Brokeback Mountain

Started by Ghostboy, August 25, 2005, 02:42:52 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

abuck1220

they were laughing like you'd expect an (stupid) audience to laugh at the kid from american pie getting caught fucking the pie. as if there was going to be some three's company-esqu hijinx stemming from it.

Redlum

Much snickering in my showing, too.

I cant beleive it but this film deserves the accolades its getting and then some. Quite possibly my favourite film of 2005.
\"I wanted to make a film for kids, something that would present them with a kind of elementary morality. Because nowadays nobody bothers to tell those kids, \'Hey, this is right and this is wrong\'.\"
  -  George Lucas

Sunrise

Ang Lee continues to amaze...I can't imagine a film as stylistically different from Hulk as this one. I thought the film was wonderful. I don't know that I want to watch it again any time soon, though. I found it incredibly sad. My wife was a faucet.

Ledger's performance came out of nowhere for me. He showed glimpses in Monster's Ball but this performance was a kick in the chest. You can feel everything that is going on underneath from his eyes alone. Incredible.

Also, my audience was great. Total silence. It was a sparse, mature crowd, which is probably the best for viewing the film.

Figure 8

I saw this not too long ago, and was actually kind of diappointing.  In many ways, I thought that it really was this "beautiful film" that people keep describing, in the way it looked and the story it told.  I think the thing that I didn't like is how it's being advertised: as a great love story.  I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love.  It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.  Looking back on it, I liked the movie, and I think it was an important movie to be made, but when I was watching it, it just wasn't the kind of movie I was expecting to see at the time.  Maybe if I get to go see it again, I'll like it better, but it isn't playing anymore.  But I also thought that it dragged a bit, in the middle/ending when it was just going on over time.  After a few years, the same thing kept happening and I was just starting to lose interest.  But I don't want this sounding like I'm saying this is a horrible movie, because I did like it, but I just keep hearing people say that it's the best movie of 2005 and how amazing it is, and I guess I just think there are different movies that deal with the same subject matter that do it much better.  At least this got more of a mainstream release.

polkablues

Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love.  It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.

But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love.  The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Figure 8

Quote from: polkablues on January 19, 2006, 07:13:20 PM
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love.  It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.

But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love.  The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
Yeah, I know.  I've wondered if that's what made me feel that way when watching it, but it just kind of felt to me that Ang Lee felt that way too, and that was his focus, rather than when someone is just writing a generic love story, I think the directors motivation is a bit different.

matt35mm

Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 07:50:26 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 19, 2006, 07:13:20 PM
Quote from: Figure 8 on January 19, 2006, 04:02:12 PM
I see the love story, but it feels like when Ang Lee made this movie, he wanted to make this movie about sexuality, not love.  It seemed like the sexuality was just overused, kind of, or too self conscious to really show a true love.

But 99% of all the love stories ever made have used sexuality as a signifier for true love.  The only reason it sticks out more in this case is because you're not used to seeing it with two men.
Yeah, I know.  I've wondered if that's what made me feel that way when watching it, but it just kind of felt to me that Ang Lee felt that way too, and that was his focus, rather than when someone is just writing a generic love story, I think the directors motivation is a bit different.
Are you saying that that's a bad thing, though?  I agree, it's not directed like one would direct a generic love story, and I think directing it like one (where it JUST HAPPENS to be two men) wouldn't do justice to the complexities of the situation.  Homosexuality is specifically a major theme, it's not meant to be a love story that just happens to be homo.  I don't think that removes from the power of the relationship, even if they wanted to spend most of their time together having sex.

godardian

Quote from: matt35mm on January 19, 2006, 10:41:35 PM
I don't think that removes from the power of the relationship, even if they wanted to spend most of their time together having sex.

My impression was that they didn't necessarily want to spend most of their time together having sex, but their time together was so very (heartbreakingly) limited and pressured that they wanted to connect in the most powerful way possible.

I was scared by the cheesy trailer, but I really loved this movie (which, as per usual, was absolutely nothing like the trailer). In the Ang Lee oeuvre, it makes a great pair with The Ice Storm in the same way Wedding Banquet and Sense and Sensibility make a great pair--or Crouching Tiger and Hulk. I didn't understand why everyone hated Hulk so much. I liked it at least as much as Nolan's Batman Begins. I'm not a comic-book person, though. . . maybe there was something about Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Pubrick

Quote from: godardian on February 01, 2006, 04:55:44 PM
maybe there was something about Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
nope. people just didn't get it, besides me and JB
under the paving stones.

JG


RegularKarate

Quote from: Pubrick on February 01, 2006, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: godardian on February 01, 2006, 04:55:44 PM
maybe there was something about Hulk that wasn't "true to the source?"
nope. people just didn't get it, besides me and JB
and me

©brad


matt35mm


modage

Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

Gamblour.

WWPTAD?