I'm surprised there isn't a topic about this yet. I saw an early screener of Brokeback Mountain a few weeks ago and was very surprised by how good it is. I was skeptical, but I would say that the Oscar buzz about it isn't unsubstantiated. I'm sure it will make a lot of people squirm to see it, but if you can get past all that it's excellent.

It was excellent. Convincing as hell performances, no one felt too miscast, I loved it. It was well done.

No amount of good reviews or anything, with the exception of torture via forced viewing, will get me to watch (and this is not homophobia) gay cowboys eating pudding, especially when it's directed by Ang Lee. What kind of ****ed up world do we live in where a movie like that gets like seven Golden Globe nods?

elliott...

By Jake Coyle
Associated Press
Published October 21, 2005

NEW YORK -- With the political relevance of "The Daily Show" and the huge DVD sales (and subsequent hiatus) of "Chappelle's Show," it's easy to forget about that other Comedy Central show, "South Park."

But Matt Stone and Trey Parker's crude cartoon began its ninth season Wednesday -- and it remains the network's most-watched program. It is also the most manic thing on TV, with entire episodes created just days before they air.

Parker, who turned 36 Wednesday, and Stone, 34, last month inked a deal for three more seasons and "South Park" has begun appearing in syndication in some markets -- both of which assure the world of Cartman, Stan, Kyle and the rest will continue to expand.

Q. Cartman once described independent movies as "gay cowboys eating pudding." Now we have "Brokeback Mountain," an upcoming movie by Ang Lee about gay cowboys.

Stone: If they have pudding in that movie, I'm going to lose my mind.

Parker: No, if there's pudding eating in there, we're going to sue.

Q. Are you guys prophets?

Stone: No, but Cartman is. (Laughs) We went to Sundance a lot in the mid-to-late '90s, and you could just tell it was going toward gay cowboydom.

i just love how its treated like the first movie to ever deal with homosexuality, it quite frankly sickens me, i only wish i knew someone who was gay so i could explain to them that most filmmakers arent like that and its only the studios marketing it.

I LOVE IT

This is one of the first great movies to deal with homosexualism in a way that doesn't really portray it as anything other than two men in a loving, yet confused relationship. It doesn't focus too much on the physical aspect of it. There's a few kisses here and there, but it's more of the internal struggles that these two men deal with. Many gay films which I've watched seemed as though they were almost made to suit a gay audience. This one seems universal, a movie about gays for everyone to watch.

It's a shame that people can't just go and watch it and be afraid they'll like it. If you don't like it after you see it, fine, I'll accept that. This isn't like House of the Dead or a Uwe Boll movie where it looks absolutely horrible enough to prejudge it.

I think it's Ang Lee's only above-par movie, but thats another argument for a different day. I believe he's a terribly overrated filmmaker at times, but this was truely an amazing movie.

quote:

This is one of the first great movies to deal with homosexualism in a way that doesn't really portray it as anything other than two men in a loving, yet confused relationship. It doesn't focus too much on the physical aspect of it. There's a few kisses here and there, but it's more of the internal struggles that these two men deal with. Many gay films which I've watched seemed as though they were almost made to suit a gay audience. This one seems universal, a movie about gays for everyone to watch.

I'll still always see it as ur cliche senseless love story with a new marketing tool

quote:

Originally posted by Hill Dawson Kane:
I'll still always see it as ur cliche senseless love story with a new marketing tool

You've just never been gay and in love, Kane.

quote:

You've just never been gay and in love, Kane.

Fash, your wise beyond your years

Okay. I live in the boonies, Oklahoma. Out here, you call someone a ****kicker, you're going to shot and buried in a ditch somewhere. So the concept of gay cowboys...to put in less harsh language...is something of much dispute. I haven't seen it. And I really don't want to. But I may just to find out if all the talk praising it is truth. I'm not one for "southern pride"...but damn...gay cowboys? That's just not right.

Lol. Yeah, cant imagine Clint Eastwood starring in this film.
Anyway, I'm undecided whether I'll see it or not. On one hand I want to because its getting a lot of critical acclaim and a good film is a good film regardless. On the other hand I don't because, honestly, I just don't like to watch men kissing or being intimate. I'm not a homophobe, but it's just not what I like to watch.
I'll probably see it one day, secretly, to avoid being taunted by friends.
I was actually best man at Eltons wedding, while we're on the subject.

I figured you guys would be a bit more open minded.

Anyway, the intimate scenes aren't massively apparent. Out of the movies 2+ hour running time, theres maybe 40 whole seconds of male on male action (it also shows breasts, for those curious. Both Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway.) The male on male scenes are not even done in a perverse way. It's not like watching gay porn, it's about as explicit as the sex scene in the Terminator between Sarah Connor and that dude from the future. Get over it.

I saw the film with my girlfriend and my two friends who are gay, and they were glad to see a mainstream film that doesn't view homosexuality as a perversion. This film could've very well been a guy and a girl, and it would've been so much less significant I'm sure, but it happens to be two males, it happens to be extremely well done.

Also, who cares if your friends taunt you? That's the stupidest reason for seeing a movie. Most of my friends are the most homophobic, closed minded *******s on the planet. I've got one who's favorite movie is Garfield, and another who says "Anything that's not thrash metal is gay." Do I care what they think? No. My friends reasoning for seeing the film was the same as yours Company, "I'm not a homophobe, but men kissing and butt****ing is not what I like to watch." If this were a movie about life in the ghetto, and you said "I'm not a racist, but black people interacting are not what I like to watch", you'd be pegged as a racist. (I'm not calling you a homophobe or a racist, I'm just saying that maybe you should watch how you word things because that doesn't look right when you write it in a message board.)

Sorry. If I've offended anyone, I didn't mean to, and I'm not trying to start a flame war or anything. I just had a heated debate with someone in my work place, a government office that works to fight for Civil Rights, regarding this movie. I'm a little bit steamed right now.

quote:

Originally posted by paul:
This film could've very well been a guy and a girl, and it would've been so much less significant I'm sure, but it happens to be two males, it happens to be extremely well done.

Proof right there stating it's a gimmick. Matt Stone and Trey Parker weren't being homophobic when they made the whole "gay cowboys eating pudding" joke years ago, they were making a critique on indie films in general and their (no pun or hate inteneded) tendency for art-fagishness. Topped off with direction from Ang Lee and you have probably the movie that will most likely drive me to suicide.

Sorry if that sounds defensive being as there is no reason for me to be, but I was really pissed off the first time I read about this movie getting buzz at the Toronto Film Festival. It just angers me how easily a movie can be so well received when you use a sort of controversial subject like they did. I dunno, it feels like it taints the collective unconsciousness of movies.

elliott...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: MeGrimlock,

I don't think they said "Lets take a screen play about a cowboy and a cowgirl falling in love on a mountain, except, eh **** it, lets make it two cowboys." They just adapted a book, a book that was first published in (I think) Feb of 2000. I don't think the book was written as a gimmick, and I don't think the film was made as a gimmick. The fact that they took a controversal subject and did it in a non-exploitive way was what I was trying to get across. A gay movie that was done as a gimmick is "Hellbent" a gay slasher film. There's a different between making a film with a gimmick and making a film with out one, and sometimes that's a thin line, but this film was not made as a gimmick. A film that uses homosexuality as a gimmick would have stereotypes, which this film sorely lacked because these guys could very well be like you and I.

The movie was extremely well done, gay, straight, or anything inbetween. The characters were believable, nothing seemed forced. None of the sex scenes seemed inappropriate or exploitive. There was a great sense of conflict between the characters.

And for the record, I actually forgot that I was watching an Ang Lee movie. I don't like anything the guy has ever done, I hated the Hulk, Eat Drink Man Woman, and especially Crouching Tiger.

I really wish you'd just give it a chance. I wasn't going to go see it, and then I did and I was glad that I did.

If I got free tickets I would go and see it, but actually paying money to watch two men make love does not seem like a good use of my $$$. If I wanted to watch a movie about two homosexual lovers, I would make my own movie (for free) and then watch it. Only Id make it about two girls. Or aliens. Or maybe both.

I agree w/ paul. How can you judge a movie before watching it. It happens to be about fags. So what? I'm open to watching anything, and only after do I decide what to think. I seriously think you guys have a lot of evolving to do. It may not be my cup of tea, but it still may be a good movie. Stop thinking about what went on behind the scenes, and just go into the movie without any biases. No expectations. You need to be able to watch all kinds of films. Not just one kind. Don't be so closeminded.

In person, if someone were to say the same kind of sh*t you guys are saying about how you don't want to see a movie because fags happen to be in it, I'd probably deck him/her in the face, and throw him/her in the trash can.

Death to George Bush.

quote:

In person, if someone were to say the same kind of sh*t you guys are saying about how you don't want to see a movie because fags happen to be in it, I'd probably deck him/her in the face, and throw him/her in the trash can.

Yeah we need to do the evolving. We should all be more like you; if someone has a different opinion than you do, you "deck them" in the face.

quote:

Anyway, the intimate scenes aren't massively apparent. Out of the movies 2+ hour running time, theres maybe 40 whole seconds of male on male action (it also shows breasts, for those curious. Both Michelle Williams and Anne Hathaway.) The male on male scenes are not even done in a perverse way. It's not like watching gay porn, it's about as explicit as the sex scene in the Terminator between Sarah Connor and that dude from the future. Get over it.

I don't think any of us are having a problem with the fact that it includes gay themes, its the hollywood gimmick that's been deployed, and the media attention that's been peddled forth. I'd prefer the more honest (in comparison) gay porn to this.

quote:

How can you judge a movie before watching it.

If that's the case then I can't watch "Brokeback Mountain" until I get through "Glitter", "In the Mix", "You Got Served" and "Barney's Big Adventure". And after that I'll have to listen to the next Britney Spears album, cause it just might be good, and it just might fight a major pandemic on a small south pacific island, but would you say I'm jumpign toa conclusion when I tell you it won't happen, and that based on that I won't listen to it? Moral of the story, if it smells like ****, you don't have to eat it in order to find out 100% for sure. If that's being closed minded, then I apologize.

If Fash is so open-minded, then why is he so closed-minded towards people that dont like fags. Being open minded is pretty much a paradox.

Of course it is... however I don't see it as too hypocritical to be open-minded towards everyone who isn't close-minded.