Archive for May, 2006

The DaVinci Code

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted May 19, 2006 at 2:24 am

A Film Review By Jason L. King

Starring: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Paul Betany, Ian McKellan, Jean Reno
Directed By: Ron Howard
Rated:PG-13 for violent acts, mild language and thematic elements
Review Posted: May 18th 2006

Final Grade:

In one of this year’s biggest releases Director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks set out to unscramble the secrets of the Da Vinci Code in this summer blockbuster, based on the controversial book that has taken the literary world by storm. The tale deals with a thousand year old conspiracy that dates back to the days of Christ, and a secret cover up so shocking that it could shake the very foundations of mankind.

Messing with religion is like walking on a tightrope. One small mistake and you can fall to near certain doom. Normally, when you are putting someone’s religious beliefs on a line though, there isn’t much of a safety net to catch you when you fall. However, this film walks that tightrope with near ease, keeping right in step. The story is full of controversy and conspiracy, and much to the dismay of the modern day church raising interesting inquiries about the gospels, the truth about Christ and Mary Magdalene and much, much more. I think though what most people fail to realize is that when the books Author, Dan Brown, set out to write the Da Vinci Code, his intent was not to disprove Jesus, but instead provide us with an exciting adventure with a group of eccentric history scholars. The film works in the same ways, Director Ron Howard doesn’t set out to tell us that our Religion is a sham, and it’s really a shame that millions of people are going to believe this is the case with out seeing it. Instead, the film is telling a fictional tale, a tale of suspense, intrigue, mystery and myth that keeps the audience in suspense for the film’s entire span.

Controversy aside, The Da Vinci Code is a very well made movie. Howard does a decent job of stringing together what is a very dense text into film form. Fans of the book would tell you that each page is filled full of historical legends and myth and trying to convey all that on screen is a tough thing to do. What Howard brings us is in the same spirit of last summers “National Treasure” a suspense tale that makes history fun. By the end of the Da Vinci Code you may want to do your own bit of research on the knights templar and the history of the Catholic Church, the Crusades and the life of Christ. What’s wrong with a film inspiring a bit of personal research? In a country where we are spoon fed answers by the people our Government, Celebrities and Pop Culture any film that can inspire an audience member to pick up a book and learn about something they would have never thought about before, that’s an amazing feat.

Tom Hanks has aged quite a bit since the old days of films like “Big”, “Joe Versus The Volcano” and “The Money Pit” (all cheesy yet fun 80’s Comedies) and has grown into the role of aging historian quite well. Hanks plays a very believable Robert Langdon; and does a wonderful job of leading us on our quest of finding the truth behind Da Vinci’s secrets. Hanks takes command of the screen every time he is on it, which once again reminds us that Tom Hanks is one of our generation’s most versatile actors. Sure, over the years Hanks has given us a slew of hits and misses with audiences, some of his films are loved by some and hated by others, but Hanks consistently continues to make “good” movies. The Da Vinci Code continues his streak of good fortune. Paired with Hanks in this Langdon adventure is “Amelie” star Audrey Tautou, as the young French cryptologist whose life is more tied up in the secrets of the Da Vinci code than she ever imagined. Tautou is overshadowed by Hanks and company, and while she fills the role nicely, she doesn’t give us anything that really makes her stand out. The Da Vinci Code isn’t going to be the film that will make her a household name, it’s just another film that is added to her ongoing cannon of entertaining cinema. Rising Star Paul Bettany does an outstanding job as the albino monk, Silas, who will stop at nothing to keep Da Vinci’s secret under wraps. Silas is a very important part of the books and I have to say I was a little apprehensive when I heard they gave the part to Bettany. However, with each film I see him in Bettany continues to amaze me. He’s a gifted actor who really shines in the Da Vinci Code. Despite being in a big blockbuster with Tom Hanks, Bettany holds his own, bringing to life some very critical scenes with a finesse only he could have done with such ease. Also joining the cast is Sir Ian McKellen, the grandfatherly looking man who name now days is almost sybiotically related to “big money films.” For those of you who can’t place a face with the name, McKellen is the man responsible for bringing to life Gandalf in Lord of the Rings, and Magneto is the X-Men series. McKellen brings to life the aging Grail Scholar, Leigh Teabing with great discernment and gives us yet another wonderful character on screen. While McKellen’s last years on screen have proven to be some of the most popular films of the last 5 years, McKellen should smile easily again, knowing that he provided us with another equally powerful performance in another huge money making machine. Bit parts were given to Jean Reno and Alfred Molina, two actors who definitely deserve to be recognized, yet are easily over shadowed by the star power they are competing with. The only actor I really felt the film was missing was Ian “Bilbo Baggins” Holm, who I personally would have thought to be a great addition to the cast as the aging Opus Dei Bishop role, but you can’t win them all eh?

Where, if at all, does the Da Vinci Code falter? Despite the wonderful performances and bringing to life a text that has been read cover to cover by more people than the Bible itself, Howard for unknown reasons changes things up at the end. Fans will be asking, why the strange change of events? What’s going on? The story line diverts into uncharted territory nearing the end of the film and puts an strange twist on Dan Brown’s critically acclaimed novel. While fans will be pointing out faults in their chairs, it should be noted that Howard’s adaptation doesn’t ruin the film, in fact it compliments the film just as well. The real question is why the change at all.

Howard also really fails to bring enough explanation to his script. Part of the joy of reading along is you get to discover with Robert Langdon the truth. In the movie adaptation they have to find ways of giving us so much info in such a short time, that the journey of self discovery is cut short, leading us as viewers only to trust Langdon’s judgment and amazing photographic memory as fact. It’s a big task that the makers of the film undertook, and they do a very good job of it, however those lazy people who refuse to read books will miss out on so much that it’s a shame.

Is the Da Vinci Code worth your buck? Is it worth the hype and the controversy? Worth the hype: yes. Worth the money: yes. Worth the Controversy: No. Millions of people are failing to mention that this film is a work of FICTION. it’s not going to change your beliefs. If you want this fictional work to disprove Christ, it won’t. It’s not going to change your entire belief system. This film is the religious “National Treasure.” It’s got mystery and intrigue mixed with history and bring to life a colorful cast of fictional characters. Fictional is the key word that so many people seem to have forgotten. The Da Vinci Code is a great story, and the word “story” should be noted as a key word in the phrase. Put your own beliefs aside and pick up the book- read it from cover to cover (it is such a fast read that even people who hate books can’t stop turning pages) and then head to the theaters to see the big screen adaptation. Howard and Hanks have brought together a tale that has sparked adults into reading again much like Harry Potter did for children. The films are a great compliment to a great story. Go check it out as a outstanding tribute to an already great story. This film has entertainment written all over it.

No Comments
Filed under: Drama, Movies, Suspense

Poseidon

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted May 12, 2006 at 2:01 am

A Film Review By The Mike

Starring: Josh Lucas, Kurt Russell, Richard Dreyfuss
Directed By: Wolfgang Petersen
Rated: PG-13 for Violence, Perilous Situations, and Immense Teenage Cleavage
Review Posted: May 20 2006

Final Grade:

It has been said that faith is all a man or woman needs to survive in this world. That might be true. But it has also been said that faith does no good for someone unless they put that faith into action and, in doing so, put themselves in a position to survive this world.

That statement is the thesis for the 1972 disaster epic The Poseidon Adventure, a film that centered on the attempts of a few to free themselves from a sinking cruise ship while the majority sat and hoped for a miracle. By focusing its attention on characters like the jaded priest played by Gene Hackman, that film did more than just show its viewer a series of seemingly insurmountable obstacles that must be overcome. It gave us the chance to ponder what faith is, and made us think about how actions backed by faith can give a person power to succeed against these obstacles.

As you would expect in today’s society, that spiritual aspect is gone from this year’s remake with the shortened title, Poseidon. Like a Cliff’s Notes version, Wolfgang Petersen’s film focuses simply on the actions and not the thoughts behind them. A look at the scene that puts our heroes into action from each film will make this clear.

In the original version, Hackman’s character pleads with the entire ballroom in the recently overturned ship that they need to do something, or they will die waiting. He explains his plan to those who will listen, and does his best to convince people their best hope for survival lies in following his lead and working together. The people that do decide to follow him do so mostly for the same reason – because they want to try and put their survival in their own hands.

Skip ahead to this year’s version. Our lead, a professional gambler/hustler played by Josh Lucas, notices that everyone is trapped, but also notices that he should try and get out. So, he prepares to leave on his own, and would have gotten away with it had he not been approached by an ex-fireman/politician played by Kurt Russell, who begs him to help him get to his daughter (young Emmy Rossum, who continues to get the best push-up bras in Hollywood) and a little boy and his single mother who beg for help. Also a suicidal old man (Richard Dreyfuss) agrees to come along, as well as a latino waiter. The latter only wants to go along because he’s getting paid, but we know he’s an unimportant, minority character and won’t live to see that money anyway.

So the movie goes on, and the group picks up Rossum’s character, her fiancee (who of course doesn’t have dad’s respect, because that’s what happens with fiancees), a latina stowaway, and an annoying Kevin Dillon, who’s actually more annoying than his brother Matt, and a character who the viewer will probably be rooting for to die early. I was.

Where’s the heart? If Petersen wants to make a film that will be more than just effects shots, why doesn’t he give us less superficial characters? Maybe it’s because he forgot how during the decade plus gap between the present and the last time he made a good movie. Or maybe it’s because he really just thinks viewers will be coming only for the series of connected perilous scenes, and don’t really want to know the characters. Hey, maybe if it was a horror movie that would work, and maybe that’s how we should treat this version of Poseidon. But there’s so much more that could be there.

Poseidon does pitch the father/daughter/fiancee angle (think Armageddon), and that’s probably where it wanted to get the viewer involved dramatically. But it doesn’t work, because it doesn’t push it hard enough in the midst of attempts to have people almost die or die in cool effects shots. And the rest of the characters are built up only wo we know who they are, all within 10 minutes before the accident, with little explanation of what they’re doing there or why they’re not waiting in the ballroom with the rest of the passengers and the captain.

This is probably as angry I’ve been at a movie while writing a review in a long time. On a plus, some of the scenes of the group in peril are really well staged (Russell gets to reenact his prison escape scene from Tango & Cash!), and the over-talented cast does a great job with the little bit of material they have. But Petersen’s dumbed down version of what was once a interesting and dramatic thriller adds up to so much less than it could have, and in the end is a good example of both why remakes often are a very bad idea and of how unintelligent Hollywood thinks most audiences are these days.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies

Mission Impossible 3

  • Written by Box Office Boredom
  • Posted May 5, 2006 at 5:49 pm

A Film Review By The Mike

Starring: Tom Cruise, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Michelle Monaghan
Directed By: J.J. Abrams
Rated: PG-13 for Violence, Brief Language, and Enough Explosions to Scare Japan
Review Posted: May 5 2006

Final Grade:

Mission: Impossible III is a grand-scale potboiler, deftly put together by TV veteran J.J. Abrams of Lost and Alias fame. While I was initially put off by the idea of a TV mind taking over a franchise full of this much grandeur, I think it might be the talents of Abrams (and two ‘Alias’ co-authors on the script) on the small screen that made this film work so seamlessly.

Television provides a writer (or usually a team of writers) with a chance to put together a kind-of “connect-the-dots” story. Each episode has to have its own plot and build up to its own slam-dunk finale to keep the viewer interested in coming back next week. But it also needs to add up in the long run, even if the story only started as a series of big scenes. There has to be progression in the story, and there has to be a reason to keep coming back.

This kind of strategy fits perfectly with this film series, where action scenes come first and plot development comes second. Unlike the lackluster MI:2, Abrams doesn’t slow down when he’s not showing the action, and he doesn’t speed up too fast when he gets to it. There’s always a connection between the set piece and the plot, and it’s usually a valid one. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost say they came up with a story for the film before they came up with ideas for where to have Tom Cruise hang by his fingernails, or for what they could blow up.

The film is also helped along by an inspired cast. Cruise and Ving Rhames reprise their roles from the first two films, and there seems to be a new life breathed into their characters. The IMF team also includes a slew of character actors including Laurence Fishburne, Billy Crudup, Simon Pegg, Jonathan Rhys Myers, and Keri Russell; each of whom are well-placed in small, yet crucial, roles. Up-and-coming actress Michelle Monaghan portrays Cruise’s love interest who’s crucial to the plot’s twists, and holds her own with the more established actors.

The head-turning performance of the film comes from Phillip Seymour Hoffman who gets the villain role and the opportunity to stand tall against Cruise in a few great face-offs. There’s a really neat scene near the middle of the film (about the point there would be a change of episode on TV) just as it seems things have turned decidedly in the hero’s favor, where Hoffman takes the film to a new height of tension with his quiet, assured delivery of an ultimatum that lets the viewer know things aren’t going to be as easy as they seem. Fresh off an Oscar win, Hoffman’s star should continue to grow here: he’s the most convincing villain I’ve seen in an action film in some time.

It seemed impossible to me a year ago, but this franchise is right back on track. Mission:Impossible III is a thrill ride that never lets up, yet keeps afloat in plot and doesn’t come off as hard-to-follow or inconceivable. It may not be as good a film as Brian DePalma’s first Mission, but it’s a vast improvement on the over-indulgent sequel. More importantly, Tom Cruise (despite his tabloid quirks) continues to hold his place as Hollywood’s safest star, and Abrams makes his mark as a director to watch out for in the big-budget scene. The end result is, at this point, the must-see blockbuster of the year.

No Comments
Filed under: Action, Movies
?>