both presented gay men in very sympathetic yet realistic roles. One is about living with dating in the age of AIDS, the other is about coming out in a culture which is not accepting of gays. Both are "comedy/drama" movies but they do not mock the topic. I own both films.

 

Working in the Social Service field, this film has come up as a topic of discussion. When you say that it might not be a good film, or that you have no desire to see it...in some company you get typical white liberal guilt reactions. "OH YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT GAYS! THERE CAN BE GAY COWBOYS YOU KNOW!" Brokeback Mountain has been out for 6 weeks and is about to fall out of the Top 10. It has made 32 Million which isn't bad I guess, but it's hardly a blockbuster. I think my issues with Brokeback Mountain is that people are going out of their way to shove this film down people's throats and heap praise and awards upon it despite the fact that it...gasp...might not be a good movie.

 

I need to ask some of my gay friends what they thought of Jeffrey and Mambo Italiano in comparison to Brokeback Mountain.