That's great, but it's all to easy and fairly common to label any guy who doesn't want to see this movie as hung up over the prospect of two cowboys roping and riding each other.

I haven't seen the movie, but I'm supremely picky about movies (imagine that) and tend to stick to older ones I've never seen.

I've only seen random stills, so my view is pretty limited, but is Jake Gyllenhall actually passable as a cowboy? From everything I've seen in print, he's not really convincing as someone who leads a pretty rugged lifestyle.

Jake wasn't as convincing as a cowboy. Heath Ledger did a decent acting job.

Nah. I wasn't meaning to do that. All I was saying is that it's not a film that was created to be jarring.

Yeah, Jake Gyllenhall isn't really cowboy material. There's something about him that just screams: nerdy, straight, indie-rock and/or phliosophy student guy---a pretty far cry from "gay cowboy".

Sorry. To clarify, I wasn't saying you were, I'm just saying it seems to be a pretty stock reply.

It's all good.

Last night we took this in. Theater was about 80-85% full for the 7:30 showing, expected it to be full, based on the crowd waiting to buy tix.

I went in with high expectations, and they were fully realized. To me, this is just one of those movies that completely clicks on every level that it should. Visually speaking, the cinematography is gorgeous. The rolling landscape in all its green lushness, to the small Wyoming dustbowl of a town all are all so amazingly well shot, that I wouldn't be surprised if there is a rush to move to the state, though it was shot in Alberta. They also made good use of making the mountain/nature scenes more "soft" in nature, while the interior and town scenes more rigid. One of the most beautiful, yet chilling scenes in the film (and can be seen in the trailer) is that of Heath Ledger under the fireworks. It just worked. Definitely sent chills up my back, coming from a cameraman background.

Heath Ledger completely was an acting stud. Whatever acting 'roids he took, he should definitely invest in another case. His mumblesque demeanor fit with how I picture a tough cowboy to be. He just fit the role from his stenson to his wranglers. Ledger was that guy who comes from a broken home and just deals with it. Somehow he prevails through this, simply by his swagger. His tortured soul act, again to me, flawless. Here we have a man who is caught between what he knows to be wrong (socially) and what he feels right (emotionally). Ledger convincingly protrays not only this duality with a sense of urgency that leaves you gripping to each frame, but he doesn't push it in an unhealthy direction.

Jake Ghyllenhal, since I saw him Donnie Darko has been a favorite actor of mine. I can not tell you how excited I was to see Jarhead, and really to be honest, it could be said that this film's viewing was spurned on by him. Definitely overshadowed by Ledger, Jake may not be as recognized in this film, but his cog definitely supports strongly this film. He plays the catalyst, the dreamer, the guy who talks big but inside feels nothing but pain and anguish. Jake's eyes are so telling in his acting. Seriously. Notice them next time you rent one of his films. BM was no different. Close shots of his face saw us peering into those eyes, and realizing how pained he was. Whether he was convincing as a cowboy seems to be a hot topic. I'm of the camp who says that his less than perfect portrayal is integral. Here's a guy who, if he wasn't in such a strict cultural void and was living in modern day, would probably be a very out man, and living it up as a gay man. Ghyllenhal protrays that wild side of his character to a tee, making us squirm as he so openly flaunts his burgeoning lust.

The story spans 20+ years, so obviously this was a tough spot for me...visually. Probably the weakest of the areas of the film is the fact that the actors age. It just doesn't happen. They all look like hapless 20 somethings with bad hairpieces. Jake gains a mustache, Ledger's hair thins slightly, and well, Anne Hathaway takes the cake. Her big hair is well, simply speaking, straight of the Judds playbook. With that being said, it really doesn't affect how you'll watch this film. The story is so riveting that you'll let such a petty problem slide. I really honestly think people are under the impression that this is going to be gay erotica. The hetero sex scenes are much more graphic than the gay sex between Jake and Heath (which coincidently only happens once on screen). The man/man kissing happens quite a few times, but its so emotional it really doesn't register.

The film really is as emotionally beautiful as it is visually beautiful. To say this is a "gay" film is just ignorant. It isn't about whats gay or whether indeed it is gay, because to me, that fact is even up in the air. The beauty lies in how delicate a relationship is, and how it can affect those around you, even when you try not to let it tear you apart. If you walk away with anything, it should be this: we all have Brokeback Mountains in our life. To Health and Jake's characters it was their love for one another's embrace. Whatever yours is, it surely eats you up inside, and cannot be quenched with how infrequently you visit it.

Well said, FR.

And I agree about the Anne Hathaway's wigs. Funny as hell. Oh, and how about Jake's pseudo-gut.

Thanks O. To me, it is well worth the hype surrounding it. You may or may not agree, but to dispose of it as some "novelty" film just shows ignorance.

Is it okay to just not be interested in this movie? Gosh, I hope so. Gay characters or not, I wouldn't be interested in this movie. I'm not in the slightest bit offended or weirded out, whatever, by the gay issues presented in this movie. I just have absolutely zero interest in watching it. I'm also not interested in seeing Munich - does that make me anti-semitic?

i'll admit it. i'm not all that interested in seeing a movie about male on male romance.

Did you even read my post?

Wasn't really all that interested in seeing it.

Went with the gf.

Loved it. Very sad.

Great movie though IMO.

That's a very fair statement. Only, without further explanation it's hard to process.

What about it makes it uninteresting to you? Ang Lee as a director? The popular press from awards? Movies about cowboys? Movies about American middle culture and its weight on us? Mountain scenery? Jake Guyendarko? Consensus popular picks? Movies you are told you are supposed to like?

A couple of those I can totally relate to.

Thank you, and I think you just addressed what is completely odd when people say "I don't care about the gay but...".

I'm pretty sure the only chance I'll see this is if Iraqi insurgents kidnap me and give me the option to be tortured by having my fingernails slowly removed or watching a movie about gay cowboys in the 1960's.

And I'll be upfront and honest and say it's because it's about gay cowboys. I rarely like love stories to begin with and most of those are older movies anyway. Can't say the last time I enjoyed a love story. Throw the fact they are gay on top of that and it makes my ability to relate even less. I'm not mad they made it or anything, and I can totally see the appeal to some people. Also I think Jake Gyllenhall is vastly overrated.

I don't know, let's see, I've read the synopsis and since I've already discounted the film because I'm really not all that interested in romance films AND cowboy-themed movies (last cowboy film I saw was Unforgiven, mostly because I like grumpy ol' Eastwood,) a romantic cowboy film in general holds no interest to me. Like I said, the gay aspect is not an issue in any way whatsoever.

But you're perfectly illustrating what I'm talking about - some are offended that people actually don't want to see this movie just because they don't want to see it. I can't believe I have to be on the defense because I'm not interested in a freakin' movie. I think people would be more satisfied if I said, "I ain't watchin' no fag-cowboy movie."

i didn't watch "the notebook" because i hate hetero movies

Pretty much all of these. + what oldbullee said.

But see, thats the thing. You are the one who makes a big deal out of it. If you weren't interested then why even pipe up about it? If there is a topic about a band I don't like, and I don't feel like quantifying my thoughts I pass it by. All of the sudden when people question yr motives you act like someone is harassing you. The fact of the matter was you came into the thread and posted, expect to be questioned. I expect people to ask me why I think its great or why I went to see it.

Because it's the topic du jour, or the topic of yesterdujour and du jour before that, etc. Why comment on half the crap on Obner? Because it's there.

I think I made my point pretty well - no one should suspect anyone of being homophobic simply because they don't want to see this movie. No one should be raked over the coals simply for stating something that should be that obvious, but as evidenced by the reactions in this thread, it certainly isn't.

I enjoyed the shit out of this film - probably the best thing I've seen in a year or two. Having said that, the dude+dude action was VERY difficult to watch, and I openly turned my head a few times. Not because I objected to what was going on, but because it's just something that doesn't sit well with me visually. Fucking sad, sad, good movie.

That make sense?

That's what I don't get--actual physical revulsion at the sight of two men humping.

And yet:
1. Millions of people are happily downing their popcorn while watching "Hostel."
2. Lesbian scenes? Fuck yeah, dooood!!!!

O life.

And let's not forget the Gimp and Ned "You got a purty mouth" Beatty.

Yeah I struggle with that too, even as it happens to me. I can't explain it, and I even have "straight man's guilt" over it, but the sight of guys kissing just makes me kinda queasy. Again, no judgement... salute... just somehow don't wanna actually watch it.

Those are rape scenes; they should cause physical revulsion.