Replies

I don't know what it is these days with calling movies "homoerotic."

In Return of the King, that cry came out. Could it be that two best friends (of the non-human hobbit race) could share a bond after being through hell and back? Nope. Must be homoerotic.

There wasn't the slightest bit of anything in 300 other than the fact that the Spartans didn't wear much. That didn't seem to have much effect on any men in the theater (though the woman certainly loved it). Though in all honesty, if I'm watching a movie about heroic warriors fighting against impossible odds, I'd rather they look like men and not androgenous waif boys. (I'm actually surprised they were able to assemble a cast involving that many masculine-looking men.)

I don't know who to blame for this, but it seems as though a man can't have a close friendship with another man (as a brother or a friend) without being labeled as something. So many military movies are labeled this way, ignoring the fact that soldiers bond during and after the hardships they face.

For a supposedly "tolerant" and "open-minded" group of people, they (liberals, critics, and liberal critics) sure seem to bring up homosexuality an awful lot - where it does and doesn't belong - and act quite strange about it.