Movie Review: Brokeback Mountain

(WARNING: THIS REVIEW CONTAINS SPOILERS)

I'm having a rough time with writing the review of this one. On one hand, as you can see, I think the movie is well made and comes together on several levels as a whole. But on the other hand, I'm not sure I like it.

It's hard for me in that I'm an author who is gay--and my bias comes right up as I watched this movie. I mean, for the first time EVER, I saw a movie where I could walk away and relate to the characters on more than one level. Previously, I could watch my favorite Casablanca and understand the concept of giving it all up for the love of your life. But now? I didn't realize that I could feel such a deep connection with the characters played on the screen on such a visceral level. Is this what the straights have been doing for years? You lucky dogs you.

And they say there's no such thing as discrimination against gays.

Let me elaborate by completing the rest of this review. The movie is just like the rest of Ang Lee's repetoire. There's good news and bad all over the screen but, if you've ever seen Lee's films, even his comedies, you know that there is a pall, unseen but most certainly detected, that comes through. You might call it brood or darkness, but it's there, hiding in the corners of his films and this is no different--and that's okay. This film needs to have a bittersweet message and it works here.

I'm reminded of the doomed lovers in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. In the first three minutes of that film, you can see how Michelle Yeoh's face lights up when Chow Yun Fat enters for the first time in many moons and you know that they are doomed to not flesh out that love. Same goes here with the emotional level. Jack Gyllenhall prances in the first few seconds and you smile because you know he's flirting with Heath Ledger's Ennis character but the sadness has already been established with long shots of beautiful but empty exteriors and majestic mountains without human's oogling over them.

I've seen hundreds of lesser known gay flicks (thanks Netflix and Logo) and know that there have been very few major players really have played homosexuality well. I cannot relate to humor of The Birdcage or the epic of Angels in America. They may very well be very good and accurate in their portrayal, but for some reason, these two young men resonate with me. We have to remember, Jake and Heath grew up ina world where Will and Grace were commonplace; that gays and lesbians' fights for equal rights has been televised nightly. They aren't afraid to be a gay characters. And with that, they truly embody the characters. I was able to believe these were real men because of it.

What also pulled me in was that Mr. Lee shot totally on location, giving the flick a better feel of desolation. There were not in a set, I don't believe. There are no overhead shots. There were real houses and apartments. You can see the paneling of the indigent home of Ennis' and the space between the floorboards of Jack's childhood home. The paint on these buildings is in a constant fade; the dust was not put there with purpose.

Couple the decent acting with the art production--you can move onto camerawork. The mountains stay in focus whenever the actors are in the foreground. Welcome to digital people. It works in conveying a sense of isolation that propels the title. These men are physically alone whenever they are with each other--meaning also they are alone in their hearts. Their love can only exist, it seems, behind the curtain of these mountains.

Okay, three good things. I saved writing for last, because that, to me, is the heart of the piece. I loved the The Last Picture Show. That was Larry McMurtry at his best. You can tell that his skills have not waned. He is a man of the West and his dialogue enhances a sense of ruggedness by being curt and direct in it's manner. There's some terrific lines too, like (I'm going from memory here, folks, so forgive me I misquote):

"Now come on Jack, you know the only traveling I have ever done is around the coffeepot to find the handle."

The mere fact that lines like this stayed with me says something--something worth hearing.

But Mr. McMurtry and his wife has committed something grave against this reviewer and this is so major, it really gives me pause. Even the original writer, Ann Proulx committed this sin.

One of the homosexuals dies. Yep. Gotta kill off a queer to make the story fuller.

I HATE THAT and I'M TIRED OF IT.

From my childhood to my adulthood, this is what I've seen of gays in the movies a majority of the time. Sure, it may not be a physical death, perhaps a allegorical death, but it's there. I've had to deal with it again and again. It worked it's way into my subconscious--meaning that at some point I will die as a gay person.

And this story is no different. Why? Well, of course, it had to be the happy one too, the one who gets fed up with his partner's inaction and decides to pursue a life else where. Now my partner points out a few things I need to mention. One, that even in movies like Love Story so long ago, and Dying Young so recently, this is a common theme in romances tales. And that two, that the screenwriters did add something onto the original tale at the very end to show that life does go on and that things do change.

But for me, this is a pretty profound message of an otherwise excellent piece of filmmaking and it holds me back from making a perfect review of the title. It also makes me want to say to people, "hey, this is the kind of movie where you just need to go and see it and decide for yourself."

So did I like the movie? As I reread my words, I'm going to say yes, overall, I liked the movie. Interestingly, I noticed the audience was mostly nongay, but that just probably means I wasn't paying attention. Lots of cowboy hats, but then again, look where I live folks. Did I cry? Sobbed. But also remember, this was the first time I could really relate to what was happening on the big screen.

My biggest hope, sadly, is that this movie makes oodles of cash. For me, that means I can go to the movies again and see more stuff that moves me on a visceral level. Media has been very good to me this year. I never watched television until Logo and now, with Brokeback Mountain, I found out--I've never really been going to the movies either.

Movie Review: King Kong

Okay, so this guy, Kevin Jackson, makes three movies about his most favorite book and they give him an Oscar. Frankly, I don't want to review that movie, for I hate fantasy tales, but I have to say something. I've read Lord of the Rings etc. and you know what? Those are boring books. Really long and they encouraged me to hate the genre more. But still, when I bought those tickets to see what everyone was talking about--wow, just wow. It was obvious to this reviewer that the film maker really loved those titles. He must have, for he took a fanboy tale and made it something for the masses.

So, for his next run, seeing he's already got an Oscar, they gave him the pick of what he wanted to do next. And he, like his favorite book, goes with one of his favorite movies--King Kong. And really, was what great and wrong with the Lord of the Rings was what was great and wrong about King Kong.

Folks, this is the reason we go to the movies. Huge monsters, depth of characters and ongoing action. The concept of spectacle goes one better here, even though Kong is an animal, a CGI one to boot, I felt for him and that only means that the creature was created with enough expression and interaction that I could connect. I found myself cheering and weeping at the right places, so that's all a good sign.

But there are things people won't tell you about this movie. It started long and I knew, hearing from tabloids, that it was threatened to be edited. The studio execs, however, decided not to touch it. Which is, really, one of the things they probably should have. Every sequence is milked for one last CGI shot, as if the director was bragging about his bag of tricks. A three Rex/King Kong sequences just KEEPS GOING, to the point where the casual viewer literally falls from exhaustion at it's completion. Is there a denouement after that? Nope, he then has a bug fight sequence that also keeps testing the patience of it's audience.

It's as if the screenwriter, which I believe is Jackson and his wife, went to the James Cameron School of Egocentric Authorship. Cameron's movies go on and on, and you can practically hear the producers' meetings with Cameron arguing, "no, no, no--You HAVE to keep that part, because..." Same goes here. Dear filmmakers, if you have to explain it, it means that the sequence is not coming across as you are planning, cut the blasted thing and move to a more direct mode of communication.

Since screenwriting is so essential and so key to the film, that takes it's toll on this movie, but really, it survives because so many other important elements take place. I mean, the acting is impecable. Jack Black, an excellent but underused performer, is perfect. I'm unsure if I'm supposed to like him or not--he's a jerk for so long that when he entones the famous final lines, they fall flat. Again, a problem with the writing. Naomi Watts? Perfect, if only given most of her screen time to screaming (more problems with writing). And Adrian Brody? Also well cast--an actor of his talent almost dropped off the screen in some really bad pics, so it's good to see him back.

Now comes the major issue for Mr. Jackson. What next? Without satisfingn his need to elaborate on his fanatic adoration of movies and books...will he try something totally original?