Review: Brokeback Mountain (2005)

“I can tell you this, I probably won’t see Brokeback Mountain again. It’s too long and moves too slow and once you’ve seen a great landscape do you really get the same thrill watching it again.”

Max Travis, Brokeback Mountain 2005 Review

I was dismissive of Brokeback Mountain in early 2026. I saw it, not necessarily because it piqued my interest, but because it had been nominated for Best Picture. As an aspiring cineaste, I thought I should see all the movies nominated for Best Picture. My review lasted a few sentences, mentioned that the movie “got the details right” (it beats 39-year-old Max how 19-year-old Max could have known that), and then went on to say I would have rather they nominated “King Kong” or “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” for Best Picture.

I still think “King Kong” and “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” got snubbed, but my opinion of “Brokeback Mountain” has risen dramatically upon the second viewing, now twenty years later. It is in fact a very good movie, whose main themes become more recognizable and more appreciable the more life experience the viewer has.

I don’t think it occurred to me when watching this movie in early 2026, but the movie spans twenty years of time, I believe from 1963 to 1983. In 1963, two ranch hands, Ennis Del Mar (played by Heath Ledger) and Jack Twist (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), are hired to watch over a herd of sheep on Brokeback Mountain over the summer. By fits and starts and despite a heavy dose of denial, they become lovers. Then the summer ends too soon, and it seems that the romance ends there as well. Ennis Del Mar, already engaged to Alma (played by Michelle Williams), keeps the marriage date and soon thereafter sires two girls. These girls grow up. In the last scene, one of them, Alma Jr., (played by Kate Mara, about six years before I learned her name via House of Cards), is aged 19 and invites her estranged father to her wedding. He inquires as to whether her betrothed loves her, leaving unsaid his concern that her husband-to-be may be just like him, a closeted gay man who married and cheated on a woman he didn’t love.

The story of Brokeback Mountain is about what didn’t happen during those twenty years. These two men fell in love in 1963 and then spent twenty years not acting on it, or acting on it, but only halfway. They both get married and both commit adultery, heading off into the Wyoming wilderness a few times a year on “fishing trips”. There seem to be several opportunities to end the charade. Jack Twist, perhaps too reckless, brings up the possibility several times, and at one point, after Del Mar’s well-earned divorce, certainly believes that this time they will be together for real. Jack Twist is ready to divorce his wife as soon as Del Mar approves of the plan. But Del Mar doesn’t have it in him. He is too much of an ordinary man in the times he was living in.

Heath Ledger’s performance of Ennis Del Mar is very much a revelation. I didn’t quite get why it was so good until the second viewing. The character is very introverted, the little that he speaks seems to escape out of the side of his mouth. And then this character that changes very little, goes through twenty years of not changing enough. Ultimately he is a coward. Not an exceptional coward, mind you, just an ordinary one, up against societal forces that a normal person understandably cower from. A veritable parade of people try to get to him and it seems he would rather be alone than have to deal with the consequences of meeting them as himself.

I use the judgmental label of “coward” purposefully because I think the only way to understand this movie is to see it as a tragedy, one in which there are unfair societal forces sure, but also one in which the characters make bad decisions that detrimentally affect themselves and those around them. Because what Ennis Del Mar and Jack Twist are doing is wrong. I’m not talking about the homosexuality. I’m talking about the adultery. This is more pronounced in one marriage than the other. Alma, a woman who loves her husband, is very much wronged by the actions of Del Mar. The other marriage, and this went way over my head on the first viewing, might be a marriage of convenience initiated by the other wife, Lureen Newsome (played by Anne Hathaway) who may have chosen Jack Twist because he was gay (the homosexuality is a lot more obvious with Twist then it is with Del Mar). That is, she may have chosen Jack Twist because she is a lesbian and intended to be through with the romance part of the marriage just as soon as she gave her parents a grandchild. Again, I didn’t pick up on this possibility at all during the first viewing. I half-expect that the first gay person I try out this theory will shake their head as if it was so painfully obvious.

I have notoriously bad gay-dar. This likely comes from being raised in a socially conservative area (Orange County, California) combined with a complete lack of bisexuality. I’ve heard homesexuality is not necessarily black and white, but a spectrum, and it would seem to me that I’m on the complete opposite end of the spectrum from homosexuality. I recall being weirded out by the brief love scenes in this movie twenty years ago. I was still uncomfortable watching them after twenty years, though I understand why the scene is important to the movie. But even a person devoid of homosexuality, and one who finds the physical idea of it frankly repulsive, will understand the historical prejudice against it has no place in our day and age. (The taboo is historically universal which infers, to me at least, a utility beyond mere prejudice. I think it is about public health. You prevent the spread of STDs by having marriage only between male and female virgins.) Modern medicine however obviates that concern, rendering the taboo pointless and ultimately harmful not only to the homosexuals but everyone around them. This movie makes plain the collateral damage, which is mainly borne by the spouses of closeted men. Here, we may consider Alma. She only has one life and Del Mar wasted a good decade of it.

There are very few movies in which the plot revolves around characters that are wasting everybody’s time. These are not exciting movies to watch. We want to see people take action in their lives. We want them to succeed, yes, but if that is not possible, we at least want to see them try. When a movie comes along in which even “trying” does not happen, it screws with the intuitive expectations of the audience. There is this kind of notorious story, first a novel, and then a movie, entitled “Remains of the Day.” The story, by a Japanese author Kazuo Ishiguro, was written to deliberately convey the most wasted life possible. He chose to tell a story about an English Butler before and during World War II who runs the manor of an aristocratic with Nazi sympathies. This Japanese author felt that a life dedicated blindly to service was a waste both personally, and in this case, politically.  (It is a very Japanese detail that the author was interested in this theme but couldn’t look inward enough to actually make the story take place in Japan. The ability to do this, is one of reasons why Godzilla Minus One is such an extraordinary film.) One of the plot points is that this butler (played by Sir Anthony Hopkins) has the opportunity to hire two Jewish refugees but chooses not to out of deference to his Lord's politics. About a decade later, he expresses relief when he learns that the two girls weren’t murdered. You just want to shake this guy. The movie is splendidly acted and expertly does what it sets out to do. But given that the goal is to tell a story of missed chances and frustration, I can’t say I can recommend it.

If movies about people who make the wrong choices are not exactly easy to watch, they can however be instructive. For a movie like “Brokeback Mountain”, it may serve as a cultural impetus to change. Or it can spur a change in one’s personal life. I once saw a movie called “Broadcast News”, which is a 1987 movie written and directed by James L. Brooks. It is ostensibly a love triangle romance between a television newscast producer (Holly Hunter at her most attractive), a smart, funny and serious reporter (Albert Brooks), and a charming but vapid news anchor (William Hurt). Albert Brooks should have the upper hand in this romantic tug-of-war except he isn’t really trying. Or at least not trying in good faith. He uses his intelligence and sarcasm to belittle his opposition but not get ahead himself. He criticises Holly Hunter for not choosing him, but doesn’t actually put himself out there to be chosen. There is a particular moment in the movie where Holly Hunter essentially gives him the go ahead to win her over and he responds with a fantastically cruel remark. In the end, he doesn’t get the girl not because he can’t (or as he thinks, she doesn’t understand how much better he is then the other guy) but because he wasn’t playing to win. He was playing as if he already lost and, I don’t know, trying to improve his standing in the eyes of history. You know, you only have one life, and it throws enough at you to make things hard enough. What these types of movies do is show you that you don’t have to make it harder on yourself.

Road House (2024) (3/5 Stars)

They have remade "Road House" the 1989 classic action-comedy starring Patrick Swayze. This gives me another excuse to talk about Roger Ebert, whose review of the same I am incorporating entirely at the bottom of this review. I have read at least a thousand of Roger's reviews. His review of Road House is arguably his best one. I share this review more than I share any other of Roger's reviews. On the "Road House" DVD, one of the audio commentaries is done by superfan Kevin Smith (Clerks) who takes the time to bring up and read the entirety of Roger's review during the movie. In the history of DVD audio commentaries (as far as I know) it has only happened once that a movie review is recited for the record, and that was Roger's review of Road House.

It is notable that Roger didn't think the movie was good, but this only proves one of his better philosophies: that it isn't the reviewer’s job to get it right, that is to correctly judge whether a movie is "good" or "bad". (thumbs notwithstanding, Roger would always direct his audience to his writing column for his full opinion. He reviewed far more movies in writing than on his TV show.) No, the job of a reviewer is to describe the movie accurately. This is the only way a reviewer can be helpful because different people want to and like to see different types of movies. Now, with that idea in mind, I suggest you peruse Roger's review. By the end of it, I guarantee that you will have a pretty good idea as to whether or not you are the type of person who would want to see Road House (1989).

The remake of “Road House” has a decent enough pedigree on paper. Doug Liman (Swingers, Edge of Tomorrow) is directing. Jake Gyllenhaal has replaced Patrick Swayze as Dalton. Billy Magnussen is the lead bad guy and Conor McGregor, the UFC fighter, is a crazy henchman. But producing a remake, particularly a remake of an already perfect movie like Road House (1989), is tricky. After all, if the original movie is great, why remake it? Why not just watch the original. Case in point: West Side Story (1961) and West Side Story (2021).

A remake only makes sense when the original movie is good with room to improve, is hampered by a lack of budget/outdated technology, or has a cultural barrier like a foreign language. Great remakes include Scarface (1933) and Scarface (1983), Ocean’s Eleven (1960) and Ocean’s Eleven (2001), and Godzilla (1954) and Godzilla Minus One (2023). Scarface is a good example of an update in time and place, taking a 1920s Italian immigrant smuggling booze in NYC and replacing it with a 1980s Mariel Boatlift immigrant smuggling cocaine in Miami. Ocean’s Eleven is a good example of taking an ordinary heist plot and adding on lots of intricacies and smooth editing. Godzilla Minus One is arguably the best remake I have seen, introducing a superior drama as well as 21st century special effects to a B-movie that utilized men in godzilla suits.

What I am saying is that doing the same thing in a remake doesn’t make sense. Something should change. The tricky part is deciding what should change when so much of the original movie worked. And Road House (2024) is a lesson in changing the wrong things.

The update in time and place is neutral. The original Road House took place in 1989 in Missouri. The new Road House takes place now in Florida. Whatever.

However, the biggest and most inexplicable change is the backstory of the main character, Dalton. In the original movie, Dalton is the world’s best bouncer. He gets head hunted by a corporate man who owns a bar that he wants to remodel and expand. Dalton doesn’t drink or smoke, starts his mornings with some half-naked Tai Chi (or something), and tells his subordinate bouncers to be nice to rowdy customers. In the remake, Dalton does not have this back story. In fact, he isn’t a professional bouncer at all. Instead, he is a UFC fighter that got blackballed from the sport because he killed an opponent in the ring with an illegal hit. The owner of the new Road House (Jessica Williams) hires Dalton not because she wants him to stop fights, but because she wants Dalton to win them.

The bad guys have changed too. In the original, the big bad guy, Brad Wesley, was a hedonist who threw extravagant Playboy style parties in his mansion (Seemingly financed all by shaking down local businesses, which as Roger Ebert accurately pointed out, seemed to be limited to three locations). Here the bad guys are young angry men on yachts engaged in the well-worn subplot of a real estate developer trying to force out the one last remaining business on the block so they can get on with their planned super-development. There also seems to be a drugs subplot, which would be in the running with the former for the most well-worn subplot in the history of movie subplots. The bad guys have a lot less fun than Brad Wesley did in the first movie. They have no women. There is no nudity.

That the bad guys are a lot less fun and that Dalton is unprofessional removes one of the elements that made the original Road House unique. How to put this? You see, Dalton (1989) works in a corporate capacity. His stated purpose is to help the owner’s business by calming down the joint so that patrons can feel safer and spend more money. Dalton is polite until he cannot be polite. He has a degree in philosophy. He’s monogamous. In other words, Dalton is a square and the original Road House (1989) is a conservative movie. Now, I say that even though the original movie is wall-to-wall sex and violence. But this is one of the things that movies can do. They can reinforce ideals in the good guys while simultaneously allowing a vicarious experience of the opposite through the bad guys. Road House (1989) allows the squares to have it both ways. The new Road House (2024) removes this guilty pleasure.

Instead, Dalton (2024) is but a reincarnation of John Wick and an endless multitude of other older violent vigilantes, a man who nominally wants to be peaceful but becomes super dangerous if angered enough. I don’t understand why that would be the change to be made in this remake. Road House (2024) has ditched the one thing that made the original unique and, in turn, has transformed this intellectual property into something you’ve already seen a bunch of times.

Jake Gyllenhaal is a good actor. He has done fine work in a multitude of movies (Zodiac, Prisoners, Okja). Having said that, I don’t really buy him as an action star. Even with all the muscles. He does his best work as Emo (Donnie Darko, The Good Girl, Nocturnal Animals). I find it hard to believe that he could beat Conor McGregor in a fist-fight. Weird thing is, I don’t think he is necessarily miscast as Dalton, but I mean the 1989 Dalton that only drinks coffee and tries really hard to be polite. He is miscast as this Dalton, which tries to be the poor man's version of Liam Neeson and/or Keanu Reeves.

Also, where are all the fat men getting into fistfights like the original movie? And the good music? Or the G-String contest? Could we get at least one ridiculously large explosion of a barn? How about a shot of Jake Gyllenhaal’s ass (McGregor’s ass does not count)? You couldn’t fit the line “Pain Don’t Hurt” anywhere? And, and, and….

-----------------

Roger Ebert, May 19 1989

The guiding spirit of "Road House" can be glimpsed in one particular scene, which is set in the trophy room of an evil sadist who holds a helpless town in his iron grasp. His hunting trophies include not only the usual deer and elk and antelopes, but also orangutans, llamas and a matched set of tropical monkeys. This guy went hunting in the zoo.

We are expected to believe that the sadist financed these hunting expeditions by shaking down the businesmen in a town that, on the visible evidence, contains a bar, a general store, a Ford dealership and two residences. "Road House" is the kind of movie that leaves reality so far behind that you have to accept it on its own terms.

Was it intended as a parody? I have no idea, but I laughed more during this movie than during any of the so-called comedies I saw during the same week. Consider, for example, the movie's hero, a barroom bouncer named Dalton and played by Patrick Swayze (last seen in "Dirty Dancing"). Here is a man known as the best bouncer in the business - and the business must pay well, since he owns a Mercedes convertible. But he is not simply your average tough guy. He has a Ph.D. in philosophy from New York University and is capable of deep insights into his trade, such as, "In a fight, nobody wins." Dalton is summoned to a small Missouri town where the Double Deuce, the local nightclub, is terrorized nightly by the local goons and louts. His assignment: Bring peace to the bar so the owner can remodel and expand. His enemies: the hired guns of Brad Wesley (Ben Gazzara), the extortionist with the exotic trophy room. (Everyone in this movie has names out of a Western - not only Dalton and Brad Wesley, but also such characters as Wade Garrett, Doc, Emmet, and Cody. Doc is a girl, but never mind.) Dalton wades into the fray on opening night and finds himself in the middle of a fight in which the furnishings of the Double Deuce are reduced to matchsticks. Wounded by a knife cut, he goes to the hospital, where the gash is sewn closed by Doc (Kelly Lynch), a beautiful blond who is impressed by Dalton's doctorate in philosophy and his ability to withstand pain.

In no time at all, Dalton and Doc are making love on the porch roof outside Dalton's rented room - a roof that can clearly be seen by the evil Wesley, who once entertained hopes of becoming Doc's lover.

(These two houses, on either side of a river, seem to be the only homes in town, and most of what goes on in each house seems to be staged for the benefit of the other.) Dalton sees he needs help to clean up the bar. So he calls in his best friend, Wade Garrett (Sam Elliott), who is the second-best barroom bouncer in the world. (Note to cable TV operators: The world finals of bouncing might pull in decent ratings.) This upsets Wesley no end, since his income depends on maintaining an iron rule of terror over the local townspeople.

"Road House" is said to be based on an actual case in Missouri where the local bad guy, universally hated by everyone in town, was murdered in broad daylight - and no one in town seems to have seen a thing. If that is the genesis for the story, everything else in it seems to have come from a cheerful willingness to go over the top in every way possible.

This is the first movie in a long time to use the line, "Prepare to die!" And how long has it been since the same movie contained a) a dash into an exploding building to save an occupant; b) a rock 'n' roll band protected by a Plexiglas shield; c) goons who line up for instructions and call the bad guy "boss"; d) a lecture on the fine points of bouncing; e) a sexy woman doctor who goes all the way on the first date, and f) random quotations from the great Western philosophers? This movie is so top-heavy with plot, it can even afford to ignore some obvious possibilities. For example, Swayze's rented room is on a ranching spread across the river from Gazzara, and Gazzara is so busy with his other villainous duties that he doesn't have time for the standard subplot in which he wants to run the rancher off the land so he can build a subdivision. Of course, in a town with two residences, there may not be much pent-up housing demand.

"Road House" exists right on the edge between the "good-bad movie" and the merely bad. I hesitate to recommend it, because so much depends on the ironic vision of the viewer. This is not a good movie.

But viewed in the right frame of mind, it is not a boring one, either.

Spider-Man: Far From Home (5/5 Stars)

“EDITH, is this real?” asks Peter Parker in the denouement of the penultimate scene. Spider-Man has just seemingly vanquished an enemy that was made up of intricate and complex technological illusions, something not unlike what you would see in a Marvel movie. But unlike all those other Marvel movies with spectacular otherworldly dangers, this one was not really there? Or was it? Peter Parker can’t immediately tell. This is a line that could not have existed fifty years or maybe even fifteen years ago. It is very 2019. When the movies can do anything, when video and photography can be so intricately manipulated, how can you tell what is real anymore? We usually say, “I’ll believe it when I see it?” What do we do when we can’t rely on that.

The villainous plot that befalls Peter Parker (played by Tom Holland) on his school trip is way over his head. All he wanted to do with go on a school trip to Europe with his friends. He wanted to buy a gift for his secret crush MJ (played by Zendaya) and give it to her on the Eifel Tower. He really deserves such a trip too. Put aside that he is superhero doing superhero things around his friendly neighborhood of Queens. Peter Parker along with half of his high school class were victims of what is being called the Blip, the five years between Infinity War and Endgame where half the life in the neighborhood vanished and then reappeared. The weight of this happening is deftly lifted within the parody of a high-school news program wherein Iron Man, Captain America, and Black Widow are shown in montage to the tune of Whitney Houston’s “I Will Always Love You”. A particularly interesting development is that the high school has essentially been held back five years and are now sharing classrooms with kids that used to be five years younger. One of the new kids in the class is a guy named Brad Davis (played by Remy Davis) who seems to have used up all his puberty overnight and is now a competitor in love for the affections of Parker’s girl MJ.

This ability to utilize otherworldy and extraordinary events in the service of minor jokes is the hallmark of two of my favorite writers Chris McKenna and Erik Sommers returning from Spider-Man: Homecoming. (They are also responsible for Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and several of the best episodes of the TV show Community). What these two very much excel at is finding a heart of the story amidst special effects sequences and making sure that it isn’t being shunted aside or treated as Story B. Spider-Man: Far From Home has two goals here: Save the Planet and Tell MJ How I Feel. The second story is always as equally important as the first.

It is such a relief that Peter Parker does not have a crush on the head cheerleader at his high school. MJ looks like a normal person. She has a personality, albeit a little dark and sarcastic, but it is her own. It is a credit to Peter Parker that he would like her. And it is a credit to MJ that she would be willing to drop her sarcasm for a moment to become vulnerable enough to like Peter back. I have a running critique of high-school movies where I simply do not believe that the put-upon nerd male protagonist is good enough for the hottest girl in the school. This is not that at all. I found both Peter and MJ endearing as fuck and their entire storyline was really sweet.

Our villain of the week is Mr. Quentin Beck aka Mysterio. He is played by Jake Gyllenhaal, an actor who is one of the best at walking the line between affable and super creepy. Mr. Quentin Beck is from another dimension. He does not seem to be aware of the recent Spiderman: Into the Spiderverse, but he could have explained the situation by referencing that movie. Mr. Beck says that a powerful natural force called Elementals are afoot and he is attempting to stop it here before it destroys more Earths. Peter Parker is party correct in thinking that he is not qualified enough for this particular mission. He tries to get out of it but the storyline keeps drawing him back in.

Meanwhile because of all the outside forces revolving around Spider-Man, the school trip gets routinely upset by extraordinary events. In this respect, the continuing Marvel saga shows its utility by bringing in many old characters that do not need to be reintroduced. Among them are agents of S.H.E.I.L.D Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) and Maria Hill (Cobie Smulders) that had large roles in the Captain America movies. There is Happy Hogan (played by Jon Favreau) from the Iron Man franchise. And then there is Aunt May (Marisa Tomei), side-kick Ned Leeds (Jacob Batolon), and Mr. Harrington (Martin Starr). One of the more pleasurable aspects of this movie is watching Mr. Harrington and the newly introduced Mr. Dell (J.B. Smoove) get increasingly frazzled when more and more crazy shit happens on a trip they are ostensibly responsible for all the young lives on.

The one thing to talk about left is EDITH. I was not under the impression that STARK enterprises had this type of technology (basically armed space drones) and that the whole point of Captain America: Winter Soldier was that this type of capability was UnAmerican. Why does a corporation have it now? Why would you will its capabilities to a kid? This isn’t the responsible and democratic Tony Stark I got behind in Captain America: Civil War. Someone should do something about this whole EDITH thing. Maybe break the glasses.

Nightcrawler (3/5 Stars)

The premise of Nightcrawler is interesting enough to justify a viewing merely on curiosity grounds. A ‘Nightcrawler’ is a particular type of freelance photographer. These men sleep during the day and work during night. They use a police radio to get information on whatever gruesome crime/traffic accident just occurred, drive over, shoot video of the blood in the streets, and sell it to early morning local news stations. Think about it. You wake up, turn on the news, and hear and see about something that happened in the middle of the night. How does that information get to you? This movie explains a lot of that process and the mere procedural nature of this movie makes it worth seeing if you are not already familiar with this universe.

The entrepreneur that we follow is a man named Louis Bloom, played by a very hungry (almost starving) Jake Gyllenhaal. He happens upon a fatal accident one night and witnesses a Nightcrawler named Loder, played by Bill Paxton, edging against the paramedics to get a better view of the gore. Louis has the nature of a man who is immediately intrigued by this sight. He steals a bike to buy a police radio and a small camera and goes right to work. A station head named Nina Romina, played by Rene Russo, tutors him on the network storyline: Minorities from inner cities are spreading into the nearby affluent suburbs and killing white people. That means some black guy killing some black guy in Compton is not newsworthy. A Mexican holding up a white person in Burbank is newsworthy. The more it bleeds, the more it leads.

The noir streets of nighttime L.A. are thrillingly evoked in writer/director Dan Gilroy’s movie. The orange glows of endless streetlights are strangely hypnotic. The white and red tracings of car headlights and emergency vehicles convey the seedy underbelly of the city. Several locations bring up memories of Hopper paintings, Nitehawks at the Diner sort of thing. The score is haunting and there is at least one very good car chase. But the success of the movie hinges on the character of Louis Bloom and here, despite a very daring performance by Jake Gyllenhaal, it ultimately falters. Plainly said, I don’t believe a guy like him can exist.

The job of Nightcrawler is the worst job in the news business. It is generally used as a testing ground for green employees as in, ‘you want to do this job, go the the next of kin whose relative died the same day and ask for a picture of the deceased for your newscast.’ It is a rough job and the people doing it usually have their eyes on bigger things in the business. Otherwise they are freelances who do this job because they will relinquish monetary pursuits for more control over their lives. Loder fits that bill pretty well. Louis Bloom is harder to figure out. When we first see him he is a petty thief stealing metal fences with pliers and hawking them to local scrapyards. He is at home with negotiation and has an upbeat if disturbingly upbeat personality. Importantly it is not established that Louis enjoys the act of breaking the law to make his money. Given that, it is kind of unclear why this particular type of person would find it difficult to find steady employment in any business before the movie begins. After all, he is punctual, learns quickly, thinks on his feet, and does not indulge in drugs or any other vices. He lives like a hermit alone in a sparse apartment where he spends most of his time watering a solitary plant. He has neither family nor girlfriend or even friends. This too is rather important given that it is hard to tell what motivates Louis Bloom. Louis recites a lot of capitalistic platitudes about working hard and climbing the ladder from the bottom and having ambition and what not, but to what end? Who cares about doing any of that if you don’t want to buy things or get girls or raise a family? What does Louis want other than to just work in the worst line of work possible?

Conceivably writer/director Tony Gilroy is trying to make a statement about what type of person would thrive in the business he is shining a light on, but whether he is right drowns in the possibility that he might not know what he is talking about. Jake Gyllenhaal’s performance reminded me most of Robert DeNiro’s performance in Martin Scorsese’s “The King of Comedy.” In both movies you have these overwhelmingly anti-social personalities that insist on certain things past the bounds of any type of acceptable behavior. The main difference is that Robert De Niro’s Rupert Pupkin though outrageous is understandable. One scene of him in his mother’s basement doing a make believe talk show amongst cardboard cutouts goes a long way to illustrating just how delusional (and rather stupid) are his dreams of being a late night comedian. Gyllenhaal strikes many of the same chords but at the same time is generally the smartest person in the room. Well, if he is so smart, why does he go about climbing the ladder in the most uncomfortable way possible? Why doesn’t he apply his intellect and ambition in a way that will gain traction with normal human beings? My intution tells me that Gilroy is making a connection between capitalism and ruthless inhuman behavior. You know me. I just don’t agree with that. Capitalism is based on agreements between consenting adults. Louis would make more sense if he were purely sadistic or delusional or plain stupid. It does not make sense for him to be completely serious about being a good employee/employer and in the same breath not care at all about working well with other people.

The unreality of the character undercuts a lot of the tension in what would have been otherwise dramatic scenes. A perfect example is the scene in the Mexican restaurant between Louis and his station manager. He has become quite competent at his job and she is under pressure during sweeps week to keep her job. He proposes that he will work exclusively for her station in exchange for lots of money but also sexual favors. That the station head is actually desperate enough to go along with the proposal is kind of beside the point. The bigger question is why Louis would want sex from her? Certainly it is easier to get sex elsewhere given that he is employed and looks like Jake Gyllenhaal but I don’t even mean to focus on that. The big “Why” concerns the fact that Louis Bloom does not demonstrate any kind of lustful behavior. For all practical intents and purposes he is an asexual human being that likes watering his solitary plant in his empty apartment and that is it. The bedroom scene that occurs takes place off camera so we do not see it, but I cannot imagine what would have happened in it. I can’t imagine Louis Bloom having sex. And blackmailing your boss for sex is definitely not a good career move so why would an almost puritanically career obsessed guy insist on it. It did not make sense to me. 

Source Code (5/5 Stars)

Ladies and Gentlemen, let me introduce you to the first great movie of 2011. “Source Code” is a top-notch science fiction thriller about a secret government program that allows a person to relive the last eight minutes of another person’s life. This is possible because each person has an eight-minute track of short-term memory that theoretically can be preserved after death. The government sends a soldier back into the memory of a teacher named Sean Fennersten. Once he is in the Source Code, he inhabits Fennersten’s body for eight minutes before a bomb explodes onboard the train he is riding in, killing Fennersten and all the other passengers. The soldier has free will and can control Fennersten’s body, even going so far as to change events within the memory, but he won’t be able to save anybody because the bomb already went off in the past. The soldier’s mission is to identify the bomber in order to prevent another impending terrorist attack. This theoretical technology is completely absurd. I was expecting to see a flux capacitor somewhere but instead the scientist in charge merely invoked quantum mechanics and parabolic calculus. Obviously, he’s counting on my ignorance of the subject so I won't know exactly why his explanation is ridiculous. Well played, sir. But still the story works extremely well because the director, Duncan Jones, and the writer, Ben Ripley, instinctively know that the power in any science fiction story is not how the technology works but how it enables the characters to fulfill some universal need or desire that normally would be impossible to achieve. Why would anyone want to relive the past? Is it because if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn’t have said what you said or done what you did? Let’s be honest. Time travel, at least to the recent past, is about regret. The soldier, Captain Colter Stevens, being the first test subject of this technology doesn’t really know what he is doing. And so he consistently fails in one way or another before the eight minutes runs out and he dies a fiery death, again. Unlike the rest of us, he can reset the clock and start all over. Perhaps, if given enough tries, he can find a way to use his time wisely.

This conceit should be most familiar to anyone who has seen the great movies “Groundhog Day” and “Run Lola Run.” Stevens, played by Jake Gyllenhaal, starts each Source Code at the same place right before the woman across from him, his girlfriend, played by Michelle Monaghan, thanks him for his advice. Nobody else in the train remembers the last train ride. This means two things: One, Stevens can act as impulsively and rashly as he wants and not fear any reprisal because the world ends in eight minutes. And Two: Since nobody remembers, nobody can really help him. It’s a good that Stevens spends much more time acting rashly than trying to convince anybody of the situation. He’s not wasting any time, and besides, they’re all dead anyway. Give credit to the Ben Ripley because Stevens’ actions have a persistent logical thread to them. He never repeats himself and no other passenger ever changes his or her personality. (Monaghan, in particular, does a pretty good job of being somebody one could logically fall for in eight minutes). This is a movie you can pay close attention to and get a kick out of how they don’t cheat. Everything is considered and taken into account. I especially liked how the writer put a professional comedian, played by Russell Peters, just two rows behind Stevens as this gives the movie several excuses for witty quips once Stevens’ behavior starts getting more and more irregular. I also got a kick out of when Stevens automatically resorts to racial profiling during one of his first runs because, let’s be honest, if you knew there was a ticking time bomb and nothing else, wouldn’t you suspect the only middle-eastern guy on the train. This movie isn’t afraid to admit that undesirable tendency. Stevens follows him off the train at the next stop, confronts him, and assaults him. And as he is beating him up, to the horror and shock of his girlfriend and everybody else at the station, somebody else activates the bomb and the train in the distance blows up anyway. Back to the drawing board, buddy. No, it’s not going to be that easy.

I won’t go too much more into the plot because following where it twists and turns is a natural pleasure of the movie. Except for one more thing: Why doesn’t Captain Colter Stevens remember training for this mission? The last thing he remembers is being in Afghanistan with his unit. Then one day he wakes up to find himself as Fennersten. At the end of each eight minutes he finds himself in a type of isolated chamber speaking over a video intercom to a soldier named Goodwin, played by Vera Farmiga, and a scientist, played by Jeffrey Wright. Where is he? I won’t tell you but if you ever saw Duncan Jones’ first movie, Moon, the discovery that Colter Stevens eventually makes is not unlike astronaut Sam Rockwell’s discovery that he is living in a cloned body that has a contractual expiration date. Duncan Jones has only two movies under his belt but he is already developing a personal style and motif. His movies are low budget but look like they cost quite a bit. They are sleek, clean, and tightly wound. He is especially interested in science, technology, and bureaucracy’s disregard of the sanctity of human consciousness. If Jones ever wanted to make a period piece, Frankenstein would be the perfect story to adapt. He has a keen understanding of the topic.

For my money, this movie is about two minutes two long. There’s a nice moment near the end with a still frame pause. They should have just held that for a few more seconds and then went straight to the credits. But hey, that’s just me.

Brokeback Mountain 02/03/06

Two guys take jobs as ranch hands, spend a whole summer, and fall in love. It should end there but the whole world is against them. The world eventually wins and this romance becomes a tragedy. Such is the case of Brokeback Mountain, which for good reasons has scored alot of recognition this awards season. Not just because it's about gay cowboys, and this is Hollywood. It's getting recognition because it is a real story that gets all of the details right. (As far as I can tell)
However is this movie better than all the others this year. Does it deserve the best picture? In my humble opinion no. I would compare this movie to other best picture winners like Dances with Wolves, and Out of Africa. Yes they are great movies, yes they deserve recognition, but whoever watches these anymore. I can tell you this, I probably won't see Brokeback Mountain again. It's too long and moves too slow and once you've seen a great landscpe do you really get the same thrill in watching it again. 
Not saying that this movie is bad, but there are better ones out there this year. Here are my top five movies I'm thinking of buying this year. I will definitely watch these movies more than once. 1. King Kong 2. Pride and Prejudice 3. Matchpoint 4. Walk the Line 5. The 40-year old Virgin. These are movies I would want to see nominated this year. 
Here are the movies that were nominated instead: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Good Night and Good Luck, Crash, and Munich. (I have yet too see Crash). All good movies, but are they the best. There is a bias in the academy, I think, towards drama, and against comedy, adventure, and remakes. In my opinion it is just as hard to make a superior comedy than it is to make a superior drama. So in that course of logic, hopefully we would have a balance of those genres, but it seems that there are certain films that we feel obligated to nominate whether they really deserve it or not. This hurts twofold. It brings a film attention that doesn't deserve it, and much more harmful: it takes away attention from films that do deserve our praise. (i.e. Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, When Harry Met Sally..., Groundhog Day, There's Something about Mary) It really is a shame. Someday I hope that comedies and comedians get more credit. There's as much good in making people laugh as there is in making them cry.

Jarhead 11/09/05

"All wars are different. All wars are the same. Mine lasted four days, four hours and one minute." says Swofford, the jarhead. Desert Storm itself was such a joke that most of the army wasn't needed. All the U.N. needed were planes, which shot the hell out of Saddam's troops before the troops could get there. In fact, you don't see any real combat in this movie. Just bomb drops in the distance. The closest Swofford comes to getting hurt is friendly fire. That was the gulf war. That's all it was. Just a lot of hanging out in the desert, four days of nervousness, then everyone went home. 
This movie captures it perfectly, and the reason that this is just a good war film and not a great one, has more to do with the not-so-great war, then the film. I have to mention Roger Deaken's, the director of photography for this film. At times he creates the illusion that the soldier's are occupying works of art, not Iraq. Of great beauty are the oil fires, caused by Saddam. They blaze with glory in the Arabian sun, and I was awed by the magnificence of the hell imposed by them. A perfect backdrop of the movie and the war itself. I think what we all remember from Desert Storm more than anything else were those great plumes of Fire out in the middle of the nothingness of the Arabian desert. That's how this war was different.