Yes, Yes, YES FINE! I’LL do a review again, sure.

Actually, I’ll do a couple in short sequence, having seen a couple of movies the last week and having something to say about most of them. But this is the first.

I was reading a review of “Brokeback Mountain” a few weeks ago where the critic had the pleasure of seeing the movie along with the last of the test-audiences. In this audience, at the end of the movie, someone remarked: “They never should have made this movie.” I agree. Not because BbM is a bad film (because it isn’t), or because it is wholly about somebody who is so unable to communicate that it is amazing for anyone, let alone at least three people, to fall head over heels for him (because it is).
No, Brokeback Mountain should not have been made because the world that makes the movie a possibility should not be there. People should NOT be killed because they love in an uncommon configuration. The world should be made in such a way that the subject matter of BbM can only be conceived in a general “what if the world was really fucked up” way, and serve as a cautionary tale along the lines of “look how good we have it”.

The fact that viewing the movie gives one the distinct impression that even though it is not based on a true story for as far as the writers know, it might, and probably will, have been played out just so, somewhere, is a sad and twisted thing to have in a world.
The knowledge that indeed a good parent only ten years ago would’ve cried at the kitchen table when their child vacated it’s closet is not a good thing to have. And yes, a good parent would’ve done just that, not for the loss of grandchildren but for the knowledge that someone somehow wants to hurt their child based on a stupid and ultimately inconsequent preference, and what parent would not weep?

But Brokeback Mountain was made, and, in my personal opinion, it needed to be made, given the world as we have it before us. Perhaps it will, in a small way, change the world so that our children’s children can watch this movie and see it as nothing more than fiction.
Yesterday, I went to “the New World” and god, if ever there was a movie that should simply not have been made, and which ads very little, if anything, to the world it now inhabits, it is this one.
Furthermore, should my children’s children find out that this movie has changed the world in even the smallest way and should they not do anything about this fact, I will rise from my grave, urn, crypt, riverbed or concrete pillar to haunt them till they even take their own lives or that of the scriptwriter(s). And yes, I would prefer for them to kill rather than to be killed, but one can’t make an omelet without breaking some eggs.

Now there are a few things I need to say in favor of this movie.
Start with the lead. Not Colin Farrell. His character has no arc, no change, no development, nothing. He is just Colin Farrell, nice-bodied but whiny-faced catalyst to a story he has no idea of how to handle. He has a tendency for grand roles but nowhere near the acting skills to pull of high-drama.
Let’s for now and all face it people: Farrell is beefcake. Good face, good body. He is an actor for romantic comedies and action flicks, nothing more. He should not be allowed to puppy-dog his way through another historical drama or any other thing that requires him to have depth or layers. For Christ sakes, he is out-acted by Christian Bale in this flick and nobody can accuse him of a consistent acting-strength

No, the lead, without a doubt goes to (and I need to google spelling here) Q'Orianka Kilcher. Her character, Rebecca (Pocahontas, though she is never called this during the movie) is as far as my limited acting experience can deduce, extremely difficult to pull of, and she does it. Wonderfully. Starting out as an innocent, growing half insane with grief and abandonment, turning into a woman that makes a conscious choice to better her life and ending a mature stranger in a world she doesn’t understand but can view as she does herself, with apparent humour and elegance.
Now I would put it to most present day actresses to do this believably, honestly. Just about the only thing in this movie I have nothing negative to say about is she.

The scenery and camerawork is simply sublime. The deserted landscapes, the boats, the people moving through waving grasslands and marshes are all lovingly, slowly set up, making for truly astounding imagery. Fair enough, most of the movie is visually perfect, beautiful and poignant. But only visual.
And don’t get me wrong, I am a visual person. I LIKE looking at pretty things/people. But there just aren’t enough in this movie, and when they do saunter ‘cross the screen they do so very, very little that watching them is a chore. An actual chore. A boring one.

And the movie is just too damn long. EVERYTHING takes ages. And it’s basically stupid. I’m sorry but it is. At the end of the film the two main characters meet again in England. John Smith, having left his Indian wife alone amongst strangers, meets up with her at her new husbands’ estate near London. They talk, for the first time in about five years, and he tells her that he has heard of her through the courtiers and nobles in town. Apparently our redskin has made quite an impression and is widely known as “her ladyship” and who would’ve thought?
Well, everybody...
Considering she is the most beloved daughter of the most powerful chieftain in, well, Virginia, I would say that merely becoming “her ladyship” is quite a step DOWN, you mongrel. She was a Princess! A goddess to her tribe, loved by all, and now she is a nobody with a good dress.
Stupid.
Simply stupid.

And then there is the sweet and simple scene in the beginning of the movie where we use the “pointing/touching and saying the word” method of language transference. She touches his lips, says “(&*&(“ and he says “lips” and they have both learned a new world. So on with eyes. And skin. And arms. Ears. Nose. Hair. Nose-hair. Earwax.
And this lengthy but useless filler is done by the Indian girl with sweetness and innocence, but by the western invader with a look that suggests that any moment now he is going to take her hand downwards out of the screen and say “erection”.
(I’m sure at least one porn-parody will use this technique)
This is not wrong, until we consider the fact that the girl is all but 13 or something like that.
And then it becomes wrong…

And wrong it stays. We KNOW Pocahontas was an Indian princess, and we KNOW that she is a good deal younger than Disney would have us believe, but in this movie that has been brought to the attention so very, very well. She is a young child, she plays games with her brothers, walks barefoot, smiles a lot, is sweet and kind and caring and she is about to be poked by some murdering Englishman with his one-eyed gopher and somehow it is icky.
Yes they love each other. Sure. But it is still icky.
And dull.

So very, very dull.

Seriously, dull. I could write this review in about real time with the movie and it would consist of basic phrases. Hmm, lemme try this.
The first five minutes:

A boat.
Another boat.
Another boat.
The boats.
Boats, different angle.
Boats again.
Shore, behind boats.
Boats.
BoaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

Dull.
Very dull.
If you do go and see it, see it because of the female roles, even though there are only two of any consequence. Ignore the males, watch the scenery and if you ever think “I want to leave but I’ll stay to see if anything will happen” just leave, cause it won’t.