Suburban Princess

It was that bad? I thought it was supposed to be spectacular. Guess I'll wait to see it on pay per view.

Yeah, I already gave Kel the review. I even did it in two words. I can't believe you got this up so fast! You're a powerhouse!

Heath Ledger wasn't so bad. I actually thought he was pretty good until right at the end when he displayed 2 seconds of the world's worst acting.

I have heard this is just a great movie. Weird.

So had we, Toni. We never would have gone otherwise! Although we did have a discussion afterwards about the type of people who would like it. Maybe you're one of them. We two cynics, just couldn't buy it.

Hey SubPrincess

I'm sorry that you didn't like this movie. Not that it matters but it was on several top 10 lists for best movies of 2005 with a 90% rating from rottentomatoes.com. I thought it took guts for the two leads to take on the roles they did. I also thought it was a brave move on the director and distributors part to release this movie to a mainstream audience. Although I don't think it will break any box office records in Utah or Wyoming (the place where Brokeback Mountain was supposed to be). It was also a nice tribute to the young man who was recently beaten in Wyoming for being gay. It's too bad that people still think that this movie will be liked by a certain "type" of person as mentioned by carly because this movie is really meant to be seen by the people who would make such a comment.

I Like the blog-Cheers!

Hey Dustin -

That's just the thing - I felt like the media focus was more on the fact that they played gay roles, not whether they did any good. Heath Ledger did a great job, but Jake Gyllenhaal not so much. I just didn't buy into their romance. And on another message board I read, someone said it seemed more like an unhealthy obsession with one another than the "romance" it was touted to have.

As for the certain "type" of person who this movie will appeal to, I think part of its hype comes just from the fact that it is about a gay love story. Groundbreaking? Maybe. We've seen gay couples kissing in movies before. So does the addition of a gay sex scene make a movie great just because the director or actors were "gutsy" enough to put that out there? I don't necessarily think so.

It just seems that anytime anyone plays a transgendered or gay character they receive the accolades based on the fact that they played that character, not whether the acting or portrayal was any good. Like I said the other night, "Gay is the new hot topic." It sells right now.

Sure, there's a "type" of person who SHOULD see this movie, but those types of people are likely to be so closed-minded that they won't.

And as for it being on the top movies of 2005 lists, fine, I don't claim to like everything everyone else does - sort of like Elaine on Seinfeld when she didn't like "The English Patient"! Ha!

Glad you like the blog, though!

Hey bex,

Good points, I agree with a lot of what you said. You're right about their romance, I wasn't really that moved at the end to be honest. I wouldn't say the movie was perfect. Although I wouldn't say that the "gay sex scene", if you can even call it a sex scene, is what makes this movie groundbreaking. I think it's the fact that love is portrayed between two people regardless of their sex (albiet the chemistry may have been lacking). I don't know, I guess I just want to stick up for the movie because I can appreciate what they were trying to accomplish. I could be wrong but you may have gone into the movie with expectations that were too high as the movie has been definitely overhyped based on the controversial stuff. Besides, it sounds like you are beyond this issue, judging by your reply, and the premise of the movie could have just been a non-issue. If you want romance, you should go and see King Kong-now that's controversy, an Ape and a Human, Jeez. Those Gay Marriage opponents were right, where will they draw the line. Cheers!