Don't waste your time...

Rating: 1/10 (30 November 2006)

"Brokeback Mountain" had a lot of potential, but misses the mark in a lot of ways. In fact, it misses the mark so badly that I'm still left wondering what it's actually about. Is it a story about how men sometimes give into urges that are deemed "wrong" or "unnatural" by society's standards? Is it a film attempting to show us that love triumphs all, regardless of gender? Or is it simply a character piece detailing one man's slow breakdown as he loses everything by refusing to give into his homosexual urges? I still don't know.
When I judge a film, these are the things I look for (in no particular order): 1) Have a point. As I mentioned above, I don't know what the point of the film is, but I'm pretty sure the people who created think they've presented one. Personally, the closest I think it comes is as a character study. However, if it is a character study, then the writer fails his characters. Which leads me to...
2) Be well-written. Well-written does not equal Shakespeare. It does not equal elaborate sentences or even perfect grammar. Well-written means creating a story that interests the viewer in some way and writing dialogue that's believable and natural. Where the writer fails is in assuming that we will care about these characters simply because we're watching them or, worse, because they're involved in a homosexual relationship (taboo = interesting). The first 20 minutes of this movie reek of someone who said to himself "Okay, everybody's waiting for the two guys to get together, but we can't lead with that. So, I'll go through several scenes of ranching, being a cowboy, etc, to set a mood, but I don't need to establish characters or chemistry because everybody already knows they're getting together and are waiting for that to happen." This lazy attitude continues throughout the entire film straight through to the end when the writer constructs a series of scenes that are the equivalent of a flashing sign that reads "You should feel sad now." The characters (and the audience) deserve better.
3) Acting. Even great writing can be derailed by bad acting, so you can imagine how mediocre writing suffers. On the whole, the acting isn't bad in this movie. Jake Gyllenhaal has the more interesting character and, as you would expect, does the most with it. What brings this film down, however, is Heath Ledger. First and foremost, Ledger has decided that cowboys in the US in the latter part of the 20th century talked in second-rate John Wayne impressions that require you to mumble and speak without moving your lips. The mash of Ledger's Australian accent and his "US accent" results in missing half of what he's saying. Further, he's chosen to play his character as brooding, which apparently is synonymous with sulking (which is synonymous with one-dimensional). Since it's ultimately his story, it's Ledger's responsibility to provide us with a character worth caring for and one that has more texture than his monotonous portrayal provides.
4) Does it hold my interest? This is something of a trick question because the fact that I sat through the whole thing would indicate that it did hold my interest. However, the reality is that I watched this movie the way you watch a car accident. You don't really want to look, but you can't look away.
Many people have dismissed comments that this movie will ultimately be remembered more for the fact that two of Hollywood's more successful male actors made out on screen than for anything to do with the story, but that's the sad reality. This movie is a blip on the radar only because of the homosexual aspect. The story, the characters, the writing, and the acting all indicate that, as a movie, "Brokeback Mountain" is simply not as good as the story it's trying to tell.