// you’re reading...

Film

The Critics Choice - 2006

By Jon Shoemaker ⋅ January 9, 2006 ⋅ Post a comment

The Critics Choice Awards just named Brokeback Mountain the Critics Choice of the Year (Five of the last six years the winner of this award won the Oscars). I suppose this just proves that critics are a bunch of homos. King Kong should have won without contest. Even Cinderella Man. But I think the critics just want to look like they are down with controversy, or gay cowboys.

Print This Post

Discussion

Comments are disallowed for this post.

  1. You know who is really down with gay cowboys. The terrorist. Think about it.

    Posted by Aaron | January 10, 2006, 3:42 pm

  2. I am sure that it is not about controversy. After all, consider the 2004 nominees and winner. “Sideways” won. Controversial? I never heard anything about it. (…except “Gross, a naked guy running down the street!”) The only two movies remotely controversial out of last years nominees were “Kinsey” and “Million Dollar Baby” and even then one would had to have been closely following Chrisian talk radio to have been outraged by those.

    I have not seen “Brokeback Mountain” so I cannot comment intelligently on it. I have seen the trailers for the movie and admit that it appears to have an agenda at the heart of the story. That said, I will most likely still watch it and render my opinion then.

    As for the Broadcast Film Critics Association (from whom comes the Critics Choice Awards), I have no doubt that they have an agenda. I have little respect for them.

    Posted by Nate | January 10, 2006, 6:19 pm

  3. You keep writing about B-Back Mountain, MySpace, hating boobs, marching bands, and parades… all I hear is gay, gay, gay, gay, gay.

    Posted by Aaron | January 10, 2006, 8:27 pm

  4. Nate: I said nothing about past winners being chosen in controversy. But what I see is a trend shifting from “big blockbusters” winning for their outstanding cinemaphotography (think King Kong) to supporting these more controversial pictures because the controversy is what drives the box office. If these pictures are supported, it suddenly creates more studios to fund them and more are made. If Brokeback Mountain was the love story of a boyfriend and girlfriend herding cattle together and making out on the mountain, it would be just like any other movie.

    Aaron: I could be gayer. Want to see Brokeback Mountain with me?

    Posted by Jon Shoe | January 10, 2006, 9:50 pm

  5. Boy Aaron, that was really mean

    Posted by rg | January 10, 2006, 10:07 pm

  6. I don’t like to comment three times on one post, but yes I would like to see BBM with you, assuming you’re paying.
    RG: I think you need to mind your own bussiness and remember not to bite the hand that feeds you.

    Posted by Aaron | January 11, 2006, 12:56 pm

  7. I didn’t see RG biting Cyndi’s hand…

    Posted by Jon Shoe | January 11, 2006, 1:31 pm

  8. Aaron - you actually believe that they PAY people who teach at APU? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Ha.

    Jon - Know how I know you’re gay?

    What’s really funny is that you’re actually arguing for more critical recognition for blockbuster films. Because, somehow, we need the studios to realize that the public wants more CG effects in their films? Or maybe that people like Peter Jackson films? Don’t TELL me that you like the film because of it’s emotional complexity!

    That would make you SO gay.

    Posted by Frazier | January 12, 2006, 12:01 pm

  9. RG is the one talking about emotional complexity after seeing the film. I am just really into monkeys.

    Posted by Jon Shoe | January 12, 2006, 1:16 pm

  10. Apes aren’t monkeys.

    -Words mean this; words mean that

    Posted by rg | January 12, 2006, 8:42 pm