So many people write about unlocking it, I want to say finally that the whole thing should be corked, put a stopper in it, toss it out to sea for someone to find a few million miles or years from now. Maybe they will find it fresh again.
Ron Howard’s The DaVinci Code (2006) focuses on one thing—talk, talk, talk—and all of that talk makes one movie boring.
First, I need to apologize to my audience. Yes, I went to see this terrible film. I was hoping it would be good (for I enjoyed the book), but my expectations weren’t too high. I know I should have resisted and not gone to see it. I know I should have boycotted it even on DVD. Why should I pay to see something that will be so terrible? I know, I know. I have no excuses. My mom is in town, and she enjoyed the book, as well, so she and I went to see the film. It was nice to get out, too.
Even if the movie did stink.
It kept going and going, like an old, worn out Energizer bunny. Imagine watching the Energizer bunny beat on his drum for two and a half hours while you get very small glimpses of Paris or London, and you will know what this movie is like.
If we didn’t know it before, be assured that an exciting book does not necessarily make for an exciting movie. The car chase at the beginning is so blurry, in fact, that I couldn’t tell what was happening. The rest of the action is like that too—blurred and muted in favor of explanatory dialogue delivered by an excellent cast. I love Audrey Tautou in Amelie (2001), Dirty Pretty Things (2003) and L’Auberge Espanol (2003), but she is probably the worst one here. Her smile is too vibrant for Sophie, and when she tries to brood, she reminds me of my cute daughter who is obviously faking her tears. I hate Tom Hanks (Maybe I will explain why in some future entry.), but he is really good here. His long hair doesn’t look stupid, and he is able to make the lines convincing. Ian McKellan is awesome, as usual, and the best scene is when we watch Hanks and McKellan banter about the Holy Grail, arguing as to what is historical and what is myth. Paul Bettany and Jean Reno are not at their best here, but they’re still good and interesting to watch.
Besides having a bunch of good actors, though, this film has absolutely nothing going for it. Sure, it’s filmed well, too, but neither of those things can make up for a plot that doesn’t hold together in its film version.
So I say cork it.
Yet I fear there’s an Angels and Demons (2007?) waiting in the wings…
Grade for The DaVinci Code: 4
Thursday, June 15, 2006
Monday, June 12, 2006
If I Could Flow, I Would Hustle
The event that got me blogging again after a few months’ hiatus was The Academy Awards and the fact that the Three-Six Mafia won for best song.
After watching Hustle and Flow, I now see why they won.
This is a good movie, probably better than Crash, the film about race that won Best Picture for 2005. It’s better because it’s subtler. It details all of the same issues—race, poverty, crime—but it does so in a way that is simply about real life, especially one person’s struggle to overcome the situation he’s in.
The way Terence Howard portrays D-Jay is difficult: difficult to understand his speech, difficult to follow his actions, and difficult to comprehend his motivations. But that’s just it, isn’t it? People are complicated and individual. What I like about Hustle and Flow is that it doesn’t try to become a stand-in for all black people or all people in the ghetto, like Crash tried to do. The characters in Crash are allegories or “everymen.” They represent the people of their race or of their situations. When I watch Crash, I am meant to see myself in the characters, more than likely in the Brendan Fraser character, or possibly in the young cop character—you know, the white people who don’t think they’re racist, but they really are. This is all white people, the movie says: “even though you think you’re enlightened, you’re really just covering up your prejudices.”
It’s a good statement, and more true than most of us would care to admit. It’s also a bit heavy-handed. Issues don’t make for good movies, in general, and Crash is an issue film, a movie with an agenda.
Hustle and Flow may have an agenda, too, but it’s just to show the circumstances surrounding one man’s life and his dream to escape it. The fact that his escape is through music makes it even better. My only complaint is that the movie didn’t spend more time on how they created the music. I could watch Sugar sing those lines over and over… “You know it’s hard out here for a pimp…”
Grade for Hustle and Flow: 7
After watching Hustle and Flow, I now see why they won.
This is a good movie, probably better than Crash, the film about race that won Best Picture for 2005. It’s better because it’s subtler. It details all of the same issues—race, poverty, crime—but it does so in a way that is simply about real life, especially one person’s struggle to overcome the situation he’s in.
The way Terence Howard portrays D-Jay is difficult: difficult to understand his speech, difficult to follow his actions, and difficult to comprehend his motivations. But that’s just it, isn’t it? People are complicated and individual. What I like about Hustle and Flow is that it doesn’t try to become a stand-in for all black people or all people in the ghetto, like Crash tried to do. The characters in Crash are allegories or “everymen.” They represent the people of their race or of their situations. When I watch Crash, I am meant to see myself in the characters, more than likely in the Brendan Fraser character, or possibly in the young cop character—you know, the white people who don’t think they’re racist, but they really are. This is all white people, the movie says: “even though you think you’re enlightened, you’re really just covering up your prejudices.”
It’s a good statement, and more true than most of us would care to admit. It’s also a bit heavy-handed. Issues don’t make for good movies, in general, and Crash is an issue film, a movie with an agenda.
Hustle and Flow may have an agenda, too, but it’s just to show the circumstances surrounding one man’s life and his dream to escape it. The fact that his escape is through music makes it even better. My only complaint is that the movie didn’t spend more time on how they created the music. I could watch Sugar sing those lines over and over… “You know it’s hard out here for a pimp…”
Grade for Hustle and Flow: 7
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Fog of Doom
No, it’s not a new documentary about Donald Rumsfeld. It simply combines the titles of two of the worst films I have seen in a while. I guess we’re in the dog days of originality because every script that isn’t a comedy or drama seems to be based on a comic book, video game, or even an earlier film. Did someone decide to remake The Omen just because the date June 6, 2006 was approaching? It seems so. These remakes are coming out willy-nilly and The Fog (2005), a remake of John Carpenter’s The Fog (1980) is a useless example of it.
Let’s take the story on its own without looking at the original, which I haven’t seen. It is far and away one of the worst horror films. I have written quite a bit about the new style of horror that is scary while being visually creepy. This one does neither. It hearkens back to an older style of ghost story that just doesn’t hold up. I’m scared pretty easily, I think, and no part of this movie scared me. When I watched it at night by myself I didn’t have to turn the volume down or look away because I knew something was coming. In parts, I think I laughed at the plot’s “coincidences.” Nevermind the silly relationships among the half-plotted characters; let’s examine why the fog kills whom it does. No, wait, we can’t do that because there is no relationship between their deaths. Sometimes the fog targets specific people and just tries to get rid of them quickly. Other times, it takes its time and tortures them. It has to leave during the day, too, because, well, fog only comes at night, right?
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
Doom (2005) was so much better that I felt vindicated. Don’t get me wrong, it was still bad, but it was at least enjoyably bad. Whereas The Fog was serious and didn’t know what it was doing, Doom knew that it was a silly premise and it seemed to relish it. At one point, there is what looks like a cage match between one of the monsters and a marine. At the end, the two main characters strip down and have a superhuman wrestling match, which is awesome. Sure, it attempts to be serious while it’s doing these things, but how can it really? How can it go into a first-person shooter mode at the end and turn around corners just like one does in the video game and not know how silly it is? The Rock tries to be so serious as he orders around other maries that I can't help but laugh.
Stupid, sure, but fun, too.
I’ll take Doom over The Fog any day.
Grade for The Fog: 0
Grade for Doom: 3
Let’s take the story on its own without looking at the original, which I haven’t seen. It is far and away one of the worst horror films. I have written quite a bit about the new style of horror that is scary while being visually creepy. This one does neither. It hearkens back to an older style of ghost story that just doesn’t hold up. I’m scared pretty easily, I think, and no part of this movie scared me. When I watched it at night by myself I didn’t have to turn the volume down or look away because I knew something was coming. In parts, I think I laughed at the plot’s “coincidences.” Nevermind the silly relationships among the half-plotted characters; let’s examine why the fog kills whom it does. No, wait, we can’t do that because there is no relationship between their deaths. Sometimes the fog targets specific people and just tries to get rid of them quickly. Other times, it takes its time and tortures them. It has to leave during the day, too, because, well, fog only comes at night, right?
Stupid. Just plain stupid.
Doom (2005) was so much better that I felt vindicated. Don’t get me wrong, it was still bad, but it was at least enjoyably bad. Whereas The Fog was serious and didn’t know what it was doing, Doom knew that it was a silly premise and it seemed to relish it. At one point, there is what looks like a cage match between one of the monsters and a marine. At the end, the two main characters strip down and have a superhuman wrestling match, which is awesome. Sure, it attempts to be serious while it’s doing these things, but how can it really? How can it go into a first-person shooter mode at the end and turn around corners just like one does in the video game and not know how silly it is? The Rock tries to be so serious as he orders around other maries that I can't help but laugh.
Stupid, sure, but fun, too.
I’ll take Doom over The Fog any day.
Grade for The Fog: 0
Grade for Doom: 3
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Immigration and Race in The Last Stand
I did something that I haven’t done in a long time: I went to a movie theater and saw a new movie. Heck, it wasn’t even free.
What would inspire Chad to pay $7.50 to see a movie? X-Men 3, of course. The first one was okay and the second one was one of the best superhero films I’ve seen. I was leery of the third one, however, for it wasn’t directed by Bryan Singer. Nope, he left to go do something silly like Superman Returns (which I’m looking forward to, as well).
I don’t even want to talk about the merits or detriments of the film, however. Let’s say that it is decent—not inspired and full of more holes than my pair of leftover 1980s jeans.
What I find compelling is the resonance of these films according to when they are released. In an earlier blog entry called “Terrorism Lessons from the Movies,” I discussed how X-Men 2 became a film about heroes labeled as terrorists and an evil military industry trying to convince the world to go to war with these terrorists for its own selfish reasons. How interesting that the film is then released in March 2003, right as the US is invading Iraq.
Here, the dichotomy isn’t between the terrorists and non-terrorists, but becomes a question of innate properties. In fact, X-Men 3 captures the intent of the original X-Men series, which began in 1963, when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. The X-Men are mutants, meaning that they are somehow genetically different from all “normal” people. Some mutants have super powers, but some are just physically different. They’re seen as inferior because they are different, even though they have done nothing to choose their difference. As X-3 points out, there are lots of mutants that aren’t even “out of the closet,” so to speak. These mutants want to be like everyone else, and for the most part, they fit in.
In X-3, a company releases a cure for being different. Mutants can be permanently cured if they take a serum. This unleashes some mutant outrage, too, because many mutants don’t think there’s anything wrong with being mutants; they’re different, yes, but they’re also gifted. There are protests on both sides, and one group of mutants (Magneto, et al.) want to destroy all of the normal people and establish their own rule. The X-Men side doesn’t agree with the dichotomy of normal/mutant, but they don’t think violence is the answer—diplomacy is.
And when is this movie released? When the immigration question is at its height. Racism, immigration, reaction, and questions of belonging are all tied up here. In fact, it’s the most compelling thing about X-Men 3.
Grade for X-Men: The Last Stand: 5
What would inspire Chad to pay $7.50 to see a movie? X-Men 3, of course. The first one was okay and the second one was one of the best superhero films I’ve seen. I was leery of the third one, however, for it wasn’t directed by Bryan Singer. Nope, he left to go do something silly like Superman Returns (which I’m looking forward to, as well).
I don’t even want to talk about the merits or detriments of the film, however. Let’s say that it is decent—not inspired and full of more holes than my pair of leftover 1980s jeans.
What I find compelling is the resonance of these films according to when they are released. In an earlier blog entry called “Terrorism Lessons from the Movies,” I discussed how X-Men 2 became a film about heroes labeled as terrorists and an evil military industry trying to convince the world to go to war with these terrorists for its own selfish reasons. How interesting that the film is then released in March 2003, right as the US is invading Iraq.
Here, the dichotomy isn’t between the terrorists and non-terrorists, but becomes a question of innate properties. In fact, X-Men 3 captures the intent of the original X-Men series, which began in 1963, when the civil rights movement was gaining momentum. The X-Men are mutants, meaning that they are somehow genetically different from all “normal” people. Some mutants have super powers, but some are just physically different. They’re seen as inferior because they are different, even though they have done nothing to choose their difference. As X-3 points out, there are lots of mutants that aren’t even “out of the closet,” so to speak. These mutants want to be like everyone else, and for the most part, they fit in.
In X-3, a company releases a cure for being different. Mutants can be permanently cured if they take a serum. This unleashes some mutant outrage, too, because many mutants don’t think there’s anything wrong with being mutants; they’re different, yes, but they’re also gifted. There are protests on both sides, and one group of mutants (Magneto, et al.) want to destroy all of the normal people and establish their own rule. The X-Men side doesn’t agree with the dichotomy of normal/mutant, but they don’t think violence is the answer—diplomacy is.
And when is this movie released? When the immigration question is at its height. Racism, immigration, reaction, and questions of belonging are all tied up here. In fact, it’s the most compelling thing about X-Men 3.
Grade for X-Men: The Last Stand: 5
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Judd's Twisted Demise
Ashley Judd needs to stop. I hereby proclaim that the Ashley Judd thriller (and its imitators) has played itself out and needs to retire.
Sure, I enjoyed Kiss the Girls (1997) when it came out. Heck, I even thought Double Jeopardy (1999) was somewhat entertaining. But now there’s Eye of the Beholder (1999), High Crimes (2002), and Twisted (2004), along with the perhaps-promising Bug (2006), which is being directed by William Friedkin.
While visiting with my folks recently, my dad told me I had to see this great thriller playing on cable, but he couldn’t remember the name. If you know my dad, you know that’s not unusual. He never knows the names of anything, and half the time he sleeps through movies. It’s kind of his thing.
So I vote to watch House of Wax (2005), which looks humorous, but he realizes after five minutes that he has, yep, already seen it. So we turn to Twisted, against my will, and after fifteen minutes, he realizes that, indeed, this was the thriller he had been telling me about. “It’ll blow your mind,” he says.
Not only did it not blow my mind, but it wasn’t even twisted, not in the least. I called the whodunit during the first thirty minutes, even explaining why the killing was done and noting the other murders that had been committed. I even told my dad, who was probably asleep by now, how Judd’s character was knocked out to be able to do it.
In other words, this was a twisted thriller that wasn’t exciting or twisted and left me feeling gypped of two hours. The only thing that was the least bit interesting here was the main character’s penchant for casual sex. Such a thing isn’t really unusual in Hollywood, of course, but it is generally accompanied by some sort of romance or love story. Here, Judd’s character picks up a stranger and then has a kind of masochistic sex with him, and we never see him again. And this isn’t the first time she has done this. We learn that she is trying to find companionship, even following in her mother’s footsteps, but it’s still weird for a heroine to do such things. What happened to the good Ashley of yore?
What the casual sex points out is how everyone in this movie is twisted, which may be the point. The only good character is the one who is supposed to be bad, played by a very bored Andy Garcia. Twisted comes out demonstrating the Calvinist tenet of total depravity. The entire world is twisted, it claims, even the ones we think are good.
Grade for Twisted: 2
Sure, I enjoyed Kiss the Girls (1997) when it came out. Heck, I even thought Double Jeopardy (1999) was somewhat entertaining. But now there’s Eye of the Beholder (1999), High Crimes (2002), and Twisted (2004), along with the perhaps-promising Bug (2006), which is being directed by William Friedkin.
While visiting with my folks recently, my dad told me I had to see this great thriller playing on cable, but he couldn’t remember the name. If you know my dad, you know that’s not unusual. He never knows the names of anything, and half the time he sleeps through movies. It’s kind of his thing.
So I vote to watch House of Wax (2005), which looks humorous, but he realizes after five minutes that he has, yep, already seen it. So we turn to Twisted, against my will, and after fifteen minutes, he realizes that, indeed, this was the thriller he had been telling me about. “It’ll blow your mind,” he says.
Not only did it not blow my mind, but it wasn’t even twisted, not in the least. I called the whodunit during the first thirty minutes, even explaining why the killing was done and noting the other murders that had been committed. I even told my dad, who was probably asleep by now, how Judd’s character was knocked out to be able to do it.
In other words, this was a twisted thriller that wasn’t exciting or twisted and left me feeling gypped of two hours. The only thing that was the least bit interesting here was the main character’s penchant for casual sex. Such a thing isn’t really unusual in Hollywood, of course, but it is generally accompanied by some sort of romance or love story. Here, Judd’s character picks up a stranger and then has a kind of masochistic sex with him, and we never see him again. And this isn’t the first time she has done this. We learn that she is trying to find companionship, even following in her mother’s footsteps, but it’s still weird for a heroine to do such things. What happened to the good Ashley of yore?
What the casual sex points out is how everyone in this movie is twisted, which may be the point. The only good character is the one who is supposed to be bad, played by a very bored Andy Garcia. Twisted comes out demonstrating the Calvinist tenet of total depravity. The entire world is twisted, it claims, even the ones we think are good.
Grade for Twisted: 2
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)