|
|
So I first saw "The New World". I had every intention of writing a review for it, so I had my notebook and pen ready to take notes. I watched the film and I... couldn't. It was so abstract, with amazing cinematography, very little dialogue and very reverant. It is quite difficult to explain, but I rather liked the show. It felt like an independent film-- very artistic, yet not meant to be a box office breaker (and I wondered why it was never hyped <_<), definitely worth a view if you're into film as an art, and not as a simple "I WANT 2 SEE EXPLUSHONE AND GORR!!1" activity. Anyhow, I also saw the Da Vinci Code, and I started to write a review on it last night, when I fell asleep... <_< So here it is, and I'd give the movie 2 1/2 stars (out of the traditional 4 star rating system): Director Ron Howard has never impressed me. He's never made something that would deem him worthy of being praised for his artistic ability, yet while the critics hate him, the box office loves him.
My initial impression of the movie wasn't too far off from the spot. Clearly the acting, cinematography, nor directing will earn any awards. It, artistically speaking, is not a product that the creators ought to keep in a portfolio (however, the box office reciepts are).
However, art aside, the movie turned out to be quite a bit of fun. The mystery was kept interesting and refreshing. There wasn't too much, nor too little revealed at any given time, and the screenplay was written well, concerning the absurdity of the overly ficticious story. A movie, unlike a book is purely action driven and the ideas or concepts gained from a movie are a result of the action portrayed. Mel Gibson's portrayal of the ideaology of William Wallace wouldn't have been nearly as powerful if he didn't have to fight; literally battle for it.
While this movie tries to discuss ideaology seperate from the action, the action is constant and drives the film.
Because this is a book to film adaption, it suffers from a lack of clarity from time to time, and the ridiculous story is made seemingly more ridiculous, especially when sources are completely uncited. There is a common misconception that is being heard that Dan Brown was able to take this ficticious story and make it seem as if it could be real, by doing so much research.
While it is true, that Dan Brown must have done his research, the actual facts that he used aren't found in the story and ideaology, but rather the knowledge about Da Vanci, and other facts about mechanics and the modern world. As for the actual ideology about Christ and the Holy Grail; a story like that takes too much liberty with assumption, and the only "facts" present, would be quite common knowledge to many who were raised in religion. So what then, made this story so popular? The message behind it could be an answer, or possibly the idea that so much of the world could be believing a lie. Tom Hanks has it right when he says, "Should the heir of Christ break faith? Or should they build it?"
This story, if it even could be remotely supported (which it cannot be), still does not say anything of relevance in our modern world, and it is comforting that this is portrayed with Tom Hanks talking about the logic behind what the Grail, and the quest that this story takes the viewer through actually means, when applicable. It doesn't mean a whole lot, because there are so many details that are unknown.
When so many factors and details are unknown, it would be a mistake to rule out one's beliefs simply because there's a lack of supporting evidence. If anything, Dan Brown's story plays off of, the benefit of the doubt; and for that reason, I cannot understand why there were so many protests concerning the film and the book. The book cannot be supported in any way, shape or form, and even if it could be... would it really change anything?
He gives us a story based around the benefit of the doubt, and that is no benefit at all. It is not enough to prove or disprove something merely because of a lack of evidence-- and that's what Brown plays off of.
Hans Zimmer was the culprit behind the overwhelmingly dramatic music yet again. Zimmer is indeed a good musician, but he only knows two styles. The style which he used for the film "Driving Miss Daisy", and the style he's used for everything else-- which is overly bombastic, dramtic, and overwhelming at insignificant, non-action driven points. With that said, yes the music is wonderful, one of Zimmer's best pieces yet, but it gets distracting, and is much more enjoyable to listen to while the ending credits are being played.
At the end of the day, this movie was a fun, suspense film that was meant to be purely ficticious and an interesting box office breaker. Is it worth a view? Sure, but don't expect anything thought-provoking, just expect a fun suspense-thriller meant to entertain an audience for the beginning of the summer.
Logged
|
