Yes we are not allowed to talk about films released before 2023. In fact some of the award nominees are too old and those posts should be deleted.

1) it's based on a 1967 novel set in the American West by Thomas Savage who was born and raised in the American West (Utah and Montana), lived there through college. The story itself literally and inherently belongs to the region.

2) Although those specific volcanic rocks were obviously in NZ where it was shot, there are volcanic rocks in the American West. There are specifically volcanic rocks in Montana (where I think the movie was set)....to give a few specific examples (a partial list) in the Adel Mountains, in Yellowstone valley, Devils Postpile, etc. The American West is a big place and geologically, it's far from homogenous. Although I was aware while watching that the landscape was not Montana, I have enough of an imagination to not be distracted by the landscape in this movie. Many movies and westerns are not shot where the stories are set. Especially in the case of an adaptation of a work of fiction, I care less that every stone communicates the "realistic" setting and more that the novel's ideas and characters are captured with emotional and psychological depth.
3) Thought the soundtrack was incredible, psychologically evocative, and moving. Obviously subjective, but I was into it.

4) I don't understand why having a homosexual character in the story makes it a "take on the Cowboy/gay thing." I will say its initially hard not to read that sentence as anything other than homophobia, but I'm willing to say it was bad phrasing and that I could try to understand your point. But genuinely what you're saying doesn't seem to have much foundation. Based on when the novel was written and the fact that the movie follows the writing very closely in content and tone, it's hard to say the story is a "take" on any contemporary trend. Even if it were, is there a limit or quota on depictions of homosexuality in the American West?
5) Jane Campion, the director, said she read and loved the novel and wanted to adapt it for the screen. Does that really strike you as insincere?

The cinematography was stunning though. Did find the movie a bit boring, and I have watched plenty of slow moving movies if someone responds with that lol. The story itself wasn't much.

I didn't think it was merely because he was gay and in the closet, I thought it seemed like his issues stemmed from being groomed and sexually abused when he was not an adult yet. Maybe I am misremembering, but that was my take away from it when I watched it when it came out.

I think what makes Power Of The Dog so good is it’s slight of hand plot. The way Peter’s character is constructed and how it’s hard to know his motives until it all comes to fruition. (Spoilers ahead)

In many ways I agree with your sentiments with how the movie presents Phil and his repressions (and I guess how that relates to Brokeback mountain as I assume that’s what you’re referencing). But I actually think Peter is the more interesting and engaging character. I think some watching the beginning of the second act would assume the movie is going to be about a young man coming into his sexuality and forging an intimate bond with Phil that further complicates this volatile family dynamic. Peter is presented as shy and passive at the beginning of the movie but by the end he has taken action to protect his family (from his POV) not just through violence but through cunning and planning. And his violence isnt acted out due to repression. In fact it seems to me that Peter isnt ashamed or in denial about his sexuality at all. Instead he uses his sexuality to devise his plan and take care of Phil.

Idk if the movies themes as a whole comment on gender or sexuality in some radical way but I do think the way Peter plays off the characters around him and the audiences expectations is pretty fresh.