OK, seriously!!!
Having seen this film, I think Craig certainly picks up for the Bond franchise where Sir Connery left off (and I am not referring to Never Say Never Again, which I personally thought was one of the crappiest Bond movies ever made). Craig shines in this movie the way Sir Connery shone in Dr. No. but more on that later.
The book is fantastic. Permit me brief indulgence... Le Chiffre, is an agent for the Russian assassination agency, SMERSH and he runs a baccarat game at a French casino to raise operational funds, in reality - recovering SMERSH's money that he lost in an attempt to establish a string of brothels. Mr. Bond, an expert card player himself, is sent to beat Chiffre, in the hope that the Russian agent's gambling debts will provoke SMERSH into killing him.
After hours of intensive play, Bond manages to beat Le Chiffre, but only with extra money provided by the American CIA (Felix Leiter, who is observing the game covertly). The novel also goes into shades of Vesper Lynn, Bond's emotionally turbulent assistant and then lover who. . . oops, I just decided to stop there... for the benefit of those who have not yet seen the movie.
The plot from the novel has been adapted quite beautifully to give it a 21st century touch. I would say the movie stays with the underlying theme of card games and double crosses faithfully for the most part. No spoilers here but the chase sequence just blew my mind and it was most certainly an unexpected one.
On that basis, plot and adaptation deserve 8/10.
Casino Royale is Ian Fleming's first novel, the one where we are introduced to James Bond, recently promoted to double-0 status.
Fans of the Bond franchise would probably miss Q and his inventive gadgetry as well as Bond's finesse admirably portrayed by Moore and Brosnan in the later movies but lest you forget, Bond essentially started his life as a secret agent with a bad haircut and a winning talent at cards. He was also the quintessential ruthless butcher just promoted to the post of country squire's chef i.e. recently given double-0 status and having to learn the meaning of class and parallely working on admission to the higher echelons of human society by and by, without losing his graveyard sense of humour in the process.
Just for portraying this early character superbly, I personally thought Craig deserved an 8 or 9 out of 10. Supporting cast - Judi Dench as M, Mads Mikkelsen as Le Chiffre, Eva Green as Vesper Lynn, Jeffrey Wright as Felix Leiter and the host of others do their roles with ease and no fuss no muss. Craig is the scene stealer and his cruel charisma ("the bitch is dead") is so reminiscent of Sir Connery's own. Cast performance deserves a 9/10.
I liked the opening soundtrack, "You Know My Name" performed by Chris Cornell of Audioslave and Soundgarden fame. The rest of the soundtrack was standard Bond fare, obtrusive where required or when introducing the Man... Soundtrack gets 7/10.
The cinematography deserves special mention, if at all for just two sequences - the chase sequence and the runoff at the airport. The movie itself was very fast paced (not unexpected) and shifting locales and I admit the cinematography kept adequate pace with it. What I did not like however was the penultimate sequences, which became more a "cops-and-robbers" style shootout and a fair bit of submersible action. I would give cinematography 7/10.
Overall: I give the movie 8 out of 10 and I think its definitely watchable.
I am looking out for the next one, Bond 22, with Daniel Craig in the lead role. That will probably conclusively decide for me whether he is the greatest Bond ever!!! But hey, that's me.
Watch the movie, its great fun.
Cheers
S
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Movie Reviews. Show all posts
Saturday, November 25, 2006
Monday, October 23, 2006
DON't!!!
Ok... Let me disclaim my bias first... Relative to the Big B, I don't really care for King K and no, we are not talking Kong here.
The adaptation of the plot was handled in a mediocre fashion. I would have thought that with the surfeit of writing talent available in Bollywood, Farhan Akhtar would have made the plot more interesting. The only piece that really blew me from my seat was the anti climax. Also, given the overhang from the Arey deevano, mujhe pehchano Don of 1978, his incarnation almost three decades later sorely needed to overshadow the original - and I am not referring to the cameras capturing his walk through the sundrenched streets, at weird angles to boot - this certainly requires some tight writing, not pieces that inspire you and leave you wanting for more when suddenly you find its THE END and the subtitles have started coming up onscreen. I quite liked the fast paced 21st century undercurrent and the international backdrop against which the new Don was set. It stops there and at a couple of other places. Plot adaptation was strictly average and gets 5/10.
Ok, next - when I think up a mental picture of Don - forget Amitabh Bacchan essaying this role for a moment - when I hold up a mental picture, I think to myself, this has got to be a chap who is very suave and polished, a armani clad snake oil sales man who is at the same time a cold blooded and ruthless killer, someone who's EQ is probably in the 10s or 20s - someone who is the quintessential James Bond-esque doppelganger. If I were to then hold up SRK against this mental morph, I hardly expected to see some Boyz Out Of The Hood character alternating with a pansy-look-alike, the one's you catch in Esquire or G magazine modelling shirts in pinks and mauves like they are the current Saturday evening fashion statement - and one word of advice, please do not wear strikingly color coordinated ties under your shirt - it confuses people - is he still in the closet, out of the closet, in the closet [?]. And the character of Vijay the Bumpkin... Hated the portrayal. Ineffectual sums it up. Chewing paan does not automatically give you that uncultured and rustic look. Enough said. As for the others, I loved Priyanka Chopra - ultra sexy and extremely form filling costumes as well - like Zeenat Aman from 1978, her role was limited but what little I got to see onscreen I liked, a lot - Boman Irani's character was well essayed and [author's note: deleted as it contains spoilers, watch the movie and find out more] - Arjun Ramphal as Jasjeet was a waste of screen time, we might as well have cast . Cast performance gets 4/10 [2 points to Ms. Chopra ;-) ]
The soundtrack was something I truly enjoyed. A completely different spin and mix to two classics and two - three totally new tunes. Wow!!! I just loved the mix of fast paced percussion, the lovely vocals of Sunidhi Chauhan and the haunting mixes of Medieval Punditz. Very very stylish, very very happening and very very in tune with the screen play. I would have given this a 9 or a 10 however, my misgiving was the unnecessary lyric/monologue in Khaike Paan Banaraswala, which also served to underscore our sedentary Indian brethren in Kuala Lumpur and the degree of success with which they have managed to convert the local Malay bhoomiputras into performing a jhalak at one of our overseas desi dos. Soundtrack gets 8/10.
Cinematography was good. Fast paced and well shot, it was something that a lover of the big screen will truly appreciate. I quite liked the manner in which the plot kept shifting geographic theaters and gears within. No more said, the stunts were well choreographed, a chase was shot well, almost reminiscent of the chase in Goa in Matt Damon's The Bourne Supremacy. I would give the cinematography 7/10.
Overall: The film gets a 4-5/10.
If you have seen the original Don, go watch it for the anticlimax and cinematography. If you have not seen the original Don, watch it for the cinematography and soundtrack. If the former does not interest you, buy the CD at Rs. 160 from Crossword or Landmark. That's your single movie ticket anyways!!!
Cheers
S
The adaptation of the plot was handled in a mediocre fashion. I would have thought that with the surfeit of writing talent available in Bollywood, Farhan Akhtar would have made the plot more interesting. The only piece that really blew me from my seat was the anti climax. Also, given the overhang from the Arey deevano, mujhe pehchano Don of 1978, his incarnation almost three decades later sorely needed to overshadow the original - and I am not referring to the cameras capturing his walk through the sundrenched streets, at weird angles to boot - this certainly requires some tight writing, not pieces that inspire you and leave you wanting for more when suddenly you find its THE END and the subtitles have started coming up onscreen. I quite liked the fast paced 21st century undercurrent and the international backdrop against which the new Don was set. It stops there and at a couple of other places. Plot adaptation was strictly average and gets 5/10.
Ok, next - when I think up a mental picture of Don - forget Amitabh Bacchan essaying this role for a moment - when I hold up a mental picture, I think to myself, this has got to be a chap who is very suave and polished, a armani clad snake oil sales man who is at the same time a cold blooded and ruthless killer, someone who's EQ is probably in the 10s or 20s - someone who is the quintessential James Bond-esque doppelganger. If I were to then hold up SRK against this mental morph, I hardly expected to see some Boyz Out Of The Hood character alternating with a pansy-look-alike, the one's you catch in Esquire or G magazine modelling shirts in pinks and mauves like they are the current Saturday evening fashion statement - and one word of advice, please do not wear strikingly color coordinated ties under your shirt - it confuses people - is he still in the closet, out of the closet, in the closet [?]. And the character of Vijay the Bumpkin... Hated the portrayal. Ineffectual sums it up. Chewing paan does not automatically give you that uncultured and rustic look. Enough said. As for the others, I loved Priyanka Chopra - ultra sexy and extremely form filling costumes as well - like Zeenat Aman from 1978, her role was limited but what little I got to see onscreen I liked, a lot - Boman Irani's character was well essayed and [author's note: deleted as it contains spoilers, watch the movie and find out more] - Arjun Ramphal as Jasjeet was a waste of screen time, we might as well have cast . Cast performance gets 4/10 [2 points to Ms. Chopra ;-) ]
The soundtrack was something I truly enjoyed. A completely different spin and mix to two classics and two - three totally new tunes. Wow!!! I just loved the mix of fast paced percussion, the lovely vocals of Sunidhi Chauhan and the haunting mixes of Medieval Punditz. Very very stylish, very very happening and very very in tune with the screen play. I would have given this a 9 or a 10 however, my misgiving was the unnecessary lyric/monologue in Khaike Paan Banaraswala, which also served to underscore our sedentary Indian brethren in Kuala Lumpur and the degree of success with which they have managed to convert the local Malay bhoomiputras into performing a jhalak at one of our overseas desi dos. Soundtrack gets 8/10.
Cinematography was good. Fast paced and well shot, it was something that a lover of the big screen will truly appreciate. I quite liked the manner in which the plot kept shifting geographic theaters and gears within. No more said, the stunts were well choreographed, a chase was shot well, almost reminiscent of the chase in Goa in Matt Damon's The Bourne Supremacy. I would give the cinematography 7/10.
Overall: The film gets a 4-5/10.
If you have seen the original Don, go watch it for the anticlimax and cinematography. If you have not seen the original Don, watch it for the cinematography and soundtrack. If the former does not interest you, buy the CD at Rs. 160 from Crossword or Landmark. That's your single movie ticket anyways!!!
Cheers
S
Monday, August 07, 2006
Omkara: Relationships 101
Wonderful!!! My wife and i just returned from the theater after watching this movie and frankly, I was impressed. We had both seen Golmaal Unlimited last fortnight and I came away a trifle disappointed with Devgan's attempt at urbane humour... Omkara more than put paid to this.
First of all the plot - I think Vishal Bharadwaj has adapted what was essentially a Shakespearan tragedy to appeal to the Indian viewer - both discerning and the casual film goer. Let us for a moment forget sophistication in dress sense, forget the absence of an urban setting, forget the lack of fast cars and faster women, forget the lack of instant teleporting to the beaches of majorca or san tropez for woeful songs and so on. This movie more than makes up for it in several other areas - like the superlative screenplay that ensures the central theme is not lost against the backdrop of "political machinations" or the all too familiar "don-in-jail" who runs his business from behind bars", the acting by each of the central characters, each as powerful as the character they were intended to portray, the locale in which the film was shot and so on... for plot and adaptation, I would give this a 7/10.
Coming to cast performance, like I mentioned above, acting that was only just as powerful as the characters the sript was intending to portray. No fuss, no muss. Every single central character right from Omkara through Kesu through Langda Tyagi through Dolly through Indu, the performances were extremely fulfilling. Naseerudin Shah as Bhaisaab supports the cast adequately. No overdone histrionics, every dialogue delivery just oh-so right. However, to my mind, Saif Ali Khan just stole the show with a superlative bit of acting as the crippled Tyagi. I believe his gradual metamorphosis from Neil in Salaam Namaste through Cyrus in Being Cyrus to Langda Tyagi in Omkara was simply a treat to watch. He is fast scaling the ranks among my list of favorite actors, western or otherwise. I would rate cast performance 8/10 (1 point knocked off for my perennial chip on the shoulder - Bipasha Basu, she did not convey the character of a rustic courtesan convincingly. Too much upper class accented Hindi in her dialogue delivery).
The soundtrack was a new experience for me. First up, I think Vishal Bharadwaj went the Quentin Tarantino way. Tarantino personally handpicked the songs on the OST for Pulp Fiction and supposedly went though a bazillion songs, sorry probably a 1000 or so before he settled for the ones we heard. I remember watching Pulp Fiction and then a Tarantino interview where he speaks about how he had to choose each song to fit the screenplay and the underlying emotion captured there. Bharadwaj has most likely done the same and the result is quite refreshing to hear. Soundtrack gets 9 points out of 10!!!
Lastly, cinematography. Very well modulated and very well shot. Each sequence has beautifully dovetailed into the other without any semblance of a cut or something jarring that just creeps up onscreen before the earlier sequence is adequately complete. I would give this 8 out of 10 again, lopping off a point because of the fact that the dialogue and script were in rustic Hindi that I could not adequately understand.
And before I forget - the central theme of this movie is not about a foul mouthed cripple or a battle for power or a Shakespearan classic to suit Indian sense and sensibility. To me, this movie had two powerful messages. Firstly, the cornerstone of any relationship, rural or urban is trust. In the absence of trust, we would do well to remember that we are not yet ready to accept responsibilities for the lives of another. Secondly, I am again reminded in a direct manner of the adage, "Never believe anything you hear and probably only half of what you see."
Watch this movie. Its worth your time and patience.
Cheers
S
First of all the plot - I think Vishal Bharadwaj has adapted what was essentially a Shakespearan tragedy to appeal to the Indian viewer - both discerning and the casual film goer. Let us for a moment forget sophistication in dress sense, forget the absence of an urban setting, forget the lack of fast cars and faster women, forget the lack of instant teleporting to the beaches of majorca or san tropez for woeful songs and so on. This movie more than makes up for it in several other areas - like the superlative screenplay that ensures the central theme is not lost against the backdrop of "political machinations" or the all too familiar "don-in-jail" who runs his business from behind bars", the acting by each of the central characters, each as powerful as the character they were intended to portray, the locale in which the film was shot and so on... for plot and adaptation, I would give this a 7/10.
Coming to cast performance, like I mentioned above, acting that was only just as powerful as the characters the sript was intending to portray. No fuss, no muss. Every single central character right from Omkara through Kesu through Langda Tyagi through Dolly through Indu, the performances were extremely fulfilling. Naseerudin Shah as Bhaisaab supports the cast adequately. No overdone histrionics, every dialogue delivery just oh-so right. However, to my mind, Saif Ali Khan just stole the show with a superlative bit of acting as the crippled Tyagi. I believe his gradual metamorphosis from Neil in Salaam Namaste through Cyrus in Being Cyrus to Langda Tyagi in Omkara was simply a treat to watch. He is fast scaling the ranks among my list of favorite actors, western or otherwise. I would rate cast performance 8/10 (1 point knocked off for my perennial chip on the shoulder - Bipasha Basu, she did not convey the character of a rustic courtesan convincingly. Too much upper class accented Hindi in her dialogue delivery).
The soundtrack was a new experience for me. First up, I think Vishal Bharadwaj went the Quentin Tarantino way. Tarantino personally handpicked the songs on the OST for Pulp Fiction and supposedly went though a bazillion songs, sorry probably a 1000 or so before he settled for the ones we heard. I remember watching Pulp Fiction and then a Tarantino interview where he speaks about how he had to choose each song to fit the screenplay and the underlying emotion captured there. Bharadwaj has most likely done the same and the result is quite refreshing to hear. Soundtrack gets 9 points out of 10!!!
Lastly, cinematography. Very well modulated and very well shot. Each sequence has beautifully dovetailed into the other without any semblance of a cut or something jarring that just creeps up onscreen before the earlier sequence is adequately complete. I would give this 8 out of 10 again, lopping off a point because of the fact that the dialogue and script were in rustic Hindi that I could not adequately understand.
And before I forget - the central theme of this movie is not about a foul mouthed cripple or a battle for power or a Shakespearan classic to suit Indian sense and sensibility. To me, this movie had two powerful messages. Firstly, the cornerstone of any relationship, rural or urban is trust. In the absence of trust, we would do well to remember that we are not yet ready to accept responsibilities for the lives of another. Secondly, I am again reminded in a direct manner of the adage, "Never believe anything you hear and probably only half of what you see."
Watch this movie. Its worth your time and patience.
Cheers
S
Friday, June 30, 2006
Phir Hera Pheri: Guy Ritchie Meets Charlie Chaplin (Well, Almost!!)
WARNING: Contains some spoilers. . .
I saw Phir Hera Pheri last evening at the Andheri Fame Adlabs in Mumbai and came away a bit disappointed...
The old adage, sequels never really live up seems so true... and lest I forget, the hullabaloo over Kavya Vishwanathan's plagiarisation (sorry, I really meant to say internalisation... but I just could not bring myself to utter that word) of Megan McCafferty's work should also extend to the unashamed purloining of comic screenplays and turning them into crap, like what was done in this movie...
Firstly the plot - What I saw last night was a complicated and puerile adaptation of the Guy Ritchie directed Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Why do I say half baked? Because unlike its English counterpart, this movie complicated the plot needlessly, almost to the point of tedium. Secondly, the cast, especially Paresh Rawal, had a brilliant opportunity to swing in some really subtle humour, Indian style and they let it slide... The original plot in English is about a rich don's son losing a fortune over a card game and being forced to pay up to a card shark. He plots a crafty steal-from-one-crook-to-pay-another type plan with three of his friends and involving drug growers, gun runners, an gunman for hire and his son and the rest of the movie, including the two antique guns that come and depart from his possession, turn into an unbridled laugh riot.
Sorry, for that brief segue... back to the main review... the plot in PHP borrowed heavily from Lock, Stock and... and adapted it to suit the Indian masses in its own meandering fashion... 2/10 for lousy adaptation of a plot and unoriginal screenplay.
Cast performance - I am thinking to myself, "Who should I crucify first?" Its painful to see a stellar star cast like Akshay Kumar, Suneil Shetty and Paresh Rawal and that too one propped up by an equally decent, if not good, supporting cast waste this opportunity to make us come and while our cares away while watching this movie... Johny Lever was most asinine, playing a "wannabe" big fish don (if there is ever an Indian adaptation of a Midsummer Night's Dream, he can surely play Nick Bottom the Donkey, without applying any disguise), Akshay Kumar ineffectually portraying a nouveau riche down on his luck (easy come, easy go?), Suneil Shetty trying to have us believe that he was still looking for a job instead of using his share of the "gain" from Hera Pheri (Part 1) to turn entrepreneur (one only hopes, sigh!!!), Paresh Rawal in the most garish of colors, painting the town and the country side in turquoise blue drapes or Hawaiian style florals so bright, even the sun took to wearing shades... And the less said about Bipasha Basu's performance, the better... I mean why cast this woman in a semi-lead role, when all she can do is "nautch baliye" and that too badly... Personally, I wouldn't rate this as a VH1 moment in her acting career - she demonstrated more ability in that shampoo ad... Her dialogue delivery was wooden and apart from one bar-room-blitz type number opposite Akshay Kumar, all we effectively saw of her was running around in a green pullover or a red top... I mean, if I wanted to see something vaguely sporty, I would have rented Iqbal or Chariots of Fire. 3/10 for cast performance.
Soundtrack - Bad. I am not talking about the beat or the music... Its the delivery... Why listen to music in Dolby or DTS, if all that its used for is to amplify the bass beat in the background... And I really would have preferred the last song, the one where they dress up in baby blues and pinks and try to turn into a western style ensemble to have much ahead in the viewing curve... I am not sure if this is true of all Indian movies but the ones I have watched on the big screen as well as rented on DVD have one uniform feature - DTS and Dolby 5.1 only for the audio soundtrack or for an overly done emotional or fight sequence. I would give this 3/10.
Cinematography - What I liked in the entire movie was the finale in the circus... Truly slapstick humour a la Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy and very enjoyable, I was laughing through the entire sequence... See and this is what I mean when I said earlier on that I was disappointed, why pay for a 2.5 hour flick and be entertained for just 15-20 minutes... I was bored by half time and was playing with my cell phone and messaging people... Probably rate this 5/10.
Overall: 4/10
Cheers
S
I saw Phir Hera Pheri last evening at the Andheri Fame Adlabs in Mumbai and came away a bit disappointed...
The old adage, sequels never really live up seems so true... and lest I forget, the hullabaloo over Kavya Vishwanathan's plagiarisation (sorry, I really meant to say internalisation... but I just could not bring myself to utter that word) of Megan McCafferty's work should also extend to the unashamed purloining of comic screenplays and turning them into crap, like what was done in this movie...
Firstly the plot - What I saw last night was a complicated and puerile adaptation of the Guy Ritchie directed Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Why do I say half baked? Because unlike its English counterpart, this movie complicated the plot needlessly, almost to the point of tedium. Secondly, the cast, especially Paresh Rawal, had a brilliant opportunity to swing in some really subtle humour, Indian style and they let it slide... The original plot in English is about a rich don's son losing a fortune over a card game and being forced to pay up to a card shark. He plots a crafty steal-from-one-crook-to-pay-another type plan with three of his friends and involving drug growers, gun runners, an gunman for hire and his son and the rest of the movie, including the two antique guns that come and depart from his possession, turn into an unbridled laugh riot.
Sorry, for that brief segue... back to the main review... the plot in PHP borrowed heavily from Lock, Stock and... and adapted it to suit the Indian masses in its own meandering fashion... 2/10 for lousy adaptation of a plot and unoriginal screenplay.
Cast performance - I am thinking to myself, "Who should I crucify first?" Its painful to see a stellar star cast like Akshay Kumar, Suneil Shetty and Paresh Rawal and that too one propped up by an equally decent, if not good, supporting cast waste this opportunity to make us come and while our cares away while watching this movie... Johny Lever was most asinine, playing a "wannabe" big fish don (if there is ever an Indian adaptation of a Midsummer Night's Dream, he can surely play Nick Bottom the Donkey, without applying any disguise), Akshay Kumar ineffectually portraying a nouveau riche down on his luck (easy come, easy go?), Suneil Shetty trying to have us believe that he was still looking for a job instead of using his share of the "gain" from Hera Pheri (Part 1) to turn entrepreneur (one only hopes, sigh!!!), Paresh Rawal in the most garish of colors, painting the town and the country side in turquoise blue drapes or Hawaiian style florals so bright, even the sun took to wearing shades... And the less said about Bipasha Basu's performance, the better... I mean why cast this woman in a semi-lead role, when all she can do is "nautch baliye" and that too badly... Personally, I wouldn't rate this as a VH1 moment in her acting career - she demonstrated more ability in that shampoo ad... Her dialogue delivery was wooden and apart from one bar-room-blitz type number opposite Akshay Kumar, all we effectively saw of her was running around in a green pullover or a red top... I mean, if I wanted to see something vaguely sporty, I would have rented Iqbal or Chariots of Fire. 3/10 for cast performance.
Soundtrack - Bad. I am not talking about the beat or the music... Its the delivery... Why listen to music in Dolby or DTS, if all that its used for is to amplify the bass beat in the background... And I really would have preferred the last song, the one where they dress up in baby blues and pinks and try to turn into a western style ensemble to have much ahead in the viewing curve... I am not sure if this is true of all Indian movies but the ones I have watched on the big screen as well as rented on DVD have one uniform feature - DTS and Dolby 5.1 only for the audio soundtrack or for an overly done emotional or fight sequence. I would give this 3/10.
Cinematography - What I liked in the entire movie was the finale in the circus... Truly slapstick humour a la Chaplin and Laurel and Hardy and very enjoyable, I was laughing through the entire sequence... See and this is what I mean when I said earlier on that I was disappointed, why pay for a 2.5 hour flick and be entertained for just 15-20 minutes... I was bored by half time and was playing with my cell phone and messaging people... Probably rate this 5/10.
Overall: 4/10
Cheers
S
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Da Vinci Code: Much Ado About Nothing (With Apologies to Avon's Bard)
Ok, I had the opportunity to watch this film overseas but passed up on that since I was assured by comments that the Indian censors and the Indian Central / State Governments were not going to yank the movie off the theaters or cut out some of the interesting bits. I went and saw this movie last fortnight and I was quite satisfied. I choose the word very carefully.
The film follows the central plot in the novel as faithfully as possible. It however presupposes that most (if not all of the audience) would have read the book as well and are therefore quite familiar with the historical/mythological background that the book contains. If you are looking to see a thriller like any other, without being too concerned about the origin of any (or all) theories behind the plot (conspiracy or otherwise), go for it. On that basis, I would give this plot 7/10...
On cast performance, nothing spectacular. Each actor went about their roles without any overly done histrionics and aligned themselves to the central plot. Audrey Tautou who plays the role of Sophie Neveu, seemed quite apt for the role, although Tom Hanks could have put some more oomph into his role... He did manage to look convincingly hazzled, albeit needlessly, in The Castway anyways. As for Alfred Molina, I liked him better as Doc Ock in Spiderman 2... Hardly the catholic type, much less a bishop... Very lukewarm performance... And both Jean Reno as Bezu Fache and Sir Ian McKellan as Leigh Teabing played their roles brilliantly, I thought they were the real show stealers, no humbug there... Cast performance rated at 5.5/10
Choir music sound track, befitting an anglo-saxon-neo-pagan-christian-catholic conspiracy hush up-themed film although they could've done a tad better, for example the scene where Silas undergoes penitence with a cilice... The music in my opinion should have been a tune that captures the torment of a human in physical pain, not something that appears to be sombre in parts and punctuated by a harsh spike in sound at times, almost sounding like an organ that burst a pipe. Funnily enough, the sound track was what cost this film its U rating in the UK... It was rated A there since the censors believed the music to be too frightening for children (and these are the very same children who play Doom 3 or Grand Theft Auto San Andreas to the sound track of a Marilyn Manson equivalent or some equally punked out Goth rocker who is urging them to "Kill 'Em Ho's. Quickly"!!! Sound track rated at 6/10
I have just one crib on cinematography... Remember the old adage, "a picture is worth a thousand words"... I think Ron Howard probably forgot this during parts of the movie... The imminent sense of urgency that the book conveyed thereby making it an impossible-to-put-down-read was completely absent in the movie... Ya well, there are a a few chases and pursuits but still did not make me grip the edges of my seat...
Overall rating for this 7/10.
Summary: Go see the movie if you haven't already. You do not have to have read the book to follow the plot and its a nice weekend thriller to get your mind off whatever.
Cheers
S
The film follows the central plot in the novel as faithfully as possible. It however presupposes that most (if not all of the audience) would have read the book as well and are therefore quite familiar with the historical/mythological background that the book contains. If you are looking to see a thriller like any other, without being too concerned about the origin of any (or all) theories behind the plot (conspiracy or otherwise), go for it. On that basis, I would give this plot 7/10...
On cast performance, nothing spectacular. Each actor went about their roles without any overly done histrionics and aligned themselves to the central plot. Audrey Tautou who plays the role of Sophie Neveu, seemed quite apt for the role, although Tom Hanks could have put some more oomph into his role... He did manage to look convincingly hazzled, albeit needlessly, in The Castway anyways. As for Alfred Molina, I liked him better as Doc Ock in Spiderman 2... Hardly the catholic type, much less a bishop... Very lukewarm performance... And both Jean Reno as Bezu Fache and Sir Ian McKellan as Leigh Teabing played their roles brilliantly, I thought they were the real show stealers, no humbug there... Cast performance rated at 5.5/10
Choir music sound track, befitting an anglo-saxon-neo-pagan-christian-catholic conspiracy hush up-themed film although they could've done a tad better, for example the scene where Silas undergoes penitence with a cilice... The music in my opinion should have been a tune that captures the torment of a human in physical pain, not something that appears to be sombre in parts and punctuated by a harsh spike in sound at times, almost sounding like an organ that burst a pipe. Funnily enough, the sound track was what cost this film its U rating in the UK... It was rated A there since the censors believed the music to be too frightening for children (and these are the very same children who play Doom 3 or Grand Theft Auto San Andreas to the sound track of a Marilyn Manson equivalent or some equally punked out Goth rocker who is urging them to "Kill 'Em Ho's. Quickly"!!! Sound track rated at 6/10
I have just one crib on cinematography... Remember the old adage, "a picture is worth a thousand words"... I think Ron Howard probably forgot this during parts of the movie... The imminent sense of urgency that the book conveyed thereby making it an impossible-to-put-down-read was completely absent in the movie... Ya well, there are a a few chases and pursuits but still did not make me grip the edges of my seat...
Overall rating for this 7/10.
Summary: Go see the movie if you haven't already. You do not have to have read the book to follow the plot and its a nice weekend thriller to get your mind off whatever.
Cheers
S
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
