December 25, 2009, - 3:34 pm

Weekend Box Office: “Sherlock Holmes,” “Nine,” “It’s Complicated,” “Victoria,” “Single Man”

By Debbie Schlussel

Nothing that spectacular new at the box office for this holiday weekend (though a couple of movies are okay).  Last night, I rented and watched, “Leon:  The Professional” (a somewhat violent but interesting and different movie about a hitman), and liked that better than most of ’em.  But, in case you are planning to go to the movies in the next few days, here are my reviews:




*  “Sherlock Holmes“:  Three words -pretentious, convoluted, silly.  I wanted to like this movie because I enjoyed reading the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  But this movie bears little similarity to or inspiration from Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes detective series.  The only things that are similar are the English accents and setting and the names Holmes and Watson.  Some critics–I’ve counted three already (from the Wall Street Journal to the Gannett wire to USA Today)–are calling this, “Not Your Father’s Sherlock Holmes.”  I just call it, Not Sherlock Holmes.

Instead, it’s a pretentious, dull, boring attempt to be all things:  a superhero movie, a romantic comedy, a dark thriller, and some sort of supernatural forces flick. And as a result, it’s none of the above, just a long, aimless everything-but-the-kitchen-sink piece of bloat.  Did Doyle’s Holmes have acrobatic superhero style strength to swing around bridges and constructions sites?  Not that I recall, but I guess director Guy Ritchie thought the “Iron Man” people were on to something and tried to make his Robert Downey, Jr. vehicle a superhero flick, too.

This movie is confusing, unclear, and the convoluted plot undecipherable until the last few minutes, when Downey, Jr.’s Holmes explains several preposterous events from throughout the movie and explains how they were carried out through sleight of hand and con-man tricks.  You wouldn’t have been able to figure it out (a cardinal requirement of a good thriller, which always gives the viewer a hint or two), even if  you cared enough to try to understand what was going on.

The “story”:  Homes and his sidekick, Dr. John Watson, are on the trail of a killer, Lord Blackwood  (Britain’s Andy Garcia look-alike, actor Mark Strong), who has already been executed and appears to have returned from the grave.  Watson and Holmes are also on the trail of “the ginger midget,” a red-headed dwarf who has concocted all kinds of poison and animal dissections at an abandoned location.  The “dead” mass murderer employs an American former nemesis of Holmes, con artist Rachel McAdams, to get at Holmes.  But, soon, she finds herself working with Holmes to do . . . well, I’m not quite sure.  But they are apparently trying to stop Lord Blackwood from poisoning half of Britain’s Parliament with cyanide.  Then, the three of them end up on the aforementioned bridge construction site, where all kinds of acrobatic heroics ensue.  The end.  Yawn.

And believe me, I’m making it sound better than it actually is, merely by telling you about it.  Need to drop ten bucks and two-plus hours to feel like you’ve been robbed?  Go see “Holmes.”  But sadly, this is one problem the real detective concocted by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle won’t be able to solve.

Doyle is turning over in his grave.  Hollywood has turned his master creation into a carnival of the stupid.  And there isn’t even that natty signature Holmes dual-billed chapeau anywhere in the movie to cover it up.  Lackluster to the Nth.

The best advice here is this:  Stay Holmes.


*  “Nine“:  Oy.  Talk about an overkill of chick flick.  This movie is a disaster.  It’s a musical with horrid songs and uncatchy tunes, zero story, and a lot of hype.  But, hey, it has a gazillion talentless Hollywood divas starring in it, along with self-hating anti-Israel Jew Daniel Day-Lewis as a stereotypical philandering Italian, named Guido.  Despite lots of drumbeats and loud singing numbers, I struggled to stay awake during this two hour exercise in overwrought, sequin-encrusted blah.

Penelope Cruz, America-hater Kate Hudson, Nicole Kidman, overrated Fergie/Stacy Ferguson, 9/11 Truther Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, and Sophia Loren play various prostitutes, lovers, and other women in the life of director Guido.  Guido is producing his next big movie, except that there really is no movie, he has no idea what he’s doing, and the rest of the movie is silly musical numbers, in which he reminisces on his life (as a kid with prostitute Fergie, in Catholic school, and with his wife, on whom he cheats with Penelope Cruz and various other women), and fantasizes about women dancing.  Oh, and there are also his many fights with the many women in his life.  You can watch the same thing regularly on “Lifetime” or “WE” minus the bad musical numbers.

Ironically, while the movie is supposed to take place in Italy, the only major role (and it’s actually a few tiny cameos) played by a genuine Italian actress is that of Sophia Loren.  Not that I cared.  The movie was that bad, that dull, and that much a loud mess of wasted musical notes.


*  “It’s Complicated“:  The first half of this movie–a chick flick for the middle-aged–was surprisingly funny, though parts were utterly gross.  I really had no need for scenes of cackling middle-aged women, like George Stephanopolous’ real-life wife and Tom Hanks’ wife discussing whether or not the vagina closes up if you don’t use it.  Nor did I have use for the scintillating dialogue, such as this from Alec Baldwin to Meryl Streep, who plays his ex-wife, after sex during an affair they are having (and after he’s put his hand on her crotch):

I like that you’ve stopped bikini waxing.  You’ve gone native.

How far the uber-liberal Baldwin has fallen that this is the dialogue he gets in Hollywood scripts, along with several opportunities to show us his extremely fat, naked physique, complete with man-boobs and giant butt. Uh, no thanks. I’ve had my fill of snickering for the week. And it looks like he’s had his fill of Snickers for the decade.

And those were the, um, “highlights.” The rest of the movie was downhill from there and simply a mess. Plus, it moved at the pace of a glacier.

Streep plays a middle-aged chic bakery/restaurant owner and chef, who has been divorced from hubby Baldwin for ten years. They have several grown children together. But Baldwin cheated on her with a much younger woman (the pretentiously named Lake Bell), who is now forcing him to go to fertility clinics, put up with her child, and have sex with her on command to have another child. He longs for his ex-wife’s cooking and laid back style, and soon they find themselves in bed together after a drunken dinner the night before their youngest child’s graduation. The affair begins, but Streep is also being pursued by the architect who is planning the expansion of her home, the nerdy Steve Martin. Ultimately, she gets treated like the other woman by Baldwin, as they sneak around and doesn’t like it. Oh, and there are a ton of silly scenes, like Streep, Baldwin, their son-in-law, and Martin smoking pot. Uh, been there, seen that. It’s called, “Dude, Where’s My Car?” This must be the sequel, “Dude, Where’s My Hot Flash Medication?”

So what? Who cares? Apparently only the members of the “menopause action team” who wrote this for the women craving their fix of the yucky until the next installment of the “Sex & the City” aging hags move comes out next spring.


*   “The Young Victoria“: Oddly enough, this arthouse style movie is the best of the bunch, this weekend, chronicling the early life and early years of the reign of young Queen Victoria of England (well played by Emily Blunt) from when she was just 18. It’s smart and interesting, even if I didn’t like its feminist tinge.

Victoria, as sole heir to the English throne from her uncle, King William IV, is under tremendous pressure by her mother and her mother’s suitor to sign over her power (should her uncle die) to them until she becomes an adult. But, even as a young child and later as a teen, she refuses.

Though I don’t know much about the history of Victoria’s life and reign, it was an interesting, serious look at the tensions between the Crown and the English Parliament and its Prime Minister at the time, and how each relied in some part on the other for its hold on power. Once she becomes an adult and her uncle dies, she further asserts her independence as Queen, first choosing Lord Melbourne, the English Prime Minister, as her mentor, then, concerning herself with creating the ultimate welfare state in England.

It was also an interesting look into what it was like to be a single female with an incredible amount of power in 1800s England, and an even greater desire to use it to show the men who’s boss. That part was unsettling and unbecoming. But, apparently, it happened.

It’s also the story of a powerful, single Queen’s unparalleled position as the ultimate prey of many power-seeking suitors. The movie focuses on the courtship between Victoria and Prince Albert of Germany (Rupert Friend). He is the nephew of King Leopold, who schemes and pushes the romance, because he is badly in need of England’s help to save his country and hold on power. At first, Albert’s romance is stiff, clumsy, and not willing, but ultimately he falls for her of his own volition. Her feminist wiles, however, create a wall put up by a Queen who wants to reign alone and be led by no-one, save herself and those she chooses. Ultimately, she sees her mistake and eventually marries Albert. But the marriage is not without it’s pitfalls. He is the woman in the marriage, and, as Queen, she is the alpha male.

A scene in which an ignorant Queen Victoria, who knows not what she’s doing and is sadly in need of advice, yells at her husband that he’s basically just a sperm donor for her reminded me of Sarah Palin, whose husband is the wife and mother in the family. Sarah Palin plus a brain, common sense, and modicum of class, that is. (With apologies to Queen Victoria–who was brilliant and well read, versus the completely ignorant, total lightweight Palin–for the comparison.)

But, ultimately, Victoria comes to realize that without sharing her duties and power with her husband, her marriage won’t last. Men are that way–in not wanting to be women. At least they were then. And now, we have Todd Palins all over the place.

The movie moved somewhat slowly, but it was beautiful to look at. Gorgeous costumes and picturesque settings, including palace gardens on the outside and luxurious sitting rooms on the inside.


*  “A Single Man“: Think “Brokeback Mountain” on the set of “Mad Men.” This extremely sad, depressing movie–a beautifully constructed piece of propaganda for gay marriage–is essentially this year’s “Milk” (read my review).  We’re supposed to feel extreme sadness for the main character–a classy English professor played by Colin Firth–and his utter sadness when his longtime lover dies in early ’60s Los Angeles, when homosexuality wasn’t accepted and had to be hidden.

And it’s no coincidence that Firth is impeccably dressed, as are all of the movie’s characters, and the furniture and architecture of the sets is oh so stunning. The movie is the first time movie project of director Tom Ford, who formerly headed up Gucci.

Firth’s longtime lover dies, and he is heartbroken. As a professor at Santa Monica college, his life is now empty. And he was specifically asked not to attend his boyfriend’s funeral. As a gay man, he has no rights to the rites of that deceased life. (Yet, neither would the parties in a non-married straight couple, unless they–as the gays could have–chose to draw up legal papers.)

Firth meets his longtime fellow expatriate English gal-pal and one-time girlfriend (Julianne Moore) for dinner, where they engage in drunkenness, cigarettes, dancing, and her whining about why he won’t be her boyfriend and insists on being gay.

Also, Firth meets an inquisitive pretty-boy student, who tries to befriend him in a very aggressive manner. Is the student gay like him or not? The last quarter of the movie is the kabuki dance that ends in the most depressing way possible.

Oh, and I really didn’t need to see a photo of his lover, complete with pubic hair on display.  Gross.  Why was this necessary?

Other than that, terrific style.  Horrible substance.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

38 Responses

Two words make me not want to see Sherlock Holmes, Guy Ritchie. Has this guy ever made a movie people want to see?

John on December 25, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” was fun. But that’s it.

    lexi on December 25, 2009 at 11:12 pm

Re Sherlock Holmes, every now and then there is a good remake of a book that is a classic. But all too often, they try to ‘modernize’ it and make the characters hip, so they can fit into today’s degenerate era. It sounds like this movie is just another example of that.

Little Al on December 25, 2009 at 4:14 pm

Re: Debbie on “It’s Complicated”

“How far the uber-liberal Baldwin has fallen that this is the dialogue he gets in Hollywood scripts, along with several opportunities to show us his extremely fat, naked physique, complete with man-boobs and giant butt. Uh, no thanks. I’ve had my fill of snickering for the week. And it looks like he’s had his fill of Snickers for the decade.”


Thank you for the reviews, Debbie. I wanted to see Sherlock Holmes and was considering seeing “It’s complicated”, but thanks to your reviews, I can now scratch those movies off my list.

JeffE on December 25, 2009 at 4:18 pm

    I would not even CONSIDER seeing a movie with Meryl Streep in it. She is a pretentious bore. Won’t she please just retire and leave the Hollywood scene?

    lexi on December 25, 2009 at 11:14 pm

      I used to call MEryl Streep the “Berlitz School of Acting” because of her many accents. She was attractive in this movie but the script was lame. I was very disappointed. As for Daniel Day Lewis it is sad to read that he is just another liberal Jew-hater. I guess that is what one can expect from Arthur Miller’s son in law. His father in law was one of the most overrated writers in the United States.

      JulieJ. on December 26, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Where’s your review for “The Lovely Bones”?

Matthew on December 25, 2009 at 4:34 pm

You also said you were going to review “Me and Orson Welles” last week. I understand idf you weren’t able to see those. I know you were unable to screen “the Princess and the Frog”. It’s not too late. Maybe to post a review, but not to see and enjoy.

Matthew on December 25, 2009 at 4:39 pm

OFF topic Debbie but do you have any info on the Delta/Northwest flight From the Netherlands to Detroit today?
They are saying that a “passenger” lit off “firecrackers”. There were injuries and at least one passenger has been taken to the University of Michigan hospital.

Billy on December 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Just saw it today, arrggghhh. You are exactly right on this and, we couldn’t understand most of the dialogue, and the sets were very messy and dirty. When we left the theater, My husband said, we were just ‘had’!

Lynda Williams on December 25, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Jude Law looks pretty cool as Dr Watson though.

Norman Blitzer on December 25, 2009 at 6:45 pm

    “Jude Law looks pretty cool as Dr Watson though…
    ……………..Norman Blitzer”

    True, but it’s never good news when the sidekick outshines the main hero…at least, for the hero.
    Just ask the Green Hornet… 😉

    theShadow on December 27, 2009 at 12:39 am

Interesting history of Victoria.
Her father was a German aristocrat and a veteran of Napoleanic war. A bachelor well advanced in his age when he found himself as the sole heir to the British throne. They quickly found him a German aristocratic bride who was a widow with two daughters. The union produced Victoria. Ironically, these two Germans parents produced a German speaking heir for the British throne. This German speaking queen would end up marrying a German prince and produced German princes and princesses. One of her daughters would end up marrying a German prince. This German prince would become king of Germany (Wildheim 1). This union will produce a German prince. He would later become King of Germany (Wildheim II). He would then launch a war against England where his cousin a German by the name of George was King.

Oh….he would also launch a war at the same time against Russia where another of his cousin (also a grandson of Victoria and a German) was King married to a German princess. Germans.!!!!!

Rex on December 25, 2009 at 7:50 pm

If anyone has TCM, there’s a marathon of Sherlock Holmes films, some of which starred Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Watson. Also Sherlock Holmes had his adventures heard on radio in the 1930’s and 40’s. This would be a lot better than the crap fest that is socialist, fascist Hollywood! This marathon goes till 8:00 EST tomorrow.

And you can buy them on DVD from a company called Critics Choice Video, based out of Ottawa, IL.

Bob Porrazzo on December 25, 2009 at 9:43 pm

Luc Besson knows how to make a movie and is utter genius when working with Gary Oldman.

ender on December 25, 2009 at 10:37 pm

    Gary Oldman is a brilliant actor. Did you see “Prick Up My Ears” and “Sid and Nancy”?

    lexi on December 25, 2009 at 11:18 pm

Nine is unwatchable and unlistenable: a total mess, and to top it all, an offensive portrayal of whoring and infidelity set in a Catholic country, released on Christmas Day…..what a chutzpah!

Bart on December 26, 2009 at 12:21 am

Had no idea Daniel Day Lewis was a self-hating Jew, had no idea he was Jewish in fact! (yes I see, I checked on his mother’s side – the Balcons, a very well-known family in British film) Did know he’s married to Rebecca Miller (Arthur Miller’s daughter), the writer and filmmaker, and a talented filmmaker at that.

Saw Young Victoria, I normally don’t really enjoy British period pieces but this was a good film, and Emily Blunt was very good in the lead. The rest I will skip.

Larry on December 26, 2009 at 2:46 am

This was a excellent set of reviews! great work. Nine, bummer, that is my fave number. I cannot deal with chickie flicks, I cannot handle them. disgusting, annoying, too much emoting. the other 2. not surprised…maybe…Legion will be good?? I realy hope u get to review that one.

Not a big Dan-Lewis Day fan either. I refuse to watch anything from any of others g-d/christian/isreal haters. I am over that BS from these self important hollywood nuts who think their dribble is art! ha!

lindapolver on December 26, 2009 at 10:15 am

These movies have fulfilled a clear purpose, bringing tears of laughter to readers of reviews by the esteemed missive-stinger of movie tripe, the instigator shizzler schlussel. Well worth the time of noting the movie caution tape around the crimescene.

Lost City of Acorn Voters on December 26, 2009 at 10:18 am

Queen Vic, does look nice, I will add that to the must see list

lindapolver on December 26, 2009 at 10:18 am

Just didn’t like the comparison of Queen Victoria to Sarah Palin. Sarah may just wear the pants in the family, but she also wears skirts too! Get it??? Can you tell Queen Victoria was my ancestor? True.

Darlene on December 26, 2009 at 10:39 am

Excellent review of Sherlock Holmes, Debbi! “long, aimless everything-but-the-kitchen-sink piece of bloat”: perfect description! All your other points were well taken, too. I looked at my watch at least ten times during the film hoping it would end soon (to no avail–the film is way too long). This is dumbed-down, unremarkable, “action-adventure” and not classic mystery-romance as Doyle did it, and the movie suffers from a cliche per minute, even including a tied-up-heroine’s split-second rescue from a circular buzzsaw. The two fight scenes with the giant Frenchman were so blandly predictable they approached self-parody. Why critics–even when dismissing the film generally–continue to praise the puppydog-eyed, vulnerably-feminized, frantic, coke-loving ultraliberal lead, I don’t know. As for the “sculpted ab” shots of Downey–there were way too many of them (zero would have been about right).

I wanted to mention my explanation of what I think the screenwriter had in mind when he made villainous English lord Mark Strong comment that “fear is the best weapon.” It’s repeated twice, so it must be important. Hoberman at Village Voice cautiously guesses that this comment by Strong is a vague, anachronistic reference to contemporary terrorism. I disagree. Actually, liberals like Guy Richie are so consumed with the notion that Republicans and English Conservatives only have influence through fear-mongering that they ignore the fact that it’s liberals who are the real fear-mongerers (think of Obama’s comment a week ago that “if we don’t pass health care, our whole economy will crash”). Ironically, the movie was so clumsily written and Obama is daily trumping up fear to so great an extent that this liberal meme in the film will probably be confusingly interpreted.

(All of that said, I tend to enjoy Guy Richie’s films when he makes rock-pounding, black-humored, stylized gangster movies about lowlifes and thugs–in other words, when he’s an Elmore Leonard-with-an-English-twist across the Atlantic.)

Burke on December 26, 2009 at 11:30 am

I’m convinced that 3/4 of the Hollywood film business is about money laundering, and has nothing to do with creating media entertainment product that appeals and makes a profit.

It sure as hell can’t be that Hollywood actually thinks these dogs are going to attract an audience.

Think about it … each film is an independent business. Not a product but a short term business. Each production is a corporation unto itself which hires a multitude of contractors and sub-contractors. There’s payroll, inventory, marketing, production, sales, advertising and everything else associated with running a $100 Million business … but only for say, about two years. It’s a short term business with a perpetual royalty payout structure. That’s a pretty neat Business Plan. We get investors, form the business, develop our product and sell it, then collect profits on that product in perpetuity, but only administer the actual business for the two years or so it takes to make the widget … I mean, product.

Now, ask yourself … what kind of people with real money who earned it the hard way are going to ‘invest’ in a loser product that ain’t going to do anything but bomb like MOAB at the box office?

Nobody I know with a couple million lying around.

AND I MEAN NOBODY. The people I know with MONEY do not think that way.

So, there’s something else at work here, some other dynamic rather than the old fashioned business imperative to turn out good product people want at a price people will buy.

Turning it over in my mind time and again the only thing I can come up with is Money Laundering.

Especially after I got a prospectus once from a a ‘name’ studio with it’s capital-raising operations offshore on an island promised me a 5/1 ROI for ‘putting my investment capital through the rinse cycle’.

It’s the only way I can figure so much schlock gets made. Because it ain’t about entertainment.

Follow The Money.

Michael Geer on December 26, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Holy smokescreen Batman!
    Michael Geer – you make a good point. Hollywood is a business first, so who would invest in some of this pointless drivel?
    Money Laundering indeed. It’s the one thing that seems to make sense.

    theShadow on December 27, 2009 at 12:20 am

Debbie, you got me laughing with the Baldwin ‘Snickers’ line-If the new Sherlock Holmes is anything like the travesty “Van Helsing” I’ll be happy to stick to the old movies.
Last night I rolled out one for the family, “Satan Met a Lady” an earlier incarnations of “The Maltese Falcon” with Bette Davis in top form versus Warren William as “Ted Shane” (Sam Spade).
Hard as it is for me to defend Guy Ritchie, commenter John asked if Ritchie ever made a movie people want to see.
“Snatch”, for my money, is very good, better than Lock/Stock.
Bricktop alone makes it extremely watchable, and Brad Pitt’s indecipherable accent seals the deal.

Douglas Q on December 26, 2009 at 1:51 pm

The irony is that two of England’s greatest rulers were women: Elizabeth I and Queen Victoria. And at some point in their lives they had ZERO chance of obtaining the throne but did it by outlasting other people.

JJ: And, unlike your empty vessel hero Sarah Palin, they also had tremendous brains, knowledge, and intelligence. It had nothing to do with that they were women–that they had a vagina–Palin’s sole “attribute.” DS

JulieJ. on December 26, 2009 at 4:22 pm

I liked Sherlock Holmes — it was an action movie with some cheesy moments, but still enjoyable. I would have seen Victoria, but it wasn’t playing anywhere.

Jennifer on December 26, 2009 at 8:31 pm

I wish all the observant jews on this website who are fasting today an easy one.

Miranda Rose Smith on December 27, 2009 at 4:18 am

I loved Young Victoria–one of my favorites of the year. Julian Fellowes (Gossford Park) wrote the screenplay, so I wasn’t surprised. I didn’t mind Victoria asserting her sovereign rights over Albert at first; it’s her right as queen! Later she does share ruling duties with her husband, but not simply to make the marriage work. Making the marriage work is part of it, but more importantly it’s because he proves his faithfulness, and also because Victoria’s chief counselor –against his own interest–advises it. Complex, nuanced, superbly acted and set, full of conservative values like principled spirit and sophisticated appreciation of others’ motives and views, I preferred this to the confusingly jumbled Elizabeth, the superficial and jingoistic Elizabeth part 2 (Golden Age) and Frears’ unpleasantly agenda-driven The Queen.

And I like a real history movie instead of the celebrity worship of Bright Star. Campion’s biopic on Keats wasn’t real historical drama, it was yesteryear’s tabloid spread on the Norman Mailer or Matt Damon of its day. Also compare the needy infatuation between an artist and his groupie (in Bright Star) to Young Victoria’s measured but very touching study of a more mature love between two wise and historically significant people.

You are right, Debbie, to describe Single Man as a combination of Mad Men and Brokeback Mountain, because it bashes early sixties conservative culture and regards gay relationships sympathetically. (BTW, there’s a classroom diatribe in the film against “fear” which according to Firth’s character in the movie drives corporate culture and conservative politics; that’s the liberal meme, of course.) I liked this film more than you did, though, because the film does something different than simply advance liberal gay-rights politics using specious liberal logic (as Milk did); it gets into Colin Firth’s head and shows us what it’s like to feel paranoid, alienated, and buffeted by strange and socially unacceptable passions. The movie was weirdly chilling to me–more stylized, atmospheric thriller than polemic.

I saw The Road and in case I missed your review of it, I’ll just mention I found it loathsome: it’s not real, hard nihilism at all (as is usually attributed to Cormac McCarthy) but an updated, gooey, liberal revision of William Golding’s conservative masterpiece Lord of the Flies.

Burke on December 27, 2009 at 9:31 am

I am SICK and tired of left wing Hollywood and the psychotic right wing extremists

I’m a moderate independent conservative woman and it’s just amazing how the right wing fundamentalists and the left wingers just can’t stop it

JulieJ. is one pathetic liberal woman on December 27, 2009 at 10:16 am

If you want to see a reasonably good action adventure, Sherlock Holmes will do. It bares absolutely no resemblance to the original Sherlock Holmes and could as easily been titled “Schlomo Haimowitz.” If you want the real thing, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett are the best. In a nutshell: Victorian CSI meets 21st Century Superhero culture.

Kalifornia Kafir on December 27, 2009 at 1:20 pm

I thought It’s Complicated was hilarious. It did not move like a glacier even though it was almost two hours. Everyone in the theater seemed to enjoy it as well.

karin on December 27, 2009 at 3:38 pm


Do you honestly feel that “Sherlock Holmes” deserves the same rating as “A Single Man”? Yes, “Sherlock Holmes” was more mindless action than intellectual puzzle, but is it really on the same level as a gay marriage propaganda film?

A: Yes, b/c “A Single Man” was far better and well done, and if it hadn’t been a gay propaganda film, I might have liked it. With “Sherlock Holmes,” which was a mess, not a chance. DS

Aaron on December 28, 2009 at 11:08 am

I too enjoyed It’s Complicated, laughed throughout and so did the audience. It was sweet to see so many middle aged and older couples in the audience hugging each other afterwards.

CJ on December 28, 2009 at 1:43 pm

I’m always amazed when I see comments by some straight people about film with a gay perspective referring to “gay propaganda” or questioning whether it was “really appropriate” to show the depiction of a man’s love for another man in the same way a man’s love for a woman is commonly depicted. Straight conservatives seem unable to put themselves in someone else’s shoes. Maybe this lack of empathy – they scorn the whole idea of empathy – is what makes them so heartless. It’s not something to be proud of.

JB: Actually, I did have empathy for him. I felt sad for the guy. That’s why I said it was really well done propaganda and very depressing. If it didn’t work, I wouldn’t find it depressing. DS

Jaron Blake on December 28, 2009 at 4:41 pm

My word, the paranoia is mind-boggling. “A Single Man” wasn’t just made up recently. It’s based on a novella from 1964. Forty-five years ago.

How sad that you can’t just accept a good movie and its story and the portrayal of someone who’s life has been turned upside-down by the loss of their life partner without trying to turn it into a brand of propaganda all your own (and the religious right wing of the once great GOP).

Just how heartless are you Ms. Shclussel?

deshard on December 30, 2009 at 3:14 pm

You were much too kind in your review of “9”. A warning to guys….stay away. No promised reward is enough i.e. if you see this with me I will (fill in the blank).

S: I absolutely hated the insufferable “Nine” (which is not to be confused with the superior, animated “9”–an entirely different movie, also released this year). I agree with your warning to guys 100%. DS

Steve on January 3, 2010 at 8:39 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field