Better than Brokeback

I agree. 2 interesting points: W.I.L. goes way further than B.B.M did (speaking in terms of male nudity). BB goes further with the act of gay sex, but we should consider that WIL was made almost 40 yrs ago!

Point 2: Rinko Kikuchi gets a Oscar nom almost 40 yrs later for showing her business in Babel.

Have we really not progressed as a society in 40 yrs that nudity in film (particularly of the full-frontal variety) is still such a big deal!?

Some of the other comments regarding male full-frontal here are mostly negative.

So if Rinko shows her junk, she get an Oscar nom? But an A-list male star like Mark Wahlberg uses a prosthetic (Boogie Nights)? What's the big deal with people's genitalia?

YES YES YES YES YES!

Brokeback was a severe disappointment. They didn't even seem that gay. They just sort did the sex thing really suddenly. But with this movie, they don't have sex, but you can SO feel the sexual tension between Gerald and Rupert. Oh, and the nude wrestling scene was perfect--EXACTLY how I imagined it when I was reading the book.

Alfonso-lover
SPERMinator
Proud LUNAtic
"What is **nt?" --Lady Chatterley

Much better, and i belong to that cathegory of people who often heard how these two films were compared ( most friends, acquaintances compare these two films). Well, inspite of the differences, the two films have several points in common, in both tough the characters are both physically and platonically attracted to each other have long-standing heterosexual relationships and seem to enjoy them too, they don't just stay in the closet and eventually get involved with women just to fit into the mainstream, in some moments, in both films, heterosexual pleasure is being achieved. In both films the message is not as much pro- gay or pro- bi but that everyone has the right to enjoy their sexuality, irrespective of sexual orientation and some darker twists ( which are much better dealt with and explained in Russell's films). All in all, while in Brokeback, tough i found this film interesting and challenging, up to a certain point i had the feeling that it involved only some good-looking Hollywood guys "doing" both genders, technically, visually correct, but quite mechanical and repetitive. In Women in Love the heterosexual/ homosexual/ bisexual attraction was gradually and cleverly used, in a continuous and compelling, almost haunting rising up to climaxes represented by symbolical moments of maximum heterosexual and homosexual gratification. The characters, actors and situations are more complex in Women in Love, this film, unlike Brokeback Mountain, leaving much more questions opened yet revealing the answer to very few.

[deleted]

To be honest, I think the only reason people compare Brokeback Mountain and Women in Love, is the wrestling scene.

Brokeback Mountain was exclusively a very straightforward story about two homosexuals. Women in Love is a very complex story about women-men relationships, and only throws the homoerotic subtext until the wrestling scene. Even the gay couple in the final scenes was pretty much irrelevant, they just giggle and throw dirty looks, and they pretty much ignore each other after one of them starts to hang around with Glenda Jackson.

I don't think these two movies are similar at all.


____________________________________________________________________________________

My ratings:
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur5531916/ratings

Oh yeah way more entertaining.

Absolutely