Tom Chick, Christien Murawski, and Kelly Wand deduce who’s to blame for Sherlock Holmes turning out the way it did.
If you haven’t seen Sherlock Holmes yet, meet us at the 57:50 mark to talk about movies that make good political points without hitting you over the head. This week’s 3x3 was so good we recorded it twice!
Enjoying the podcast so far, but anyone who’s studied fighting or martial arts will tell you that most of the fighting techniques are in fact based around physiology and are intended to inflict that kind of ‘medical’ damage. Knowing how to exploit that in a fight is vastly different from being a doctor like Watson.
So, Lives of Others… I know I’ll get grilled about this. That movie is a perfect example of socialist film. It shows the horrors of a bureaucratic nightmarish totalitarian state and contrasts it with unrewarded kindness. It’s about putting people ahead of yourself, which I find to be a socialist idea.
I’ve only listened to about 30 minutes so far but I mostly agreed with what you guys are saying. The Watson fake death was the worst. I actually looked at my watch during the slow motion explosions. I’m glad Tom actually believed they were going to kill Watson, though. It gives me hope that movies might still be able to surprise me when I’m a really old dude.
I don’t know if you mentioned it, but this movie did one thing that always drives me crazy, which is to show a scene where a character’s actions only make sense if their view had been from the camera’s perspective and not their own. So at the end when Rachel McAdams climbs up to the top of the bridge she starts running (and not just half a step, she breaks into a full run) and then all of a sudden she just stops and looks surprised. Then we see that she’s right at the edge of the construction and there’s a huge drop. Where the hell did she think she was running to?
Anyway, great podcast. Can’t wait to hear the rest of it on the way home and I’m already looking forward to hearing about the neocolonialism in Doctor Parnassus.
I listened to most of this one today and couldn’t disagree more!
I think it was Kelly Wand who said the movie didn’t live up to the original Conan Doyle work, but I didn’t catch his explanation for this other than to say the dialog didn’t contain a lot of Victorian pleasantries, which is true enough, but seems like an odd place to hang this criticism. What did I miss?
I am surprised because I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan and thought it rang true as an adaptation. The few notable divergences (Watson’s wife, Holmes’ boxing matches and his own love interest) seemed acceptable to me. The chemistry between RDJ and Law was excellent, which is all you really need for a good Holmes adaptation. Denby said it reminded him of a screwball comedy, which seems apt to me. Its the same thing that made the old Holmes movies with Rathbone/Bruce work so well. The big difference between the old series and this one is that Rathbone takes his part so seriously, which was probably appropriate for his time–most of those movies are thinly veiled WW2 propaganda pieces. This new one is much lighter, with RDJ/Law hamming it up at times.
I thought Blackwoods’ crazy “Di Vinci protocol” scheme was an excellent way to evoke the Victorian era and it’s relationship to magic/supernatural. Besides Hounds of the Baskerville, I can’t really think of another Conan Doyle story that uses the supernatural in that way, but Holmes use of deduction and reason always looks best in contrast to a supernatural story.
Nice work guys! I am enjoying these podcasts, even if I am getting to them late in the game. Keep up the good work.
I’m partway through the podcast, and it really feels like you guys didn’t give the movie a chance and/or weren’t paying attention. Tom, to your point that the medical genius Holmes angle w/r/t his fights, it’s worth noting that Arthur Conan Doyle was a physician, and that the Holmes character was in part inspired by a professor of medicine. I just heard somebody remark that Holmes is an idiot who keeps getting hoodwinked, and as an example notes that the love interest drugs him. However, that scene is clearly paying off the first scene between the two in which Holmes pointedly doesn’t drink the tea she pours him until she herself drinks it. In the hotel, he guzzles his wine before she touches it; again, the scene draws attention to this. It’s a moment of character development, meant to show that Holmes has been drawn in by Irene.
I confess that by the time the movie was over and Rachel McAdams was using Holmes’ pipe to MacGuyver a tiny bomb to blast loose the chemical warfare canisters that Mark Strong was going to activate with his remote control radio detonator, I’d stopped paying attention. So, guilty as charged.
By the way, for a far better example of how to handle The Mystery of the Hanged Man Who Could Still Breathe, I recommend The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus, which we’ll be discussing in the podcast to be posted tomorrow.
I have been posting on Qt3 for over ten years and I just now go the -xtien joke. Merry X-mas! Let’s put the Christ back in Christien (sp?).
Now if someone could explain to me why Tom is always so mean to Christian on the movie podcasts? How hard is it to pronounce Murawski? Where did the name dingus come from? Why does Christian so eagerly respond to this name?