I think I'll put in my two cents on The Da Vinci Code:
It's horrible. Horrible. Why? Because it's an excellently shot (sometimes) picture, but what's been captured by the camera is utterly disconnected from the audience. Say what you want about the characters in M:I 3 being shallow, but at least there's some attention being paid to them, giving a person the slightest bit of feeling for them. Here, there's nothing to connect you to anyone. No personal details that aren't absolutely adherent to whatever the next piece of the plot is, nothing that actually pulls you in. You're simply watching a man on screen doing things.
Or rather, not doing things. It seemed like every time Robert made it to the next point in a hopelessly lifeless story (go through Louvre. Figure out clues. Get to "hidden place." Unlock what needs to be unlocked. Get to helpful old man's house. Continue along your way until the movie collapses out of sheer boredom with itself), he just happened to get a lot of information that would be pertinant to what he needed at that moment in time. His claustrophobia is quite possibly the most bland representation of a phobia in a movie since who knows when. There's so much very, very wrong with this movie. It's a flatlined story -- which is amazing, when the book was (despite the poor writing and half-baked ideas and conspiracy theories stacked on top of one another) pulpy and fun. And Ron Howard knows how to have fun: see Splash, Arrested Development (putting his name on as exec. producer and narrating the show), The Grinch, Parenthood, hell, even Willow. Akiva Goldsman wrote friggin' Batman & Robin, so he definitely can't take himself seriously (further proof that he honestly seems like a fun guy: his commentary with Francis Lawrence on Constantine).
Yet, somewhere along the way, both Ron and Akiva and most every member of the cast decided that this wasn't a chase movie with a religious twist to it -- it was somehow Schindler's List 2. So they play it straight and serious, something that's quite amazing. And when I say amazing, I mean stupid. Every single actor has been great fun in roles before. From Hanks in most everything he's done since he started (I can't think of a movie he's done where there isn't some sly joke or gag he pulls off effortlessly while remaining truly in character), Tautou in Amelie, Reno in Leon and even Godzilla (he's the best part of that film by far, which is guilty pleasure of mine), Molina in Boogie Nights and Spider-Man 2, Bettany in Master & Commander (his back-and-forth with Russell Crowe's Aubrey is quite astoundingly enjoyable), Ian McKellen in, well... everything. And yes, McKellen does seem to be well aware he's in a movie based on a pulp novel that got too much attention, and throws any pretensions of this being serious to the wind. I perked up watching the first scene he appears in -- he's damn good, and damn lively in this (ironic, since he plays a person whose condition should make him less active) but it's expected from him. Doesn't help the movie much, though, especially during the end, where everyone else is still playing it as serious as ever. I don't fall asleep during movies. The Da Vinci Code made me nod off here and there. And that, to me, is the biggest damnation.
I find it hard to accept "meh" movies. They're the worst, the ones that do nothing to push you in one direction or another. The ones that only elicit an emotional reaction through vacant manipulation, like a robot on an assembly line. As much as it pains me to say it, Van Helsing is more interesting as a complete and total failure in storytelling than this droning bore is. Because at least Van Helsing gives you a kick in the nuts. The Da Vinci Code merely talks about how it might. And then it never even bothers.
It's horrible. Horrible. Why? Because it's an excellently shot (sometimes) picture, but what's been captured by the camera is utterly disconnected from the audience. Say what you want about the characters in M:I 3 being shallow, but at least there's some attention being paid to them, giving a person the slightest bit of feeling for them. Here, there's nothing to connect you to anyone. No personal details that aren't absolutely adherent to whatever the next piece of the plot is, nothing that actually pulls you in. You're simply watching a man on screen doing things.
Or rather, not doing things. It seemed like every time Robert made it to the next point in a hopelessly lifeless story (go through Louvre. Figure out clues. Get to "hidden place." Unlock what needs to be unlocked. Get to helpful old man's house. Continue along your way until the movie collapses out of sheer boredom with itself), he just happened to get a lot of information that would be pertinant to what he needed at that moment in time. His claustrophobia is quite possibly the most bland representation of a phobia in a movie since who knows when. There's so much very, very wrong with this movie. It's a flatlined story -- which is amazing, when the book was (despite the poor writing and half-baked ideas and conspiracy theories stacked on top of one another) pulpy and fun. And Ron Howard knows how to have fun: see Splash, Arrested Development (putting his name on as exec. producer and narrating the show), The Grinch, Parenthood, hell, even Willow. Akiva Goldsman wrote friggin' Batman & Robin, so he definitely can't take himself seriously (further proof that he honestly seems like a fun guy: his commentary with Francis Lawrence on Constantine).
Yet, somewhere along the way, both Ron and Akiva and most every member of the cast decided that this wasn't a chase movie with a religious twist to it -- it was somehow Schindler's List 2. So they play it straight and serious, something that's quite amazing. And when I say amazing, I mean stupid. Every single actor has been great fun in roles before. From Hanks in most everything he's done since he started (I can't think of a movie he's done where there isn't some sly joke or gag he pulls off effortlessly while remaining truly in character), Tautou in Amelie, Reno in Leon and even Godzilla (he's the best part of that film by far, which is guilty pleasure of mine), Molina in Boogie Nights and Spider-Man 2, Bettany in Master & Commander (his back-and-forth with Russell Crowe's Aubrey is quite astoundingly enjoyable), Ian McKellen in, well... everything. And yes, McKellen does seem to be well aware he's in a movie based on a pulp novel that got too much attention, and throws any pretensions of this being serious to the wind. I perked up watching the first scene he appears in -- he's damn good, and damn lively in this (ironic, since he plays a person whose condition should make him less active) but it's expected from him. Doesn't help the movie much, though, especially during the end, where everyone else is still playing it as serious as ever. I don't fall asleep during movies. The Da Vinci Code made me nod off here and there. And that, to me, is the biggest damnation.
I find it hard to accept "meh" movies. They're the worst, the ones that do nothing to push you in one direction or another. The ones that only elicit an emotional reaction through vacant manipulation, like a robot on an assembly line. As much as it pains me to say it, Van Helsing is more interesting as a complete and total failure in storytelling than this droning bore is. Because at least Van Helsing gives you a kick in the nuts. The Da Vinci Code merely talks about how it might. And then it never even bothers.
darthspielberg:
you summed my thougts exactly...but look out. I smell fanboy coming to get you, if they ever get wind of this.