I love Stephanize Zacharek's movie reviews. She has become my favorite reviewer in the past several months, and, along with David Edelstein, is the only reviewer I read with regularity and anticipation. I think she has wonderful taste in movies and tv shows (Buffy!), a strong and admirable sense of social consciousness, and prose so evocative and enviable I've found myself gasping in awe and pleasure at some of her descriptions. I have no idea what the fuck is up with the other reviewers; if they want to read glowing reviews all the time, they should head over to Joel Siegel of Good Morning America.

Yeah you heard right-I'm seeing this movie and I'm going to love every minute of it! Maybe Ms. Zacharek should ask herself what she "felt" about the picture instead of analysising every bloody detail and minute flaw for once and learn to sit back and enjoy.

Anyhow did you actually do your research before seeing this flick Ms. Zacharek or forgot to do your research, like you did for RENT (which I also saw and loved and am now seeing the stage show in May!) Did you even bother reading Annie Periox story as well or just walk in ignorent of what the story is really about?

I've been looking forward to seeing "Broakback Mountain" since I heard Ang Lee would be directing since his forte tends to be culture and relationships in the majority of his work. Look at "The Ice Storm," with it's bedhopping husbands and wives with estranged and angsty kids in 1970's USA, or "Sense and Senseability" and it's social mores and marriage in early 19th Century England. If you ask me Ang Lee is brave to take on such as movie and "Broakback Mountain" and actually try something that most film makers wouldn't even try to do with gay charactes-humanize them.

In essence the story between Jack and Enis isn't about how much sex they having (not that that's the point), or how much we see of it. Lee isn't going to forwards his opinion on Gay Marriage or any political issue that are happening in the NOW! Its about a time, a place, two men and the culture that they live in and how hostile it is for there "relationship" whatever that may or however you may interpet it!

Now does that mean the film-and to a certain extent the short story-raise questions about America and it's hostel culture towards certain relationships. Of course, how could it not. But honestly, on the other hand who the heck would want to live a lie anyway, unless there are certain circumstances that require such a horrid thing to happen to someone, anyone.

Well I have said my opinion-and I'm going to the movie!

I wonder what Ms. Zacharek meant by not 'brave' enough. Not enough love scenes? Not explicit enough development of the relationship? More political message? She doesn't say.

The impression I get is that the movie isn't trying to make too much of a point. This is what is usually good about Mr. Lee's films. It's just a story of forbidden, doomed love. This is probably the oldest type of love story in the world. If it gets you to believe in the characters, in their love, and makes you feel their loss, it is the most moving type of story you can tell.

If Ms. Zacharek thinks the two leads characters were one-dimensional, or their relationship unbelievable or undevelopped, and their loss consequently unaffecting, then it is indeed a failed love story. But I don't see where 'bravery' fits, or why more attention to supporting characters is necessary.

I haven't seen the film yet, but the short story was not a failure. It was extremely moving, within the space of 30 or so short pages. I hope the film works even half as well, not as a brave message or trailblazing statement, but as a simple, sad story of two men's love and loss, of a dream deferred and deferred again, and finally, inevitably lost forever, crushed out like a homely cigarette butt under a cowboy boot. That will be plenty brave for me.

If the film isn't any good, I highly recommend the book.

Sounds to me like the reviewer is bemoaning the fact that the film is not enough of a "chick flick" where emotions come gushing off the screen in a flood of tears. Considering the director is Ang Lee, I wouldn't expect that. No one seems to expect restraint in a gay-themed film. Why is that?

First, I haven't seen the movie, so I'm not evaluating Stephanie Zacharek's review per se. But from her review it does sound like the movie is faithful to the Proulx short story--the "dumb" lines, the women's lack of presence, and most importantly the dynamic between the leads. I think this is the key:

"With "Brokeback Mountain," Lee's intention, clearly, was to give us a romance between men, as opposed to a gay romance. This is a story about lovers separated by circumstance -- that they both happen to be men isn't inconsequential, but it isn't the central defining factor of their existence, either."

What I remember from Proulx's outstanding story (don't have it on hand) is exactly this. The cowboys, in the story, are two kind of thick guys from the country who, while not destroyed by the idea of having the hots for each other, just can't even conceive that they might be "gay," whatever that means (to them and us).

That the story is a romance between men, and not a gay romance, is what makes the short story unique, and to the extent that it *is* a gay romance--and this extent is extremely subtle and unspoken--that gives the story its tension.

Again--haven't seen the movie. But, from the reviewer's description, it's faithful to the text, not just literally but figuratively. To be what she apparently wants it to be, it would have to be unfaithful to Proulx's work. Which, of course, isn't disallowed or even a bad thing in and of itself. But it's worth noting.