That was MY problem with it. Though I’m willing to make allowances for time & place–that is, the fact that they would not have perceived coming out of the closet as an option–they were still adulterers. Would the movie be so acclaimed if the leads had been a heterosexual couple?
I don’t think it would have been as acclaimed, but I don’t think the reason would be people objecting to the adultery part. It would just be another hetero love story such as we’ve seen a million times before.
Quite true. And don’t misunderstand: I think Brokeback Mountain is an excellent movie. I just think the adultery make the protagonists less likeable, but not unforgivably unlikeable.
I hate The Bridges of Madison County because of the adultery theme; both the book and the movie.
That and I cannot stand Clint Eastwood’s plodding (yawn) directing style. But that’s probably actually a valid reason.
It’s actually, I think, a very valid reason to hate a movie, and not a minor one. Adultery is so often validated in these movies, like it’s OK as long as you’re really really in love. Yeah, reality often fits like that but that doesn’t mean I have to like it in a movie!
Incidentally, Anaamika, on the Buffy issue: I too was hesitant to begin it and had to be hectored by a now-ex-girlfriend into doing so. It’s worth it, and given your tastes in movies & such that you’ve expressed hereabouts, I think you’d like it. A good thing, though, is that a good many of the episodes are self-contained, so beyond knowing the basic premise, you can probably jump in at either season 2, 3, or 4 without too much difficulty. I started with the season finale of the 3rd season and went on from there, and liked it.
Fanboy lust is for characters, not authors.
I don’t know that there is anything wrong with glorifying virtue over intelligence. I consider it an unfortunate reality of society that an immoral but intelligent man will do better than a moral but simple one.
Truth be told though I think the willingness to behave immorally more often than not leads to greater success in life than either virtue or intellect. A lot of entrepreneurs who are self made millionaires or even billionaires are no smarter than average, they are just more ruthless than average and have a very keen ability in the area in which they operate. As an example I don’t really think Cornelius Vanderbilt [he left school at age 11 and to my knowledge never showed any great love of intellectual pursuits] was that intelligent in a general sense, but he knew his industry and he knew how to get ahead in it, through any means necessary.
This is also part of the problem; my SO has nil interest in it. I’d have to watch it alone - not as much fun.
No reason you should force yourself! It’s not like I was a writer on the show or anything. 
Sounds like a case of values dissonance. Like many examples given in this thread.
Actually I do want to watch it but I hate getting roped into a show. There are so many movies to watch, plus so many other things to do rather than watch a TV show…not that I don’t make exceptions but I’m not sure that Buffy is going to be the exception.
I think that question is sort of meaningless, no? If the characters were heterosexual it wouldn’t have been anything resembling the same movie.
Yes, that movie would have been “a man & a woman meet on a cattle drive, fall in love, and live happily every after”, since both the leads were single when they first met/started their relationship. The whole movie was hinged on the fact that they couldn’t be together.
While we’re on adultery, I think this is part of what bugs me about so many romantic comedies. One of the romantic interests is in a relationship, then falls for/cheats on their current partner with the other romantic interest. But we’re still supposed to like the leads, because the cuckolded partner is a jerk/bitch/uptight/some silly reason.
I’ll tell you a stupid reason to dislike a movie. While I hate Ben Affliction, I also won’t watch movies with Denzel Washington. I hate that man and have no reason why.
And I am relieved beyond belief to find someone else shares my opinion of Clint Eastwood outside of his Westerns. I don’t watch much Westerns but I don’t think he’s a very good actor; he only has one style, that stiff sort of thing, and it doesn’t translate well. Wooden, wooden, wooden.
I am totally repelled by movies that show people throwing up. I can think of several great movies that I won’t watch again due to the pukitude. Does that make me emetophobic?
I’m also loathe to see any movie about pregnancy / new parenthood.
Oh fuck yes. It’s disgusting. I hate to sound old but I remember a time when we used to CUT AWAY and the sound of puking was bad enough.
I am willing to make exceptions for war flicks, though I will still look away, but I understand it more. But in just stupid comedies? EEW.
I guess it’s different than with video games where everyone sidles up to the girl player.
Yeah, what is up with this trend anyway? Did it used to be prohibited and now that it’s allowed every director has to put a vomit scene in? Is it some kind of ratings grabber, like nudity? I rarely find myself in proximity of someone getting sick yet movies today would have you think that the world is one big barf-o-rama. Blergh.
I find curious this opinion ( shared by some of my friends as well, by the way ) that posits that movies are inherently superior to TV. Especially in these renaissance days of quality cable series, I simply can’t agree that’s the case.
Further I find odd the argument ( and this may not be yours ) that watching TV is in general an inferior way to spend your time relative to some other leisure time activity. There is nothing ennobling about reading a book, for instance - I should know, I read plenty and have scarcely improved in nobility at all :). If that’s all you do, I’ll grant that’s a bit constipated. But folks that refuse to watch TV “because it’s a waste of time”, perplex me. If you enjoy it, it’s no more a waste of time than that Carl Hiasson novel you’re reading.