Short Review: Sometimes there are moments when the fast-forward button ain't fast enough.


I just sat there muttering, “Well, I don’t do that.”

It is easy to mock this film. It’s about gay cowboys (for you hypersensitive clods, yes I know they are sheepherders and there is a difference - settle down), the jokes are inherent. Furthermore, it is difficult to speak about this film without falling into juvenile double entendres (not that I’m above being juvenile.) Much of this has to do with the average person's reaction to homosexuality in particular when it is hung over a mismatched environment. Even more of this has to do with the unbelievably stupid marketing that surrounded the release of this film.

Much has been said about the agenda framing this production and I have nothing new to add there. The main thrust of the piece is to deconstruct the American image of the cowboy. The point is to muddy the image. This is the well-worn path of post modernists. Impulsively reject a social construct, then remake it in your image by lowering its standards. Once the image has been dismantled, you can shove in a new icon or idea that is more to your liking. By now this kind of redefining of American culture, language and attitudes has become tedious in most respects. We have seen it constantly throughout the past decades. Superheroes like Superman and Batman are no longer heroic, they're conflicted and dark (Superman Returns, The Dark Knight). Cowboys don't wear white and black hats, they're either wolves or sheep being led to the same slaughterhouse (3:10 to Yuma).

This deconstruction is nearly mocked in this case. It is so over overwhelmingly obvious that the icon image of the rugged American man, in full cowboyesque dress is being tampered with and on purpose.

Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are sheep herders who fall in lust while monitoring a herd on Brokeback Mountain. These two characters could have been in any line of work, surrounded by nearly any environment, and this story would have still worked. The choice to make them rugged, outdoorsmen who are easily mistaken for cowboys is an intentional move - a move done to challenge our iconic thoughts and sully them publicly.

The social marketing aspect of this film is a shame because this is a fully realized and forceful film. Particularly impress is Heath Ledger who proved himself to be one of the best actors of his generation in his role as Ennis, a mealy mouthed loner who apparently likes to ride the range. Ledger coupled with Ang Lee’s masterful direction and Rodrigo Prieto’s heart stopping cinematography makes this one of the better made films of 2005.

But then there is all of that gay sex stuff.


Listen, I’ll be honest, I’m not reflectively against exploring all aspects of human behavior in art. The human experience is rich and interesting and should be discussed in film, but let’s be real about it. It’s one thing to speak to homosexual behavior, it's another to shove it down the audience’s throat.

This is by its nature a controversial film, but the way it was marketed was disgusting. At first it the whole gay cowboy thing was ignored and the original commercials simply played up the images of men herding their sheep. Once poor grandma and grandpa were lured in thinking they were getting a western to find two guys locking stirrups, the ads changed. The Oscars were coming* around and there ads splashed around claiming this to be the “date movie” of the year. No guy in his right mind is ever taking his lady out to see two confused sheepherders play slap and tickle. The first set of ads lied by omission and the second set just lied outright.

Something that irritates me about this film is people’s reaction. Liberals and gays tend to tried to use this as a social barometer of how “accepting” America was towards homosexuality. If you have issues with this film you’re a homophobe. If you mock the stupidity at the heart of the film, you’re hateful. This is unfair. The concept of two apparently straight (or at least one of them is) cowboys falling in love while on the job and doing whatever it is they do when they get together was laughable. Which explains why every one was laughing. This film was not a reflection on American values it was a reflection on how out of touch the elite class was with the world.

While there are many honest and believable moments, the relationship at the middle of the story is flimsy. The initial homosexual encounter between the two main characters Ennis and Jack Twist in the infamous “pup tent scene” is inorganic to say the least. I think we can assume that two men who supposedly are tough cowboys don’t rush into a homosexual adventure without due diligence. Even if they did, the way it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

The two guys are just hanging out and then decide to go for a test drive? I don’t know about you, but I’ve never been that drunk. Furthermore, the two leads don’t have a deep enough emotional connection to support the notion these two men being obsessed with one another of twenty years. If we’re to understand their love for one another, the roots of that love are not explained or shown. If it were simply lust and lust wouldn’t sustain the hell these two guys are forced to inhabit.

Speaking of hell, I watched the whole film. I do have to admit I found a surprisingly moral message if taken a certain way. The two men have an “encounter” otherwise known as “rough gay sex” up on Brokeback Mountain and spend the rest of their lives drowning in their obsession for one another. Their “love” destroys their lives and the lives of their families. I found this film to be less about homosexuality (actually these guys are bisexual but who’s keeping count) and more about sin.

The two guys commit a sin on Brokeback Mountain and ruin their lives trying to retain that moment. In fairness to the production, this is hardly an advertisement for homosexual behavior, as many believe it to be. While the film makes some lame attempts to blame the horror of these men’s lives on society not allowing their love to speak its name - it ends showing what happens to those who are unable to turn from their selfish desires.

Do I recommend this film? No.

That no in place, I do have to admit this is a very well-done film and it has a humanity to it that is undeniable. The problem is that the bloated agenda at the core is undeniable. This is a social marketing movie. If one is able to get over the homosexual scenes (see my short review) and look at this film from the standpoint of sin more than gayness, one may get something from this production. Then again, dropping the homosexual aspects of this film is like trying to drop all of that icky “holocaust stuff” from Schindler’s List.


Related Reviews:
Heath Ledger movies
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus (2009)
Casanova (2005)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Decent Films Guide
Roger Ebert



Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See:
Watching Movies Through a Christian Lens

Labels: Anne Hathaway, film, Heath Ledger, Jake Glyyenhaal, movie reviews, Randy Quaid, social marketing

Click here to buy your copy of
You Are What You See and learn
to change the world from your couch

Labels: animated, Anne Hathaway, film, George Lopez, movie trailer, Rodrigo Santoro

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella De Vil. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.



Related Reviews:
Meryl Streep movies
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci

Screenwriters: Linda Woolverton (The Lion King)
Director: Tim Burton (Planet of the Apes)
Actors: Johnny Depp (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), Helena Bonham Carter (Sweeny Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street), Anne Hatchaway (Brokeback Mountain), Crisin Glover (Back to the Future), Christopher Lee (Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers), Michael Sheen (Underworld), Alan Rickman (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire), Stephen Fry (V for Vendetta) and Mia Wasikowska (Defiance)

Labels: Anne Hathaway, Christopher Lee, Crispin Glover, film, Helena Bonham Carter, Johnny Depp, Michael Sheen, movie trailer, Stephen Fry, Tim Burton

Granted, I went into this thing expecting the worst. This is pure Hollywood fluff. Its the cinematic equivalent of a Twinkie. I have to say, it wasn't awful. I actually can recommend it and no one is more surprised than me.

This obviously isn't a great film but it does work on many levels. The success primarily falls on the casting of Steve Carell as bumbling Agent Maxwell Smart. Carell conjures up a sympathetic charm that is fun to watch. This charm can be seen in other films like Evan Almighty and Dan in Real Life. Unlike those film, this outing gives him strong, albeit very simple, setups and payoffs to to display his talents. The rest of the cast Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Terrance Stamp and Alan Arkin likewise do well in their supporting roles and add to the production. The only trouble spot is Anne Hathaway as Agent 99. Hathaway doesn't have the comedic timing, or at least its not as acute as her fellow cast members. This difference sticks out and she comes across as flat. Luckily, her character is the straight-man so her delivery is passable.

The script penned by Tom J. Astle and Matt Ember (Failure to Launch) has a number of genuine laughs. Even if it only had one that would be one more than I was expecting. While they stumble around in the middle trying to find their footing, due to a lack of a urgent central conflict, the pair manage to find good humor in most of their scenes. They also do well establishing their secondary characters quickly, giving them easily identifiable traits and then pitting those traits against one another.

Taking this film for what it is, mindless comfort cinema/mindless corporate rehashing of long dead product lines, this is well done. This is a good fall back pick if you're not that discerning of a moviegoer.



Related Reviews:
Anne Hathaway movies
The Devil Wear Prada (2006)
Brokeback Mountain (2005)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
ReelViews
FilmJerk

Labels: Alan Arkin, Anne Hathaway, Dwayne Johnson, film, movie review, Steve Carell

A very good trailer for a very good film. This may seem like some mindless chick-flick...well, it is a chick-flick but it has some brains.

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, film, Meryl Streep, movie trailer, Stanley Tucci

Short Review: It’s a Über-chick flick and I really enjoyed it. Don’t worry, when I was done watching I killed a bear with a knife, mangled things with a chainsaw and left the toilet seat up all night to recalibrate my masculinity.


This is a well-built film. Oh, it’s a chick flick supreme, but ultimately it is a darn good movie. The piece is about Andy, a smart but naive young woman from Ohio, who finds herself assisting a cruel fashion magazine editor in New York City. Basically this is the mother lode of chick flicks. There are clothes, boy trouble, girly politics and more clothes.

Sex In The City and Entourage director David Frankel deserves great credit for his work. The movie is sharply paced providing some great moments. Frankel and screenwriter Aline Brosh McKenna (27 Dresses) do a fantastic job of making the elite world of fashion accessible and interesting. They smartly know that the casual haughtiness of the citizens of that world is not only annoying, but also seen as undeserved by the average person. Actually, the haughtiness is undeserved regardless of how it is seen. Frankel and company offer enough explanations of why fashion is taken so seriously by so many that it gives a pass to what could have been the film’s biggest hurdle – getting people to care.

Much has been written about Meryl Streep’s portrayal of Runway magazine’s editor Miranda Priestly. Miranda is a cold, dismissive woman and Streep obviously enjoyed the role. She commands her scenes managing the role with an overbearing presence. She comes across as a snootier version of Cruella Deville. Beyond Streep’s great performance, I think lead Anne Hathaway deserves more credit for the success of the film. As Julia Robert's heir apparent, Hathaway has now shown she is capable of extending enough charm and ability to handle a large role. She doesn’t throw down an Oscar worthy performance, but she threads the piece nicely and provides a sympathetic lead against Streep’s stronger character.

The only serious flaw in the film is that it doesn’t know what to do when not concentrating on Streep and Hathaway. Mostly in the first third of the film, Andy (Hathaway) hangs with her “normal” friends that have been inserted into the piece so we can see her roots. These friends are likable enough and their brief scenes do the job, but the scenes are inserted just the same. On the other end of the film, Andy gets embroiled in a needless sex romp with Christian (Simon Baker), an elite guy who’s supposed to represent her new life. Christian is also inserted in the film to fill a hole in the plot. These scenes, while not disastrous, do feel like distractions from the main event. They feed Andy’s growing discomfort with joining the ranks of the fashion hierarchy so they do have a purpose. The transformation of the character of Andy from Ohio girl to fashion fancy pants is so complete that by the time she has to decide if she should stay with the fashion hierarchy or go back to shopping at The Gap, it seems stupid for her to turn back. She’s sacrificed everything, gained a great deal, and her old life seems troubled and petty. Granted, the fashion world is the sham, but it is sold in the film as being better than hanging with the grunts of the world.

I didn’t want to like this movie. I have a natural aversion to both fashion and chick flicks. This movie overpowered my disdain. This is a good movie. The performances are wonderful, the writing is great, and the direction is thoughtful. I highly recommend this film.


Related Reviews:
Another Meryl Streep movie
The Deer Hunter (1978)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Screen It!
Fresh Film Reviews

Labels: Adrian Grenier, Anne Hathaway, chick flick, film, Meryl Streep, movie review, Stanley Tucci

Screenwriter: Jenny Lumet
Director: Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs)
Actors: Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada), Rosemarie DeWitt (Cinderella Man), Bill Irwin (Lady in the Water) and Debra Winger (Terms of Endearment)

Labels: Anne Hathaway, Debra Winger, film, movie trailer

There is no greater recycler in the universe than Hollywood. Get Smart, which was popular thirty years ago, is getting a big screen update starring Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway. The comedic novelty item from Buck Henry and Mel Brooks had some charm way back when, will the modern day version be as likable? Well, its written by the guys who wrote Failure to Launch and directed by the guy who's responsible for The Longest Yard, 50 First Dates and My Fellow Americans. - If you're wanting to get to this one in the theater, I'd go see this one on opening weekend, there may not be a second.

Me thinks it'll stink. How about you?




Screenwriters: Tom J. Astle (Failure to Launch), and Matt Ember (Failure to Launch)
Director: Peter Segal (The Longest Yard)
Actors: Steve Carell (Evan Almighty), Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada), Dwayne Johnson (Walking Tall), Alan Arkin (Catch-22), and Bill Murray (Caddyshack)

Labels: Alan Arkin, Anne Hathaway, Bill Murray, comedy, Dwayne Johnson, movie trailer, Steve Carell