"Brokeback Mountains" breaks back into Box Office Top Ten

Sorry, no link.

It's at number 9, still only 400+ theaters, and still has an amazing $12,000 per screen average.

I have mixed feelings about the film--wish it were "gayer", but when I see things like those idiots in Utah canceling the film, you realize it really was as gay as it could be.

"John Wayne would not like it" I'll puke.
Fact is..John Wayne was VERY tolerate towards Gays..
From what I read, he got along with everybody on the set..

it would be hard to make it gayer in those circumstances.

film and theatre are about friction or tension -- and how best to handle that friction or tension for the viewer.

other than that -- woohoo:woohoo:

"get-aways" to be longer. They were too brief. I never really felt the connection between them--I did at the beginning when the movie moved slowly and they came together. The middle part really had too many short scenes. Just one long scene with them--not sexually--but connecting while they're away together.

I'm sure the characters felt the same way ;-)

I agree, it would have been nice to see more of them together like that, let the audience see why they were so excited to get together. I don't think it was all just sex; that scene of them jumping off the cliff in to the lake hints at that. I suspect that such scenes were done, but ended up on the cutting room floor; the movie is pretty long as it is and there isn't much else that could have been sacrificed without damaging the core story.

I really, really hope that a director's cut is put out.

I think this was done purposefully so that the audience would feel the fleeting nature of their meetings. I think it would be difficult to induce the audience to understand the loneliness of a dozen or so meetings over a 20 year span if we were privy to more details. It would change the meaning entirely if it focused on their satisfaction rather than their frustrated longing. I, as an audience member did understand why they wanted to get together; I think it is a very rare movie in which I actually believed the characters were in love.

..I fear it would come close to replicating the idiocy of "Bridges of Madison County." Is it that goofy, or is the story actually something that can be stomached???

known as Bridges of Madison County.

MC was a stupid book, another lousy Clint film, and a hammy performace (yet again) by Meryl.

BB is well done and well-acted.

The local paper did a big article today about why it wont show here. The theaters said it wouldn’t make enough money to warrant them showing it..I don’t believe it for a minute.

I guess I'll have to wait for it to come out on DVD to see it..

I think what bothers me about Brokeback is the way the film "expands" on the original story. I loved the original short story on which the film is based. Even though the film remains faithful to the book, it's very apparent that Ang Lee and the screen writers expanded portions of it to make it appeal to a broader audience. It's not that I minded the characters of the wives being fleshed out in the film, but at some point it ceased to be "our" story and was turned into a watered-down version that would have broader appeal to straight (and predominatly female) audiences.

Maybe I wouldn't feel that way if I hadn't been so emotionally invested in the written version, but I felt terribly cheated by the film version.

Sadly, I don't think Hollywood is capable of making a gay mainstream movie because "gay" and "mainstream" are separated by a wide chasm. Look at some of the previous efforts like Making Love (a sappy soap opera) or Philadelphia (ooooh! let's feel sorry for a dying gay guy).

If I want to see a gay-themed movie that accurately depicts gay life, I'll stick to the small, independent features and not "mainstream" films made by straight actors and straight directors who stand around and congratulate themselves about how "daring" they were to make the movie.

Brokeback Mountain was a decent film ... but it wasn't half the story the originaly short story was.

appeal was intentional, or simply a by-product of the screenplay being written by a straight man and a straight woman? Maybe they thought they were making a gay movie, but parts of the story appealed to them, so they made those parts more prominent in the film, not realizing it?

The story was a very short prepective of one cowboy's inabilty to cope with his sexuality in the 60's and 70's midwest atmosphere of homophobia.

I'd rather have the movie keep with the book then try to be more gay.

I don't think the film did anything to make itself less gay in order to cave in to conservatives.

I just wanted more screen time with Heath and Jake--their characters needed to connect more on an emotional level than they did for me to really buy their love. Yeah, it was Wyoming--heartland of ignorance (spent my summer there this year) and I see that they were showing how difficult it was for them. But when they were alone and relatively safe, they needed to connect more.

Just got back from seeing "The Producers". I didn't realize that "Brokeback" was showing at the same theater (hubby bought the tickets). Funny, funny movie, but definitely gay-friendly. I don't see Fundies picketing outside of that one! :D

The real thing that makes being gay more than just a sitcom joke and challenges preconceptions is always going to piss off the bigots because they don't want gays being portrayed as humans.

It was a powerful movie, yet oddly understated. You'd have to be a pretty cold person to not feel empathy for Ennis by the end of the movie. I think the saddest thing about the movie is that everyone was pretty much emotionally crippled by the circumstances and everyone's motives felt realistic.

It was a really good movie.