man, I hate reviews like this

So I was browsing the Rotten Tomatoes page on Brokeback Mountain and I came upon this review:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1152313/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=2&rid=1456734

Now, I know it's just a review, but reviewers like this piss me off. The snippet they chose to put on the page ("I love gay people and I love gay movies - just not this one") set me off immediately and I knew I had to read further. And yeah, the rest of the review confirms my suspisions that this guy just doesn't seem to understand gay people, romance, or really, life in general. OK, that's harsh. Put these things he says are just too rich.

First of all, what qualifies for him as a "gay movie?" Do the characters have to be queeny? Does it have to be bad and cheesy like most mainstream gay movies are? This film isn't promoting itself as a "gay movie"; it's promoting itself as a tragic romance.

So his little disclamor really just digs him further into the dirt, as far as I'm concerned.

Then there's this: "At least to me, the love story never came alive. Lord knows I'm an easy mark when it comes to films that go for the heart, but I was curiously unmoved by this so-called gay western."

Well, first of all, stop calling it a "gay western"... that's bound to keep you from being moved. That term has been tagged on by people who don't get it and want to pigoenhole it into something pat. It sounds like "films that go for the heart" for him mean crappy romantic comedies.

"They develop a friendship over that summer, even though Ennis doesn't talk much and Jack tends to act like a goofy bastard, and one night as they share a smallish tent, that friendship turns into something much deeper."

It sounds like he doesn't understand the concepts of opposites attracting... even in friendships.

But here's the real kicker:

"Alright, I've pushed this back enough, let's get into what I see as the film's real flaw. How can I put this delicately? I know it's politically incorrect to say that buttfucks are not particularly romantic to me, but I have to touch upon that as this is the main reason the film left me cold. Again, this has nothing to do with how it's two men who engage in it - what's frustrating to me is that the bond between the two characters seems mostly sexual. We're told over and over that Jack and Ennis desperately love each other, but almost all we see them do together is get drunk and have rough sex. Fun for them, no doubt, but as a movie romance, it's a little thin."

"Fun for them"!? How dense is he?
This just kills any credibility he thought he had as a reviewer. First of all, has he not heard of men at this time not being able to express their emotions? Particularly with other men? (see the dilemma here?) I mean, Jesus. It's called societal repression. It's what this movie is about. If he can't relate, lucky him.

The funny things is, others have criticized the sex scenes for being over-romanticized and not "rough" enough. I think it just goes to show that some have stronger stomachs than others.

I mean, if this guy really didn't have a problem with the man-on-man nature of the sex, he could've avoided the use of the word, "butt-fucking". I mean, really. If you're going to pan a film loved by the masses, that's also about a sensitive political topic, you should really do it with a little class, to avoid making yourself look like an idiot. One gets the feeling he wanted to say "butt-fucking" the whole time, but first had to actually write something resembling a real review.

Now, I know I appear rabidly pro-Brokeback here (and anti-Geisha for that matter) even sight unseen... all the indicators point to the former being great and the latter not so much. Perhaps I'm being too judgmental of this reviewer or just taking it way too seriously. Perhaps one reason I'm even writing this is to put my own strong emotions about this on display, and be judged accordingly... because I really feel strongly about some of the dumb reactions to this film. I mean, if he was paid to write this thing, then I'm angry, cause it's a stupid review. It has no substance and little to back up its conclusions, and the writer seems quite unaware of his own ignorance/bias.

Anyway, I really can't wait to see it and post some of own thoughts that are actually backed up by facts.

I would like feedback, though, from people letting me know if I'm maybe too sensitive or jumping to too many conclusions about this. I feel inappropriately angry here. I just feel like some critics are just not qualified.

Harrumph.