What do you think of the film? Here’s a place to air it out…
(And I am personally curious… since it didn’t really strike me strongly, but it has been mentioned in many reviews, including the NYT… is there a heavy gay subtext in this film?)
Triple Option on: BYO Oscar
Sideshow Bill on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Pete B on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
movieman on: BYO Oscar
Stella's Boy on: BYO Oscar
Hcat on: BYO Oscar
brack on: BYO Oscar
iothereturned on: BYO Oscar
BYOB: 235 Years Of Relative independence
BYOB Weekend: Hop, An April Fool’s Gag?
see all »
[twitter-widget username="DavidPoland" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"][twitter-widget username="MCNTweets" hiderss="true" hidereplies="true" hidefrom="true" items="3" showts="60" title=" " targetBlank="true"]
It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?
So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.
And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.
There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.
I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.
So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.
But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”
My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher
“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.
~ David Simon
I really liked it – sharp, funny, fast-paced, well acted, well shot, and a great score. Is it the end-all and be-all? Not at all, but Ritchie pulls it off.
Downey plays the character in a more melancholy way than I would have expected and their relationship was nicely done – not really any gay subtext, but Holmes and Watson’s relationship is the centerpiece of the story, for sure.
As good as Avatar? Not by a long-shot. But I would certainly put above any of the POTC films – this was a bit overlong by about 10 or 15 minutes (probably too much screentime devoted to “explaining” everything), but did not have nearly the bloat of any of those films. Downey deserves the awards attention and so does Law.
My wife didn’t care that I had no desire to see Sherlock Holmes, so we went and caught a matinee yesterday. She loved it. I got just about exactly what I expected. It’s an OK diversion on a rainy and cold afternoon, but I fail to see how it is any different than many other mediocre Hollywood extravaganzas. I guess that is the power of Robert Downey, Jr. Guy Ritchie is not a good enough director to pull off a buddy comedy/action adventure/supernatural mystery. The central mystery is ridiculously lame and uninteresting, very nearly Scooby Doo silly. It’s hard to take seriously though clearly you’re supposed to. Some of the banter between Holmes and Watson is amusing, but some of it is pretty tiresome as well. There are cool set pieces, like the shipyard sequence. There are brain dead ones too, like the extended slow-motion explosion. The final battle between Holmes and Blackwood is anti-climactic. I realize it’s practically illegal in America to not rave madly about the brilliance of everything Downey, Jr. does, but he didn’t dazzle me in this role. It felt like something he could do without much effort. A good mystery should keep me guessing and engaged; it should fill me with anticipation as it nears its unraveling. I didn’t feel anything close to that here. Overall, it’s fairly dull and average, occasionally springing to life but just as frequently settling for mundane. There is a great drinking game present though: do a shot every time someone says “ginger midget.” I like RDJ as much as the next person, but not everything he does is awesome.
For the record, I have not seen Sherlock Holmes…
But it bothers me to no end how pundits and critics go nuts with the ‘hidden gay subtext’ thing anytime a movie or TV show presents two men as being friends in any way. Be it Sherlock Holmes and Watston, Frodo and Sam, or Batman and Robin, anytime two male characters have a strong bond, it surely must be some kind of secret ‘gay thing’. Sure, some of it is just frat-boy humor, but the serious discussion that takes place around that frankly is damaging to society as a whole. At its core, its basically teaching males (specifically young men) that showing any type of friendships and/or emotion towards another male makes you ‘gay’.
I don’t disagree, Scott.
In this case, it seems to stem from a Bert & Ernie-like roommate situation and relationships with women involved each man that somehow remains sexless and secondary.
I still don’t see it, really. I don’t think they played it that way. But I don’t think it’s 100% male homoerotic panic from critics either.
Blame Billy Wilder.
I didn’t care for the villain, his “take over the world” scheme, nor the role of magic. I also thought Rachel McAdams’ character was rather superfluous.
And I also thought we might have more of an origin-type story, though Downey’s age probably was an indication that wasn’t the direction they were going with this.
But I did like Downey and Law (no gay subtext in my mind), and would watch them in another ‘Holmes’ film. I also liked how Holmes was portrayed as someone whose mind is so busy solving any dilemma in front of him that he’s a bit of an outcast.
“At its core, its basically teaching males (specifically young men) that showing any type of friendships and/or emotion towards another male makes you ‘gay’.”
Great observation, Scott! I have said for years that the biggest cause of homophobia is accusing any male of being gay who merely is close with a male friend. I hug my male friends all the time and even kiss a few on the cheek. No big deal. Especially for many cultures. Does not mean I want to go the distance.
I’ll take the argument one further…it is also ironic that this argument/mockery is usually made by the very same individuals who say they are opposed to homphobia and it is usually always directed at images of maleness that are traditionally masculine or heroic (ie. Batman, 300, Sherlock Holmes, John Wayne etc.) or are directed at children (Bert and Ernie, Teletubbies etc.)
Rather hypocritical. And sad.
Have not seen Holmes yet (tomorrow), but I am not surprised to read of a possible gay sub-text/homophobia concerns about the film. Guy Ritchie is not exactly comfortable with any complex portrayal of masculinity (i.e., vulnerability, intimacy, tenderness etc). I loath most of his films in equal measure but contradictory as it sounds, I am going to this with as much optimism as I can muster.
They should have had Brad Pitt do a cameo as Moriarty at the end. I don’t think 90% of the audience has any clue that Moriarty is Sherlock’s arch nemesis. So the “bridge” leading to the sequel had no real impact or weight. Whereas, for example, Gordon flipping the Joker card over in Batman Begins did, cause we know what the joker means.
Just got back from a showing… was underwhelmed by the film but not because of any (non-existent) gay subtext. It all just seemed so ordinary plot-wise, and as excellent as Downey and Law were, they couldn’t save it. **spoiler** Someone needs to invent a new way for characters to fake being dead so that you haven’t thought of it yourself at the very beginning of the movie. **spoiler**
And I agree that the reveal of the name “Moriarity” didn’t have the impact I imagine the writers hoped it would. If the box office is strong enough, this film seems perfectly positioned to be upstaged by its sequel.
SPOILERS for a different Sherlock Holmes film.
.
.
I’d imagine it would be tough to top the end-credits cookie at the end of Young Sherlock Holmes. But that reveal, that the main villain has survived and was now going by the name Moriarty, had real juice because it pointed towards a lifelong battle of wits between arch-foes right from the get-go. Batman Begins had the same giddy effect, since Bruce Wayne was just starting out. Also, in Young Sherlock Holmes, there was a irony that the man who was previously Holmes’s mentor and had murdered his first girlfriend would be his arch-nemesis. Again, I haven’t seen the new Sherlock Holmes, but I gather that it takes place in the middle of his career? It just doesn’t have the same oomph. Regardless, I agree that a cameo from Pitt would have left the audience roaring with applause. Although, slight digression, it always made me laugh that Jim Gordon was complaining about escalation when Batman had just saved every single citizen in Gotham from certain death (well Batman, I know some cult leader tried to wipe out the entire city, but now we have a random armed robber who killed two whole people and left a playing card… ooooh!).
Is the gay stuff even subtext? I pretty much read it as, y’know, text.
Then Rachel McAdams showed up and I got confused.
The movie’s fine. Unlike most Guy Ritchie pics, I feel like I could pass a test on the plot.
Considering Downey Jr has been going around basically saying Holmes and Watson are gay lovers…
I liked the movie, but wish it was 15 minutes shorter. About the time of the slo-mo explosion it felt like it was lagging. I do like a good mystery puzzle and by film’s end I thought I’d gotten my money’s worth. Jude Law is especially fantastic, but Downey Jr grated at times. Technically, the film looks great with the sets and costumes and that score is really great too.
haven’t seen the movie but popped on here to ask Dave and the rest of you a question: is there any chance that Robert Downey Jr. has surpassed Will Smith as the biggest movie star on the planet? Iron Man 2, Sherlock 2, the Todd Phillips thing…it’s raining money…
and as an aside, love downey onscreen but he comes off as a bit of a jerk in interviews. you can tell he’s feeling very pleased with himself. i thought there would be a little more humility or something after all he’s been through. just an observation. seems like a smug prick in interviews. maybe i’m wrong.
anyhow this comeback puts travolta’s to shame. amazing.
Breedlove, I don’t think Downey is there, yet. After all, The Soloist didn’t even register, early this year – he didn’t even open it, and with help from Jamie Foxx. Even Will Smith, at his weakest, was able to open Seven Pounds, a movie people had no clue about.
Next year, I think Due Date could certainly be huge, but it’s hard to tell until we see a trailer.
Iron Man 2 looks to be the number one film of the summer, if not the year, but it should be a close race with Toy Story 3.
He DOES come off as smug in interviews, but I wonder if he’s just playing into her persona. I happen to think Downey co-starred in the one of the best films of the decade, pre-comeback – I would put Wonder Boys in my top five, that movie has just aged beautifully. Just love that movie, with the all best of decade lists coming out, I’m surprised it’s not getting absolutely any attention.
It was sorta boring. See my link for further thoughts.
Geoff, if it makes you feel any better, Wonder Boys would be a strong contender for my Top 10 of the decade list. Total masterpiece. Rare example of a great, great book – my favorite novel by Chabon, personally – turned into a great, great movie.
Curtis Hanson is one of my favorites and I’m about ready for him to knock one out of the park again…
Uh, no, Breedlove. He’s not even close… unless you think Tobey Maguire is bigger than Smith… or the stat that Emma Watson is the biggest female star in the world because she is in the Potter movies.
Downey is a terrific screen presence. No question, he is a big part of why Iron Man – which grossed $40m less than Hancock and cost more to make – worked better than it might have otherwise.
And Holmes – which opened to $12m less than I Am Legend, in spite of opening on Christmas Day, which is a huge advantage – is more than “come watch Downey” as well.
When Downey opens a drama, call me.
Smith did $170 million with Seven Pounds and over $300 million with The Pursuit of Happyness.
I’m not saying that Downey doesn’t have a lot of heat right now. But he’s not close to Smith’s stature. The top indicator of being a worldwide star is that your films gross as much or more overseas than here on a regular basis. Downey doesn’t even draw even overseas, though Holmes has a real shot as a Euro-franchise directed by a UKer.
And a far as Travolta goes, Wild Hogs outgrossed Tropic Thunder by $50m. Downey may someday surpass Travolta’s comeback, but the proof of Travolta’s power – when he had it in spades – was movies like Michael and Phenomenon.
Not only will Wonder Boys be on my best-of-decade list, it will be noted as the first great film I saw this decade (I suppose Avatar was the last).
“Downey is a terrific screen presence. No question, he is a big part of why Iron Man – which grossed $40m less than Hancock and cost more to make – worked better than it might have otherwise.”
David, you were wrong. You just need to admit it. You were wrong, Hancock is a failure, and there will not be a sequel. No matter how much they want to do it. It’s a freakin Riddick situation.
IO… scoreboard.
IO is really comparing Hancock to Riddick? He’s really let this whole Avatar thing ruin his brain and he’s gone insane!
Nine year olds dude.
IO is a troll.
Gonzo, you are a douche.
David, Dreamgirls, Phantom of the Opera, the Rundown, Speed Racer, and the list goes on.
Camel, Hancock is an easily forgettable film whose makers live under the delusion that there’s going to be a sequel. Seems like a Riddick situation to me.
The only reason you are picking on Hancock is because you know Poland liked it. There is no explanation for you blatant dismissal of the movie’s box office and idiotic comparsions other than trolling.
1. Riddick was a flop.
2. It was already a sequel and a sequel that failed to expand.
3. It was all but ignored overseas.
4. Yeah the reviews were a step lower too.
5. Diesel is no Smith.
6. Unlike Hancock it doesn’t have personal stake on the part of a powerful star and a screenwriter/producer.
The sequel may never actually materialize. The storyline could be prove to be too ridiculous.Stranger things have happened. But if it doesn’t than it wouldn’t because Hancock was suffering from a case of “Riddick”.
I dare you to explain how your comparison makes any sort of sense without resorting to weak
insults and profantity.
Otherwise I reserve a right to call you how I see you.
Yeah, you guys are right, of course, I guess I was way jumping the gun there. I’m no expert. Dave pretty much took care of that theory nice and efficiently. Just the 2 franchises and everything…I mean the guy turned down Spielberg for God’s sake.
Hancock talk – any solid sources on “Hancock” cost more than “Iron Man” argument? I mean did Iron Man cost $150M and Hancock $140M? They were both very expensive movies that both did very well ($585M vs $626M). Did that extra $40M international gross blow Iron Man out of the water? Will Smith is clearly a bigger star (here and abroad) than Downey, no debate there.
And for my money, it’s great to see those out there who think Hancock is a misunderstood piece of art. Champion your movie! Many of us (myself included) see it as a failed attempt at that. Really BIG failed attempt. We’ll see that sequel as soon as we see the next GI Joe and Superman movie.
And for Downey, Tropic Thunder has been playing on a flipping loop on the HBO’s. And man does that movie not age well. A few good gags, but the dragging and dragging and talking and stuff not being funny….yeesh.
Breedlove, the fact is that we really don’t know what actually happened with ‘Harvey’. And Spielberg turned it down as much as anybody have.