We went and saw it and my ___ was killing me when we left

 

The whole point of this thread was "who has seen this movie and what did you think of it" Nowhere did I ask for people who haven't seen the movie to come in and post their opinions on homosexuality and morality or to make off color comments and jokes that you may find amusing but that others will find hurtful or offensive.

If you saw the movie, then by all means give your honest opinion. Because that's what this thread is all about.

On a side note - Someone mentioned something about Brokeback only grossing 5.75 mill and its been out for a couple weeks compared to Hostel which just came out this past weekend and has grossed almost 20 mill. So that must be proof that no one wants to see this type of movie. In response to that, Hostel was released all over the nation on the same day, while Brokeback has only been released in limited locations around the country. If you look at the dollars per theater then you would actually see that Brokeback has been extremely successful and has already recouped all the money it took to make the movie and is already making a large profit. I would also like to point out that it is the years most critically acclaimed movie and has more awards than any other movie. this has nothing to do with pushing "gayness" down America's throat. it has everything to do with amazing acting, beautiful scenery, a unique script, and good direction.

People who are truly into movies wouldn't even bat an eyelash at the more intimate scenes in the movie. They aren't afraid to let a movie, a play, a song, or a piece of art to push them out of their comfort zone and open their eyes to something new. They would appreciate it for what it really is, which is exactly what the movie critics are doing with this movie.

 

Well, if you don't expect this in the off-topic cafe, and with the content, then you're fooling yourself.
Threadjacking is nothing new, and if you want to hear how people thought the mountains looked nice, you're crazy.
If you don't want to talk about the subject matter, I suggest reviewing cartoons instead.

Scott

 

That would be me. . . and you have a point. . . sort of. Theaters often relfect their markets. . . ie, this movie will definitely open in San Francisco's castro district, LA, NY; places where it will gross a high % of revenue. Therefore, revenue per theater is completely and utterly arbitrary. You could make the argument that theaters are biased into not realeasing the movie (which is the case in I think ONE state), and you would have a valid argument. However, if the movie would sell well, I see no reason why a money grubbing, $10 per ticket, $5 grease covered popcorn selling, rip off of a theater company would not host the movie. IMO, the reason the movie is not on wide release is that in most theaters, the owners will simply make more money selling a more universal movie. In terms of profit, this movie wasn't exactly a high production value film. . . nothing too spectacularly expensive in its making. Not that this is a B movie, but it is the same concept. B movies are profitable, since little money is spent making them.

And critics. . . that is something that is based completely on subjective logic. There is no objective argument, citing subjective critic opinions. All studies show that Hollywood is totally off-base with the American public.

You guys make the argument that the "passionate" scene was small and fickle point to argue about, and I can see where you are coming from. You have to realize that to others, it's not that small of an issue. And that means that people are intolerant. . . or ignorant. . . however you want to call it. But, like I said, the public is not something easily swayed. It takes a great deal of finesse to sway the public. . . and I think that that scene (as small as it was) was something America was and is not ready for. . . yet. Even so,

 

No one is arguing that this movie will most likely ever be a 100 million dollar box office hit. I was just trying to give credit where credit is due.

Does anyone else find it just a little disturbing that a movie about torture and death is considered mainstream, but a movie about 2 guys that love each other is considered artsy and controversial?

It would probably be mroe beneficial to teach our children that there are many different kinds of people in this world and we need to be tolerant of that instead of teaching them how to pop someone's eyeball out with a soup spoon or the best tool to use to chop someones toe off

 

 

hostel is mainstream beacause horror movies have been out for ever and are always pushing the envelope to be more extreme then the last one... in al honesty... i really dident find hostel to be very disturbing at all... it had it parts.... but has anyone ever seen a movie called "high tension" now THAT was a sick movie... it was like some french film that was bubbed in english

ok now about where that was goimg... mainstream america KNOWS horror movies,,, and EXPECTS them to be better then the last... if they werent what would be the reason to go see them???

THIS movies is somthing new... and is somthing that is a VERY UNCOMFORTABLE TOPIC TO MANY AMREICANS...

thats why hostel is accepted where as BBM is not

 

All good posts. While we can argue here over what's "normal" it does no good as that's as subjective as movie reviews.
My earlier post where I asked what if in 20 years, people start pushing for (legally speaking) adults to marry (again, legally) underaged persons is valid. 20 years ago, you would not have seen many ___ men/women in the open. It was considered bad/wrong/evil/whatever. So, the logical extension of this is who decides? What's normal? What's OK?
I think that Americans (can't speak for anyone else) ARE uncomfortable with homosexuality. Are they "wrong" or "stupid"? I don't know. I'm not totally comfortable with it, but I'd never hurt anyone's feelings that is ___ or certainly would not tolerate violence against them.

One last thought for you guys: There's a HUGE line in between being uncomfortable and unsure and the dumba$$ rednecks that would beat you to death on the side of the road.
If you want to help the population get a better understanding, then you need to work at it too.

Scott

 

your right 20 years ago... youwouldent see many public gays or anything like that... or like on tv... being ___ in public is somthing that is new still... i think this movie is about 20 years ahead of its time... in 20 more years society will be much more acceptable to the ___ comunity im sure... but then again... who knows

 

I'm not too sure I am following what you are saying here. So since I don't comprehend the connection you are making between homosexuality and pedophilia, I will just ignore it.

I will also never understand why people are opposed to ___ marriage. The 2 most common answers seem to be "it ruins the sanctity of marriage" and "marriage should only be between a man and woman because they are going to procreate"

the holes in those answers are so big I could drive my TC through them

 

There is no "connection" other than being ___ was not "acceptable" 20 years ago - will relationships between an older/younger person be in another 20?

Are you saying that is a bad thing? Who dictates? Many countries - as did America years ago - allowed very young women to marry...

Society sets standards. There are no set rules as to how this works.
I remember as a kid, if couples were of mixed race, THAT was scandalous! Now, today, it's no big deal.
You can't force people to accept things on your timeframe - it must happen (if it does at all) through hard work, time, and personal growth.

Scott

 

.......... Did they eat pudding?? I MUST KNOW!!

 

And you've got an excellent point there. Sexuality is such taboo. . . even a boob on TV is more scandalous than outright murder and violence. Some people say that sex is a form of social destruction and degradation. . . regarldess of the validity of that notion, I think violence and murder rank much higher on the priority list. . .

 

I just thought I would post this for you guys. Its a copy and paste from MSNBC.

"Following a near-sweep of year-end critics’ awards for best picture, “Brokeback” has exceeded box-office expectations for a ___ film. Still in relatively limited release, it crossed over the $30 million mark in the United States this weekend, while pushing “King Kong” out of the No. 1 spot in the United Kingdom. Despite being pulled from one Utah megaplex, it’s selling out at a nearby Salt Lake City theater. According to Variety, it’s also doing surprisingly well in such cities as Nashville, San Antonio and Sioux Falls, South Dakota. It’s been in release for more than a month, yet on a per-theater basis, it’s doing better than the weekend’s new releases, “Hoodwinked,” “Glory Road” and “Last Holiday.”

The film’s unexpected appeal to heartland moviegoers has generated plenty of commentary, most recently from The New York Times’ Caryn James, who suggests that the two-decades-long secret affair between Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Ennis (Heath Ledger) is essentially a backstreet soap opera with great appeal to women.

“They are as truly in love as two people can be,” writes The New Republic’s longtime movie critic, Stanley Kauffmann. He sees the picture as a witness to “the delicacy and pain and almost unbearable joy of the pair.”

The Nation’s pop-culture writer, Richard Goldstein, even argues that it has fans in unlikely places. He claims the Christian right has been muted in its objections to “Brokeback” because the movie “echoes the fashionable fundamentalist idea that disapproving dads make deviant sons. . . both Jack and Ennis had brutal, distant fathers."

Not too bad for a movie that is too controversial and that no one wants to see.

 

Husker, you missed the point of the joke. Hint: they like it in the ___. Now that you have the joke in context, think about it again.

 

thank you Mister Obvious. We all get the joke.

 

I can't make the connection between homosexuality and pedophilia either...as far as "___ marriage" goes, we should lose the word "marriage" and just go for "civil unions" I personally don't care about what it's called so long as if something happens to me my partner will be taken care of, have some say in what happens to me if I'm incapacitated, and many of the other benefits that go with the state recognition of a legal "marriage"

sorry for digressing from the topic...

 

I agree. I don't want a wedding or ceremony. I just think everyone should get the same benefits, including tax breaks, will provisions, adoption rights, health care, etc.

 

exactly what I'm saying...let the them keep their sanctity of the word and let us have legal rights and benefits.