« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

The Da Vinci Code

NOTE : Due to the film itself, and some issues at hand about how to put my opinion in words, yes, this review is a bit past due from when I actually saw the movie.

I have one word for you : Dud.
The Da Vinci Code is a big fat overblown euro-religious adventure DUD and it damn near put me to sleep. Well, actually, for about five minutes, in a packed theater, I DID fall asleep.

BUT
Only to be woken up about five minutes later by the damn movie, which hadn't progressed at all.
Same scene, involving the same actors, coming to the lame conclusions brought about mid-way in the ridiculous plot involving Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and lllotttsssss of people who don't want a supposed "secret" coming out about...
POSSIBLE DESCENDANTS FROM CHRIST! Oh my.

I don't know who Ron Howard is kidding - but obviously he doesn't care about the critical reception. The movie has a built-in audience from the millions of people who have read the novel, and the success of this movie only depended on the fact that it would be released. I can't really put into words how much I hated this movie. Sure, it's a by-the-numbers, calculated, cliché, predictable, and underwhelming journey that even Indiana Jones would roll his eyes at. But I don't feel like those words are enough to explain my utter hatred and despair for the money I lost seeing this .. "film."

However, what amazes me more than the sheer crappiness of the feature is the screenplay. Are people really reading this book and praising it? Or has Akiva Goldsman (the balding fellow above, shown with actor Paul Bettany, the hammy Albino) really pulled a fast one on Dan Brown? Line after line was amazingly bad. Tom Hanks said nothing memorable, and Audrey Tautou's lovely voice seemed strained by the contrived melodrama she was spewing. Only Ian McKellan seemed to do something with the dialogue, and definitely was one of the more well done and positive aspects of the film in general.

But should I be surprised? No. Absolutely not. Mr. Goldsman wrote the brilliant screenplay to the gem Batman and Robin, which might as well be best known for the lines that Arnold Schwarzenegger himself got to say in his role as Mr. Freeze, such as
"What killed the dinosaurs? The Ice Age!" or "ICE to see you".

Cheesy, yes.
And too damn horrible, pathetic, and sad to be associated the Dark Knight saga, but alas it is.

If you haven't seen The Da Vinci Code in theaters yet, and you're thinking about it, go ahead. But it's still 150 minutes of your life you will never, EVER get back. Time that could be spent with loved ones, or enjoying life to the fullest extent. So if you're going decide to throw away your precious time to see it, I suggest DVD, because it's a long, long, LONG 150 minutes... and you might want the fast-forward button... or hopefully press the POWER button to shut the awfulness off. There are so many movies being released this summer, and if any of them are like "Da Vinci," oh, what an awful summer this will be.

Posted by madamczyk at 10:14 PM | Comments (3)

Mission : Impossible 3

The following contains a review of the first "blockbuster" film of the summer - Mission Impossible 3. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to think that Tom Cruise is believable as the main character Ethan Hunt. Cruise's Hunt this time around is about to be married to Julia (Michelle Monaghan), and is seemingly going through his life with ease because he no longer is an agent at the IMF. He simply trains new agents, so that he has less to worry about. You wouldn't guess that however if you did meet Ethan Hunt in person : Ethan Hunt has lost every compassionate, believable bone in his body, and has become a wired, troublesome prick experiencing, um, the real world. But there's more than just a problem with Tom Cruise in this movie. Nearly every action sequence and plot line has been done before not just in the previous M:I films, but in other pictures from the genre.

Bad guy Owen Davian wants The Rabbit's Foot. Why? Well, it's an object of power ... I guess. It's never explained, and this unit/device/tech tool basically drives this movie for some reason. It's not very fair to the audience to present new eye-candy agents to the IMF team, such as Keri Russell, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, and Maggie Q, as well as awesome actor Phillip Seymour Hoffman as Davian - and then not develop their presence at all. Hoffman looks especially bored on screen. However, seeing him be bored is more pleasant than seeing Cruise trying to convince us that he's not senile.
The direction by J.J. Abrams and script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, as well as Abrams, are equally lame, unoriginal, and bland. Besides a few predictable explosions and "spy" missions, this movie has nothing going for it. And what's contained isn't even slightly satisfying. The film is nothing more than a by-the-numbers action film that gives you what you expect, and doesn't even attempt to give you anything out of ordinary because it's too lazy.

If this movie has any agenda, it's to present Tom Cruise as a guy who can have a stable relationship with a woman, besides his questionable employment (Hunt tells Julia that he works for the highway system or something... but it doesn't matter. It's dialogue - this movie wants to entertain you with visuals). We see them laugh at a party. They kiss. They sleep together naked. And they get married suddenly, because that Ethan Hunt is a lovable kooky guy who digs his chick. THEN they consummate their marriage in a medical storage area of the hospital that his chick works at. Do we really need to see that? No. Absolutely not. The relationship between Ethan and Julia is about as believable as ... well, take a guess.

After taking a single movie advertising course here at college, that was focused on the agenda of films, it seems obvious to me that Tom Cruise had the following goals for this movie ::

1. Prove that you can love a woman
2. Prove that you can shoot a gun
3. Show that you can save the day

Could the fact that Monaghan looks like a certain Cruise fiancee/baby momma be a coincidence? Really- you shouldn't have to have me tell you this. Especially since her character was only added before shooting after numerous rewrites of this script, after many directorial issues at hand.
Mission : Impossible 3 is a sub-par action film, yes, and there's an underlying agenda which hinders not only the audience, but Tom Cruise as well. If he's going to save his career, he needs to start being more publicly honest and try not to connect his characters with ... surprise! Himself.

Posted by madamczyk at 09:30 PM | Comments (1)

United 93

How do you critique a documentary. How do you critique nonfiction.
For me, you take it as it is, and make an opinion on technical issues you may have had,
as long as those involved are true to the story and the people apart of it.

A film such as United 93 doesn't belong in the same multiplex as Stick It! or Scary Movie 4 -
however, I can't imagine seeing the film on a television set. This is not a typical film. It's possibly a piece of art or maybe an experience - a recreation of events that happened and actions of those involved who did their best to deal with the situation at hand. That said, if you go into United 93 thinking of it as a movie, you're going to be disappointed. It is not a movie in any sense. It's merely the retelling of something that none of us ever want to experience.

Can we learn from this motion picture which shows what happened on 9/11 to those innocent passengers and flight crew, and to what effect the event has on the terrorists?
We might not have to learn something, and we definitely are not supposed to be comfortable during the process, and despite the fact that many are saying it's "too soon" to be recreated, maybe there's a reason for it to be even made :
After all, what happened on flight 93 wasn't seen on television. All we have is the crash site and those related to all who perished. Yes, we all know what the conclusion is, but having a sense for the things that those on board did to help the situation, even played out on screen, is deeply important by the end. Since the families of the victims are behind the motion picture, I feel that the film is justified to have been made.

Paul Greengrass' direction is tight, timid, and aware of everything possibly happening in the moments of the doomed flight while projected upon the screen. The film is well shot, easy to follow, and never makes the event theatrical - as I said, it just happens. One part of the film that I enjoyed greatly and did not even expect to see was the events unfolding for the air-traffic controllers, as portrayed by some who even went through the exact thing they are reenacting from 9/11. Showing what information, both truth and speculative and how it was handled - as well as how NORAD even dealt with it, is surprisingly vital and effective.

I was hesitant about seeing this in general because .. well, who wants to see innocent people on a plane that has been hijacked? But I wanted some sense of what it was like on 9/11. I never really had an emotional experience connected to it - I was in the eye doctors office and felt so removed - people around me cried but I did not. When I got home sometime in the early afternoon, I didn't know what to make of the images on television. That said, United 93 has place for me now to help me better understand the feelings of those who suddenly found out what happened, and what it was like to lose someone you know or were related to who was lost. It's a kind of devastation that unfortunately only happens in the worst of situations. And thankfully, there is nothing on screen that I felt to be out of placed or overdone to do with the emotional weight.
If you think you would want to see United 93 at any point in your life, to see it in the theater could be the best way. I don't think it's too soon - I'm surprised myself that it hadn't happened like this for film any earlier. United 93 is an amazing filmic memorial in itself, plain and simple.

Posted by madamczyk at 07:49 PM | Comments (0)