Zacharek writes:

"Lee and his actors give us the occasional snapshot of intimacy, but that's not the same as wrapping us in its glow, or making us feel the danger of it in our bones. This is an unconventional love story that's carefully calibrated to offend no one. "Brokeback Mountain" risks so much less than its characters do --it's a closeted movie."

Going back to Annie Proulx's original short story and looking at it side by side with the film it's easy to see that McMurtry, Ossana and Lee have given us far more fleshing-out of the characters and story than Proulx did. How much further did Zacharek need the filmmakers to go? Would another half hour of Ennis and Jack snuggling, kissing and stroking each other's cheeks have done it for her?

There was little intimacy in the story. Proulx didn't wrap us up in any kind of a warm glow - it was as spare and minimal a story as I think I've ever read. There was far more left unsaid than what was said; vast spaces in between the lines. There was a void in these guy's lives as Proulx created them and the filmmakers stuck closely to it and nailed the aching emptiness.

Zacharek wants us to feel more danger in our bones? More than we already have there? Does that mean you wanted McMurtry, Ossana and Lee to abandon the essence of Proulx's story and give us something that wasn't there to begin with? Just how much more danger do you need us to feel Stephanie? What kind of a bodycount do you need in your gay-themed movies?

Zacharek wanted a different movie than Ang Lee made. Fair enough. But the movie Lee made was true to the story that Annie Proulx wrote. That's good enough for me.

Gawd, I was so sad to learn that Pinot Noir is now passe`. It's been my favorite California wine for almost fifteen years. (Long before Sideways came along obviously.) And now I have to give up my Russian River Pinots because it's no longer fashionable to drink them?

I can't read food & wine reviews anymore, or for that matter articles like this one because it's taking all the fun out of being a food lover. It's hard enough keeping up with the kind of jeans I should be wearing and now I have to worry about my wine too?

Could someone please tell me what this season's fashionable wine is so I don't look foolish ordering Pinot Noir tonight.

That is quite possibly the scariest shit I've ever read. (Not to mention fucked up and weird.) Suddenly the movie Hostel doesn't seem so bad anymore.

O'Beirne is scary. I mean really really scary. I tried to stop reading, I really did, but it was like a car wreck; I couldn't not look. Now I wish I hadn't.

Is there a cure for this?

One of the letters here from a reader named Camel, got it right...

"Sorry, but when you make your millions of dollars based on promoting the value of being beautiful, then your own looks are fair game, male or female."

Well said Camel. Jeffries has made physical attractiveness (or the lack of it) a fundamental part of his business and personal paradigm. In doing so he's made any and all criticisms or observations about his looks more than a little relevant. What I don't understand is why, given his supposed reticence about speaking to the press, he allowed himself to be interviewed and photographed at all.

There's a reason why so many readers have commented on Jeffries looks. It's not just about being snarky. There's something about that picture of him at the top of this article that's unnerving; maybe even a little scary. Reading the article only further amplifies the creepiness factor that gets off to a good start in the picture.

Of course we're going to comment on his face and his looks and his style. His empire is based on those very things. The emperor however, has no clothes and I'm glad lots of people here are willing to say so.