I first read Proulx's story Brokeback Mountain several years ago and thought it was a beautiful, moving love story. It doesn't begin as a story about gay cowboys, but, rather, the characters discover their love with each other. That's part of the beauty of the story. I'm sad that this essential plot twist is no longer to-be-discovered for folks who haven't read it.

Oliver Stone thinks that bisexuality ruined "Alexander"? That's so funny! I've invented a drinking game around "Alexander". Players must drink whenever:

1. Angelina Jolie, playing Count Dracula, rolls an "r" so violently that you can almost see the camera shake.

2. Colin Farrell's eyebrows change color or show considerable grow-out.

3. Colin Farrell's hair changes color or shows considerable dark roots.

4. Colin Farrell's chin quivers before he bursts into tears.

5. Colin Farrell lusts after some man/tranny/woman-who-he-thinks-is-a-wild-animal.

Players should not attempt to play this game using hard liquor (I recommend beer), or players will be drunk within a matter of minutes.

Simpering, unrequited bisexual lusting was the least of that movie's problems. And hell - if the male characters had gotten to act upon that lust, I would have enjoyed it! There would have been no need for the drinking game.

It's funny that this movie, Brokeback Mountain, is aimed at women. For weeks, my female coworkers and I have been making lists of the Hollywood actors that we'd like to pair up. I think they hit the nail right on the head - we're suckers for some guy-on-guy action.

Did the promoters of Brokeback Mountain copy edit your review, or just sponsor it?

From paragraph 1:

"heavily marketed Christian overtones" should be "heavily marketed [blockbuster] with Christian overtones." Sure they advertise the overtones...because they're essential to the movie. C.S. Lewis was a theologian after all.

"a small love story about two cowboys" is conspicuous in its omission of "gay." It's not like they're two best buds in a tandem search for love, like the sentence insincerely implies.

I laughed out loud at the contradiction in paragraph 3:

Brokeback Mountain is "in no way political," but it's billboards announce "love is a force of nature." This is so willfully dumb. The "naturalness" of homosexuality is THE number one talking point for political, social and medical scientists, not to mention the average moviegoing American.

I could go on, but I stopped caring. You should really at least pretend to be objective though...the constant Brokeback Mountain advertisements don't help either.

lesls1, I think most people might want to have discovered that bit of the plot on their own.

"Men have for ages gotten all worked up about the idea of two women making out (I personally do not know a man who doesn't find that exciting), so why can't I enjoy the sight of two beautiful actors making out?"

THANK you, oxymoron!

I personally will be seeing it because I am an emotional masochist and am due for a good cry.

(And not at ALL for the huge crush I have on both these actors. No, really!)

Yeah, I got issues.

They don't know the story yet, but when the wingnut dementalists find out that one of the cowboys get beat to death for being gay, they will be in full support of the movie...wages of sin and all that

I thought the western was inherently a homoerotic genre. This one's probably a bit more explicit, is all.

Do we actually know how much sex and intimacy is shown in the film? Hollywood has been squeamish before in showing male intimacy; this movie may have nothing more than one or two scenes with them lying in bed (or in the haystack) with their shirts off. But Jake Gyllenhaal and Heath Ledger are such babes, and I especially like Gyllenhaal's acting (and he seems to be a really terrific person), that I will definitely go see the movie.

Secondly, Robert Knight needs to come out of the closet.

As a long-time fantasy fan and writer, I've been eagerly awaiting the new Narnia movie, having read the books and seen both the bad cartoon version and the BBC production with the good acting and the Doctor Who-level costuming and special effects. Busloads of fundamentalist Christians, however? Urk. About as appealing as the gay activists who have sworn to see Brokeback Mountain multiple times, whether or not it's any good. Having liked the actors turns in Donnie Darko and The Brothers Grimm, I might want to see that film as well, despite the chick flick quality, but I'd really like to be able to do it alongside people who are there to see the movie, not support the cause, whatever they perceive it to be.

Why not just buy a movie ticket because you want to see the film?

No, SERIOUSLY. Men have for ages gotten all worked up about the idea of two women making out (I personally do not know a man who doesn't find that exciting), so why can't I enjoy the sight of two beautiful actors making out?

I'm looking forward to it in a way I am NOT looking forward to the Narnia movie. Yeah, I loved the books as a kid, but there's been so much hype I am completely turned off.

Brokeback Mountain looks interesting to me because it's got Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, and Ang Lee as Director. I think all three are very good at their jobs, and I think the movie is worth a look because of it.

All the hoo-ha about them being gay is really beside the point. As Lee said, this is a love story, and the fact that they're gay in the script says more about the audience viewing it than the story itself. Like "Look Who's Coming to Dinner", it's only shocking if you think it is.

As for opening on the same weekend as Narnia? Uh, I think that's just coincidental. Besides, small independent films will do better when offered as they should be -- as alternatives to mainstream films like Narnia. Chances are, I'll see both, because they are both very different films, and because they both look interesting.