In the past week’s time, I have seen two movies (which is not easy because I am so poor lately; it’s seriously cut into my moviegoing funds). I will talk about them in the order I saw them, for clarity’s sake, since both films are very similar. For starters, last week my sister and I went to see “Brokeback Mountain.”

I am not sure where to start on this one, other than the blanket statement of: I liked it, but it was way too long. OK, from there I can tell you this much:

* The theater was full of gay people. I have no qualms with the homosexual community, of course. I don’t even notice people in general, on a regular basis, let alone pay enough attention to the ones I do notice to make an assessment on their sexuality. So I know I see gay people all the time, but I don’t notice them at all. But when you see them in large numbers, you start to notice them, all right. This is because they greet one another like they are members of a club. The gay people we saw at Brokeback Mountain were primarily lesbians. In fact, there was one entire row of seats taken up by a long line of lesbians. They were first a group of about 8 lesbians, but then they spotted some other lesbians they knew, and called them over, and they ended up taking the whole row up.

Here are some Q&As to help sort it all out:

Q: How do I KNOW they were lesbians?
A: The haircuts, the clothing. And the holding of hands.

Q: Why were they excited for Brokeback Mountain?
A: All the gayness. Trish and I decided that when there is a movie with so-called ‘gay themes’, a memo might go out to the gay community, and they are required to show their solidarity by attending the movie in question. I don’t think I see gatherings of lesbians at many other movies I go to see. When I finally saw “The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe” the day after Christmas, there was a nary a conspicuous lesbian or gay “row” to be found. I guess gay people don’t care for a lion that is supposed to be Christ or whatever the hell is going on in that movie—well, even if some gay folks did want to see it, at least they weren’t required to go see that one in droves.

Q: What about you and Trish? Following your line of logic here, why were you guys there? You guys ain’t…queer…now, are ya?

A: Nope, we ain’t queer. We just wanted to see how they “did it”; how Hollywood managed to release a tasteful, respectful love story about two men. We both like Ang Lee movies, we both like movies that generally get good reviews and get nominated for awards, and there’s one other factor. I won’t speak for Trish, since maybe she doesn’t agree with me here, but for me it harkens back to all those reading-Anne-Rice-days for me.

Think about what happens in the older Anne Rice novels: guys kiss one another. Sure, sometimes the guys are vampires, sometimes they are castrato; but the basic element here is hot guys kissing one another. And such.

Well, whatever you call it—I like to see that stuff sometimes. This could be my equivalent of how a lot of guys like to watch two girls kiss. And if it’s not gratuitous, and it’s done more in the name of “love” and “romance” rather than “sex” and “hard core”, that’s the thing that makes me really want to go and see it. So I wanted to see how they made a romantic movie with two dudes kissing one another. Sue me. I’m a straight chick who likes that sorta thing.

Q: So what did you like about the movie, Voyeur Girl?
A: I liked the kissing, sure. Not so much the ass-pounding scene—that felt kind of awkward. But the kissing was nicely done. More specifically, I liked the way the relationship that led up to the kissing was portrayed. It worked the way I hoped it would have. I was moved by the drama; about the fact that they needed to hide their feelings for fear of their lives. I loved Michelle Williams. Having never seen “The ‘Creek”, I have never had to pleasure of seeing her act before now. I thought her parts of the story were heartbreaking and she deserves some sort of award for her work in this movie.
I also loved the way it was shot. The landscapes looked beautiful. Nice movie. HOWEVER…

Q: OK, what didn’t you like? And don’t say “Jake Gyllenlynnnlellhaaaalll.” Too easy.
A: I didn’t like the fact that they didn’t go into as much detail with the character of Jack. I didn’t get a strong feeling for the character either way. I wanted to know more about his relationship with his wife and son. I wanted to know how things resolved with his father-in-law. I wanted to see scenes of him pining or aching for Ennis. Instead, all we got were endless “fishing trip” scenes and dialogue about how they can’t be together, whine whine whine. If they had balanced the story out, I think I might have cried at the dramatic conclusion. Instead, I felt a vague “bummer” feeling. Other people in the theater were sniffling and blowing their noses and I just felt like I missed something.

I hated the aging/ not aging of Heath Ledger and Jake G-lenhall. I didn’t buy it that Heath Ledger was an old dude with a daughter who looked that old.

I REALLY hated the wigs they gave Anne Hathaway. I know that was the style of the time, but holy hell… they really looked awful and pulled me out of the moment, any moment. I was thinking how much that actress must have hated the hair and makeup people whenever she’d show up to get ready for a scene and they’d show her the wig she was forced to wear that day. Because I was thinking about that, I was probably missing crucial dialogue or plot points.

I decided Heath Ledger’s eyes get smaller in every movie he was in. He has tiny, scary little eyes. I don’t think he is cute in any way. I wished they casted some “hot” guys.

And Jake-Whatever looks like a cartoon horse with a comma-edged grin. He scares me. In fact I could only picture him as Donnie Darko for the first half of the movie and I was laughing to myself saying, “Ooh look, Donnie Darko’s getting it from the jousting knight guy. Joust, joust, ouch.”

I didn’t see the point of some of the ancillary characters. I just saw about four or five places where Ang Lee could have used a good editor to tighten up the story and make the audiences care more.

My conclusion: It was good, probably a B-. Doesn’t deserve Best Picture honors, but maybe some acting awards or awards for the screenplay. I am still glad this movie was made, and it’s doing as well as it is, because I for one just feel a LOT more comfortable in a world where people accept and don’t hate other people and can appreciate a movie about a different lifestyle.

Well, that brings me to the next movie I have seen. And this one was breathtaking. It featured an Oscar-winning actress and a story that touches on the question of what is humanity; why are we here and what impact can science have on our lives? Also, it asks the question of when is it okay for a female assassin to lounge about in skimpy black undergarments? (Answer= anytime. She may also catch flies in her eyelashes if she so chooses—it’s a metaphor for something, probably.) That movie, is of course: Aeon Flux.

Yeah, I know, I know… but listen, it was playing at the dollar theater. Greg and I went to see it on Saturday night. I’d watched (or tried to watch) the cartoon that was on Liquid Television back when MTV was still decent, and it somehow hooked me in—even though I had NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL WAS GOING ON. I liked the animation and recall being disturbed and uncomfortable watching it. Like I said, I never knew what was the point, the plot, or anything like that. I don’t know why I would keep watching it anyway. I think I thought that someday, they would air a conclusion and it would all wrap up and make sense. It was just weird enough to hold my attention.
I forgot about it until the movie came out. Everyone was laughing about it and the reviews sucked. But I just wanted to check it out, anyway. I thought I’d see it on DVD, but as luck would have it, it came to the cheap theater.

Q: So what is going on with Aeon Flux?
A: SPOILER ALERT, if you care: Cloning. And all the people are really clones because the population in the future is sterile. What’s going on is Aeon spends time finding out about the cloning.

Q: What’s the deal with that creepy Trevor guy I remember from the cartoon?
A: Not much, and the movie really un-creepifies him. Which was sort of disappointing, in a way. Anyway, Trevor is a clone of his original self. Aeon is also a clone (everyone is a clone)… Aeon’s original ‘person’ was Trevor’s wife. That’s why they are into one another, and also I guess why they also sort of want to kill one another.

Q: Anything else that is worth mentioning?
A: Corny. Corny. Stupid dialogue. Special effects for the sake of special effects. A woman with hands for feet is pretty weird, but not nightmare-inducing. And why do a covert assassination operation at night while wearing a stark white suit? Come on now, Aeon; I know you are played by a Mentally Retarded Female and all, but this is rideekoolus.

I love the movies! Movies rock. Now I have to decide what I should see next. Trish said King Kong is actually really good. I’ll probably check it out. If I had the discretionary income, I would definitely go see “Jesus is Magic” because that’s the sort of humor I can really endorse. But I can’t see spending precious dollars to watch a comedy concert that’s not even an hour and a half long; and let’s face it, Sarah Silverman might have some good material but she is annoying to watch.

Maybe she can borrow some of Anne Hathaway’s wigs and run around in futuristic underpants. That would be a movie that would truly play to the heartland.