Did Ace or Allahpundit say how hot the sheep looked?

Yep, you completely missed it. Not surprised.

See Karol, Toby wants to a review of the sheep too.

Karol: At any point was there any nervous giggling or clutching of your arm by one or both of your two dates?

Who wouldn't, Jake? Hmmm, merino. :)

What happened after the movie.
Inquiring minds want to know.

All the review I've read call them "cowboys." They're sheep herders. Big difference.

Sheepherders!? So this isn't about gay cowboys eating pudding?!
Then I'm not not gonna waste my time.

Toby: Please enlighten us... what was the point?

I'm with Harrison. Don't tease us.

I wasn't going to see the movie and I have read what have been glowing reviews of the movie. Thank you for your review. I have more faith in your review than any other.

In the movie, do the sheep look nervous?

Thanks for sitting in the fag seat, Karol. I could totally feel Ace's eyes on my joint during the sex scenes.

I agree with most of your review. But not this:

It's so clear that Ennis could've been anyone, that what they had wasn't special--Jack easily replaced Ennis in the dream of their life together. He quit him just fine.

Jack tells Ennis towards the end of the movie that he's been with other men while they've been apart, mainly, he says, because "unlike you, I need this more than once or twice a year." You can interpret that line in one of two ways: either he's talking about (gay) sex or he's talking about love. If he means sex, then you're right; he's just a cock-smoker, and ultimately it doesn't make much difference whose cock it happens to be. But if he means love, then it's less a matter of Jack replacing Ennis than settling for someone he doesn't care for as much because that person, at least, is willing to commit to him. Happens between men and women every day. No reason to believe it wouldn't happen between men, too. Jack couldn't land the alpha he wanted so he got the beta he needed.

Whether or not the film made their love believable is a separate question, and you're 100% right that it failed miserably. The movie starts, they go up on the mountain, they drink some whiskey and joke around, and suddenly Ennis is banging Jack in the chute and sobbing when he leaves for the summer. Granted, the script had a lot of ground to cover and couldn't linger too much on how the romance began, but they've got to do better than that. If drinking with a buddy indicates a lifelong emotional bond, then I guess those pints of Guinness Ace and I had last night meant a lot more than I realized.

You're right, too, that the guys didn't seem all that gay. The scenes of Ennis sledding with his wife and putting his arm around her at the drive-in showed much more intimacy than anything that happened between him and Jack. And Jack's scene in the backseat with his wife was especially absurd. She actually offers to halt the foreplay because she thinks they might be moving too fast, and what does Jack the alleged homo say, with a big shit-eating grin? "Fast or slow, I just like the direction you're going." If Jack is supposed to be faking his attraction to her, Gyllenhaal didn't get the memo.

The most anti-gay part of it, though, was the psychological backstory they provide the characters with. Ennis's parents die in a car crash, leaving him to be raised by a brother and sister who abandon him. Jack's father thinks he's worthless, in part because Jack can't measure up to him on the rodeo circuit. The film practically invites you to speculate that the reason these guys are gay is because of daddy issues. Homosexuality as byproduct of psychological damage: no wonder Sullivan's review was lukewarm.

Finally, the acting was surprisingly shitty. Gyllenhaal is actually a liability, he's so stilted. The only one who distinguishes himself is Ledger, and that's primarily because his character is an American icon, the strong, silent, sensitive prairie hunk. It's the part James Dean was born to play, fifty years too late. So the producers went and got themselves a Dean substitute, and Ledger dropped in a bit of Sling Blade (as Ace pointed out), and voila -- Ennis Del Mar.

Re: "sheepherders", the boys do hook up while herding sheep, but good luck selling the public on a movie about gay shepherds. Also, Gyllenhall's character is a rodeo rider, so I guess that makes him cowboy enough.

Anyway, fun times. Especially the orgy afterwards. Yum!

I need this more than once or twice a year." You can interpret that line in one of two ways: either he's talking about (gay) sex or he's talking about love.

Since most mature people don't fall in love once or twice a year for thirty years, I would have to assume it was sex.

p.s. Glad to hear that the orgy was such fun for you all. Tell us though, is Ace as great in the sack as he claims? tia

p.p.s.: How hot were those sheep? Again, tia.

If drinking with a buddy indicates a lifelong emotional bond, then I guess those pints of Guinness Ace and I had last night meant a lot more than I realized.

Just for clarification, you were drinking pints of Guinness. Ace was drinking girly Miller Lights. So, I guess you're the top here.

The older they get, the less important sex seems to be between the two of them. They get together because they want to be together. In fact, the one time you see Jack go off with a Mexican rentboy, it's a direct result of Ennis not being able to spend a weekend with him. He's substituting sex for love, which is what he really wants. (Although Karol would say that there's no real difference between the two.)

Are you really arguing that young gay men pre-hiv who had thousands of anonymous sex partners were only looking for love?

Are you really arguing that young gay men pre-hiv who had thousands of anonymous sex partners were only looking for love?

Yes, in all the wrong places...

Are you really arguing that young gay men pre-hiv who had thousands of anonymous sex partners were only looking for love?

No, but the film clearly is. Ennis doesn't so much as flirt with another guy. His gayness appears to extend no further than the man he loves. Jack does have other partners, but they're portrayed as little more than outlets for his frustrated love for Ennis. It's the Andrew Sullivan hypothesis for gay promiscuity: glory holes caught on only because the culture won't let gays express their love publicly. Sure, Sully.

What makes the movie so unsatisfying is that it adopts the Sully hypothesis and then does a completely half-assed job of depicting "love." It'd be like re-writing Romeo & Juliet and having the courtship take place over the course of a single scene set in a nightclub. Love, indeed.

Ennis doesn't so much as flirt with another guy. His gayness appears to extend no further than the man he loves. Jack does have other partners, but they're portrayed as little more than outlets for his frustrated love for Ennis.

Then I'm surprised that more gay men aren't calling bullshit. Ennis' gayness doesn't seem innate but, gasp, a choice. It's also disingenious to pretend that homosexuality in men doesn't center almost entirely around sex. Love? Give me a break!

He's substituting sex for love, which is what he really wants. (Although Karol would say that there's no real difference between the two.)

Oh, I believe there is a substantial difference between the two just that many people believe sex plays no role in love and tend to settle for minimal attraction if they feel the person is a good life partner. I don't think that's healthy. Love without sex is friendship.

Everyone misses the key point, which is 'Who cares'.

People who define themselves exclusively, mostly, or substantially by their 'sexuality' have defined themselves as idiot losers.

I would rather talk to a man who defined himself as a carjacker than a man who defined himself as gay, or a man who defined himself as hetero.

The quintessential American question, a human question, has always been 'What do you do'. The answer is not 'I have sex with ...'; the answer is 'I'm an engineer...lawyer...carpenter...farmer...'

If you give me the first answer, I walk away. If you give me the second I do not care how you get your delights, or what your sexual irritants are. We've all got them. Deal with it yourself, shut up and stop being a drama queen. Pun intended.

A lot of people went to the theater yesterday, as they do every Christmas. I was thinking of doing so, but never did; there was a lot of good tv on, though.

Many people are renting around this time; the video stores are open every day here, even on Christmas. If I were to go to the theater though, some recommendations for what to see would be appreciated.

(This particular film, though, is one I would never go see.)

Just started to see ads for it on television. "Great American epic. . . Great American lovestory." Seems more than a bit disingenuous. I'm not sure how it helps the movie in the long run. You can't trick people into seeing it.

It's possible that the movie was about two bi-sexual ranchhands in Wyoming

Oh no she said the 'bi' word - Karol don't you know there is no such thing? Some test somewhere said so. Now cover your ears and yell LALALALALA!

"To prove we were all straight, I sat between the boys."

Could we be any more homophobic and insecure with our sexuality? After reading that I knew it would be a review posted by someone who totally just wouldn't get it and I was right. This movie was written for those who don't need everything spelled out and who can read between the lines. Unfortunately, your deep seeded homophobia prevented you from experiencing a movie that truly was a great American love story. Just happened to be between too men. Gotta give you credit though, at least you were not too scared to go see it.

It's called joking, Arnie, look into it. And yes, I'm very homophobic and that's why I didn't buy the love thing in this movie. You got me.

This film has just arrived in the UK. I went to see it yesterday and I absolutely agree with Karol - with no character development there can be no sympathy or empathy with the "love" story. If I hadn't paid £5.50 to be there I would have walked out after the initial (what appeared to be just a) sordid tent scene. Although, as someone above has pointed out - I was glad to see the reaction of Jack's father when Ennis visited them about "another rancher" being invited over (or was this just a defensive comment on his father's behalf - or am I just looking too deeply into this (rather shallow) film)? If only there has been more and better script before they actually "f*****" as they romantically refer to it in the film - then it would really had made worthwhile seeing. As it was - very disappointing, a missed opportunity.