'Brokeback Mountain’ a dull and overrated affair
Friday, January 6, 2006
It is a gripping love story about two individuals whose unconventional affair is not easily understood by the rest of society.
I’m of course referring to “King Kong.”
“Brokeback Mountain,” on the other hand, is a monotonous and often inadvertently campy romance that rivals “The Hours” as the most overrated movie of the decade. Talk about making mountains out of molehills.
Although the picture is reputedly “cutting edge” in its portrayal of two men (Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal) who share a secret relationship throughout their adult years, in many ways it’s a formulaic “chick flick” in which the white-bread male lead has been replaced by two white-bread male leads.
In other respects it’s just a variation of the dinner theater play “Same Time, Next Year” but featuring gay cowboys.
To use a more accurate term, they aren’t really cowboys. They’re shepherds.
The film begins in 1963 when the laconic Ennis (Ledger) and impetuous Jack (Gyllenhaal) are hired to tend sheep on Wyoming’s Brokeback Mountain.
After many chilly nights together, their bond turns physical. At the end of the summer, Ennis returns home to marry his sweetheart, Alma (Michelle Williams), and Jack hooks up with rodeo queen Lureen (Anne Hathaway).
Yet the men keep rediscovering each other over the course of the next few decades, and their pent-up emotional longings slowly corrode relationships with wives and children.
Jake Gyllenhaal, left, and heath ledger star in “Brokeback Mountain,” a story of two gay cowboys based on a short story of the same name. Entertainment editor Jon Niccum gave the movie two stars despite other critics’ praises.
Based on the E. Annie Proulx short story, “Brokeback Mountain” has the opulent, drawn-out pace of a drama enamored with its own self-importance.
While the setup has real possibility, the story’s central theme of unquenchable romance simply falls apart because the principal characters are so dull.
Ledger (“The Brothers Grimm”) has been slathered with all kinds of acting accolades for portraying this mumbling Marlboro man. Funny, because the Australian hasn’t given an above-average performance in his 13-year career. Yet suddenly he’s Oscar-caliber, earning superlatives from critics such as “astonishing,” “brave” and “transcendent.”
I guess it’s possible to misinterpret his shallowness for introspection.
And Ledger makes it even easier to read one’s own feelings into Ennis’ behavior because his ridiculous “Southern” accent renders much of what he has to say impenetrable.
In fact, the final line of the film is a total mystery. I actually rewatched the ending (courtesy of a studio DVD screener) four or five times and still have no idea what Ledger is muttering.
When the official disc hits stores it will hopefully have a closed-captioning feature.
Director Ang Lee (“Hulk”) wants to make sure that the straight guys being dragged to theaters have something to enjoy, so he throws two completely unnecessary nude scenes in that exploit the attributes of Williams and former “Princess Diaries” star Hathaway.
Brokeback Mountain
**
Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal are sublime in director Ang Lee's new forbidden romance story. Much has been writen about the bravery of all involved to make a movie about gay cowboys. Once you step back from the hype, "Brokeback Mountain" is a simple, yet finely nuanced relationship picture that uses our preconcieved notions of the Western film against us.
He also doesn’t want this demographic to think because these cowboys are gay that they are wimps, so he creates one of the most inane sequences of the year in which Ledger gets tough with a pair of bikers during a Fourth of July celebration.
What DOES “Brokeback Mountain” have to offer?
It’s certainly pretty to look at. Cinematographer Rodrigo Prieto rebounds nicely from his yucky work on “Alexander,” capturing lush, empty scenery that reflects the social chasm that separates the men.
The always reliable Gyllenhaal at least supplies more on-screen charisma than Ledger, though he’s far superior this year in “Jarhead” and “Proof.”
The picture does boast one exceptional performance: Williams. The “Station Agent” actress delivers a scene where she confronts her emotionally distant husband about his annual fishing trips that is the most devastatingly honest moment in the piece. She fully deserves her inevitable supporting actress nod from the Academy.
Otherwise, “Brokeback Mountain” merits nothing more than nominations in a few technical categories.
Those wanting to see similar subject matter portrayed with real passion and believability should rent “Boys Don’t Cry,” for which Hilary Swank won her first Oscar. There is more depth in five minutes of that movie than in the entire two hours and 15 minutes of this prolonged, forgettable enterprise.
— Entertainment editor Jon Niccum can be reached at 832-7178.
Miles Bonny / Organic Proof (on the patio) :: Veteran area groovists Miles Bonny and Organic Proof (pictured) kick off a series of first-Saturday shows under the stars with full hip-hop, soul, funk, and jazz flavors ... More info
Comments
lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by bennyoates (anonymous) on January 6, 2006 at 5:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I haven't seen Brokeback, but have been very impressed by the three Ang Lee movies I have seen. So, I'm fairly sure I'll like this one. On the other hand, Niccum called the contrived and condescending Crash the year's best film. Talk about overrated--that movie defines the term.
1 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Robert (anonymous) on January 6, 2006 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't understand what this reviewer is talking about. Obviously this person doesn't understand much about movies at all. Grow up!
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by feefifofum (anonymous) on January 6, 2006 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have to give the reviewer credit for knowing that THE HOURS was extremely over-rated. In fact, it was just plain bad.
0 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by srj (anonymous) on January 7, 2006 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I thought CRASH was an excellent movie. Matt Dillon and Terrence Howard were great in it.
2 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by greyhawk (anonymous) on January 7, 2006 at 10:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well, it looks as if I will greatly enjoy Brokeback Mountain since I tend to like movies that JN denigrates and can't stand the movies that he extolls. At least he's consistent in that regard!
1 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by kidmystic (anonymous) on January 7, 2006 at 2:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear LJWorld,
You could save money and office space by just subscribing to
A.O. Scott's NYT reveiw and reprinting it. Please consider this.
ps- Oh yeah, and then we could read decent reviews by a guy who has an idea of what great film making and acting looks like. At least pay for JN to take a few film classes at KU next semester.
0 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by 0426Roses (anonymous) on January 7, 2006 at 6:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I liked this movie but to each their own, Jon. I still luv ya!!
"Funny, because the Australian hasn’t given an above-average performance in his 13-year career."
*yawn* weak. It doesn't (and won't) matter anyway.
Not that I think I personally need some official Hollywood validation to think I rightly enjoyed his performance, but I'll be happy for Heath if he wins any of those awards. And Kiera, too. Bwhahhahahahha...
Oh, and one more thing... [major spoiler here, folks]
s s
p p
o o
i i
l l
e e
r r
s s
p p
a a
c c
e e
It's "Jack, I swear."
y
o
u
'
r
e
w
e
l
c
o
m
e
;)
0 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Dazie (Aileen Dingus) on January 7, 2006 at 10:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
OK. I'm going to go with the technical aspects, since that's where there aren't any spoilers.
Visually amazing. The scenery where they shot this film is fantastic, and the cinematography really matches it. Ang Lee and his cameramen captured the grandeur of the wilderness AND the intimacy of the "smaller" scenes well.
I don't know if it was the sound system in the theatre that was lousy or the sound from the film or what, but there were times when it was very difficult to understand what the characters were saying. Yes- Heath Ledger does mumble his way through the film, but it works for his character.
The supporting cast does very well. I didn't recognize Randy Quaid at first, until he spoke. I swear he put on 150lbs for this movie. Anne Hathaway shows surprising subtlety in some of her scenes, but in others I found her pretty flat. Ditto with the other girl who's name I forgot. Michelle something? There seems to be an awful lot of "stare blankly" written in to her character, and she pulls that off pretty accurately.
You all know the story, (unlike the man behind me in the theatre- he was pretty stunned at the whole thing) so there really isn't anything I can say to add to that. I do have a question to ask though, so if you have seen the film, please email me and I'll ask you...
2 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Mama (anonymous) on January 7, 2006 at 10:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I was really excited to go see this movie but afterward felt it was about 30 minutes too long. Yes, the scenery was beautiful so kudos to Rodrigo Prieto. And I knew what I was getting into but the initial sex scene was awkward to me. Seemed rather brutal! Michelle Williams deserves the accolades, but Heath Ledger Oscar worthy? Come on! However, it was worth the price of admission just to ogle him for 2 hours dressed in cowboy attire. Yummm-meeeeeeee!
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by onceinawhile (anonymous) on January 8, 2006 at 1:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)
0426Roses is correct on the last line of the movie.
& I thought this movie was really, really good.
1 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by 0426Roses (anonymous) on January 8, 2006 at 8:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wanted to write some more... (spoilers obviously)
Anyone else enjoy the biker/4th of July scene? Ennis overprotecting his family on a day celebrating independence (haw!!) and his wife with that what the fuck or who is this guy look on her face. I thought it was great and visually cool, too. that's what I think I was thinking when I saw it. THat was a week ago, so it's starting to fade.
I think neggid Anne Hathaway was pretty far from unnecessary exploitation or whatever either. It was a quick fling in a car that evolved into a bad marriage. I guess they coulda cut faster or something but, jeesh, they're just boobs. I know I haven't heard anything along the lines of "thank gawd i saw Ella Enchanted and Dawson's Creek girl nude!!" but I could be gettin old.
Still a few sure whatever moments (like ennis and jack kissing right outside ennis' house) in this movie, but it was good.
Yeah, Jake was pretty good in Jarhead! Oo-rah
Peace and luv, all of ya!! xoxo, 0426
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by annieinkansas (anonymous) on January 9, 2006 at 5:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Harsh review. I thought it was a love story for guys -- not chicks. Chicks like a little romance, this was sorely lacking. Rough and dumb, long and slow -- what more do you need to know about Wyoming?
0 of 3 people found this comment useful.
Posted by MadAnthony (anonymous) on January 9, 2006 at 8:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think its telling how the homosexual community gets their proverbial panties in a wad over Gene Shallet or Jon Niccum having the honesty to pass on the hype and p.c. rhetoric and call a bad flick a bad flick. Those with the queer eye are never slow to cirtique all that they can about Western Civ, but shriek when one seeking to be in the cultural mainstream fails to rise and beat the pom poms when ordered to by the gay cheerleaders.
0 of 2 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Aiko (anonymous) on January 10, 2006 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Gayness!
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Multidisciplinary (anonymous) on January 10, 2006 at 6:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Best comments in the paper for a long time. Thanks. I knew nothing about the movie, too busy to pay attention, but it was among our possible choices the other night.Now that I know, I think I'll invite a previous extremely Roman Catholic boyfriend to it.After all, he took me to "Sahara" which I hadn't ever heard of,he told me he thought it was a documentary piece.As we walked in, I saw the posters, and just started to laugh to myself. This would be only fair, don't you think? I think I will enjoy this at least for the scenery, or rent it at a friend's with a really BIG SKY screen.Or perhaps it's only right to watch this the same season as Casanova ??? Curiosity will definitely get the better of me here,until the new season of Nip/Tuck anyway LOL.
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by bennyoates (anonymous) on January 11, 2006 at 6:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Quite a few bitter and confused people here. Don't know whether to pity or laugh at them. Usually some combination of both.
Many people have an unending appetite for movies in which men do violence to one another. Once a while, a movie comes along that offers something different, and then watch all the cockroaches scatter when the light comes on.
Yeah, right, this is just a "gay movie." Or, it's just "PC rhetoric." For some of us, it's a movie whose director has an international reputation for excellence; a movie whose screenwriter, Larry McMurtry, has been a beloved and bestselling all-American author for four decades ("Lonesome Dove" is one example); and a showcase for several talented young actors.
It's also a film about how the American ideal of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn't available to all Americans. Hate to break that to the cockroaches, but it's true.
This movie is a commercial and critical success, and there's nothing its opponents can do about it but whine and insult. Keep it up, if it makes you feel better. The rest of the world will go about its business just fine without your approval.
0 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by narky (anonymous) on January 11, 2006 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)
the state of kansas rears its ugly head...again
1 of 1 people found this comment useful.
Posted by kkimball (anonymous) on January 12, 2006 at 5:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
its funny...i grew up in Lawrence, but moved to the East Coast for college, grad school, and life thus far, but I still read the LJWorld online now and again. Often I'm impressed with how in touch Lawrence remains to artistic culture and dialogue and how great the scene is there...something i didn't have an appreciation for when I lived there.
But when I read this ridiculously written review that 1) displays a fundamental lack of understanding about movie direction and 2) is so poorly written stylistically and 3) contains material inaccuracies about events in the movie, I bump up against the limits of that appreciation.
Indeed, I am grateful that there are other places for people in Lawrence to read intelligent opinions and analysis than from this bufoon who has very little credibility (in my mind) to be influencing artistic opinion, based on this review.
In fact, I almost feel bad for Jon Niccum that his views, opinions and impressions could be so wrong and inaccurate. His understandings about these characters, their development, and the subtleness of a relationship that takes place over 20 years under a shroud of secrecy and deception, is juvenile at best.
For example, to fault the movie b/c the character mumbles, is to ignore the allegory between mumbling and self-hatred, lack of comunication, the inability to express one's true self in relation to the world around him....to point to that as a flaw in the movie, or the acting, is evidence that Jon just doesn't get the point of the character, the story, or how the nuances make movies great.
Jon, you should stick to your " bang 'em over the head with the obvious" movies like King Kong, and leave the more intricate, advanced movies to folks who know what they're doing.
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by monkeywrench (Tim vonHolten) on January 13, 2006 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
i'll reserve judgement about this film until i see it, but i will say that, based on the director's past record, his name should be changed to ang leeway. why he is still allowed to work after "hulk," "ride with the devil," and "the ice storm" is a mystery. the inexplicable popularity of "crouching tiger, hidden dragon," an average-at-best film within its genre, was a matter of luck and timing a la larry the cable guy rather than a matter of skill on the part of the director.
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by bennyoates (anonymous) on January 13, 2006 at 4:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
regarding Ang "Leeway":
he's "allowed to work" because people whose opinions carry more weight than yours disagree with you.
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by kidmystic (anonymous) on January 14, 2006 at 8:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
monkey wrench, talking about Ang Lee's past movies and not mentioning the Wedding Banquet is like refering to Sinatra's catalogue without talking about New York, New York. Oh wait, unless of course you don't know what you're talking about.
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Marion (Marion Lynn) on January 29, 2006 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Monkeywrench, I am inclined to agre with you although I did like "Crouching Tiger.." right up to the point at which people started flying around.
"The Relpacement Killers" is a much better showing of Chow Yun Fat's acting abilities.
I have not seen "Brokeback" and most likely will not.
I go to movies to be entertained and to escape.
I do not attend movies which are soap operas, message flicks, tear jerkers or movies which sermonise.
"Brokeback" is acclaimed because of its subject matter not its quality.
Thanks.
Marion.
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by jet (anonymous) on February 4, 2006 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This had to be one of the most honest reviews I've read. The movie was downright boring. I absolutely loved Boys Don't Cry and even the dark Monster but this piece of junk was not worth the price. I didn't even care enough about the characters to make any judgements. I cannot believe such a movie is getting Oscar nominations. Any person that thinks this some sort of wonderful love story truly does need to live in Hollywood where all is fake.
My personal gay friends are actually offended by the movie and I am just plain bored. Keep telling it like it really is Jon!
0 of 0 people found this comment useful.
Posted by Ky (anonymous) on February 20, 2008 at 6:03 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Post a comment
(Requires free lawrence.com registration.)