... by Dan Brown, or "Torture" (of the viewer) by Ron Howard, is the last piece of the trilogy that started quite ok with "DaVinci Code" and continued less ok by "Angels and Demons". Tom Hanks is back as Robert Langdon, probably the person in academia who had the most thrilling life since Indiana Jones ...
The guy wakes up somewhere in Florence in a hospital which is so obvious is not a hospital that giving a spoiler warning is totally useless. Partial amnesia and a medic from UK who we don't know how she got in a ER in Florence, but we know that she was a little prodigy. Obviously Mr. Langdon doesn't smell any issue in all this context, somehow similar with him forgetting the name of that dark drink that wakes you up in the morning (a subtle excuse for giving credibility to an intrigue that's hard to cope with). However, Mr. Langdon is able to build up the path towards a virus hidden by a demented billionaire who wants to erase half of the world population for providing Earth with a brighter future (it's me, or this subject gets scarily overused lately ...). Well, so we get to a ride that spans the entire film, with an ending that makes you ask why you needed all that. Or how a demented billionaire who apparently is genius enough to design such a biological weapon (and also to become a billionaire) can have such a lame failsafe for his evil plan ...
There's not much more to say. The best part of the movie I think was the presence of Irrfan Khan who stole every scene he was in. That and also getting to see a bit of Florence and Venice. Besides these too much eye-rolling and spontaneously asking yourself "seriously?...", way too much ...
I have a theory, empirically verified ... best movies come to you when you need them most. At least karma hit me with this often enough to get convinced. Examples are too personal for this blog and I didn't count all of them, but just to give at least something... I've seen "A Beautiful Mind" in the Spring of 2002, at a moment when I really really needed something motivating to get me on track for my high school graduation exams. No need for more details. Another minor example... I've watched "The Accountant" two weeks ago when I was thinking that I didn't have yet a top rated entry this year on my blog + nothing seemed coming also. Well ... here it is.
The problem is that I postponed writing this enough to lose lots of ideas. The story's focused on a guy with a particular type of autism, who ends up making a career in bookkeeping for very shady people. Freelance work, middle men connections, temporary identity. But the job hides much more behind it ... Starting with a not so happy childhood, but special in a way that I don't want to spoil, up to the relations with close relatives and the reasons for picking such a "grey" job instead of anything else. The latest client seems though a movement into a brighter area. He's a guy running a giant company of medical engineering who seems to record losses somewhere in the midst of tones of financial reports. So things appear to get more legit. Unfortunately a retiring director in the financial crimes department of the Treasury decides to task an analyst with tracing our "accountant". Which seems to be the main problem of our financial guy...
I guess the movie script is by far the best built piece of dramatic writing of anything I've watched in 2016 regarding the way the action develops. It might have predictable parts, maybe some dialogues could be improved, maybe the first part seems too lengthy, but ... The way the twists are interleaved, the way (maybe a bit annoying in the beginning) of how the background story is given to you in small pieces, the at least three ending surprises (maybe not that big, but many), and above all the fact that in the second half "things are not as they seem to be" comes back so often as hidden tagline, this is what shows what good writing really is. Despite all critics that seem to pick exactly on this.
I'm at 9 years of blogging (counting also the Romanian version) and I'm more and more disappointed of what I see that cashes in at box office and is also appreciated in the media... Honestly, it's deplorable to witness over-inflated ratings for a blockbuster that has the simplest story and puts a lot in catchy visuals when something else that requires a bit more than two neurons to understand what's going on is bashed on the reasons of too many plot lines, too complicated, too boring and convoluted ... No it's not, but it needs more than two neurons - it's frightening though that more and more critics (authorized) seem to have a limit of brain cells around that number. And unfortunately the movie industry listens... Contrary to the TV, which seems to do much better in the series area (guess less $ for explosions VFX compensates with better stories). On the other hand, 9 years ago my life was more calm, much less stress, better health and more time for movies. So maybe the present situation might have an impact in finding hard something that I can rate with a 5/5 (and even when I do like now it still seems a bit subjective ...).
I have to admit (again) that I'm thinking on closing this blog. Besides the facts that my writing got awfully repetitive, I'm always doing it on the run, I'm not really able lately to keep my "standard" average of 1 entry/week, now I also notice the above. Still ... as long as we have some movies that deserve a bit of fighting against the mainstream criticism, maybe it makes sense to go on :) ...
No time, short entry ... "Doctor Strange" = "Diablo" meets "Inception" - for who played the Blizzard game I guess it's impossible not to see a link (from the colors to relics/artifacts, everything's there), and about Nolan's movie, well ... we don't have dreams, but we have an alternate dimension + time + others are there. What's not part of the sum above is the context/subject where everything is set. More precisely another Marvel super-hero, an ex brilliant surgeon, who irreparably damages his hands in an accidents and finds again his life somewhere in Tibet. But not as a doctor .. as a wizard/sorcerer who must get the world rid of dangers coming from other realms. That's the story. About the movie ...
It alternates between brilliant moments and abysmal scenes (somewhere at the intersection of cliche, childish and out of place = ex. "the comic relief" is way off way too often). Unfortunately the last category is dense enough to bring down the movie, but fortunately the first category is sometimes so good that keeps it above average. It's either bits of the script like thoughts on the end-of-life or more deep conclusions like - controlling time beats having an eternity in your hands. And still ... it could've been more. Or my usual issue with Marvel, too much box-office oriented :) ...
I didn't check, but "Eye in the Sky" looks like based on a play written for theater ... despite taking place in 4 different locations simultaneously. It's a situation thriller - short development, confined medium, closed context, time limit. No, I'm not describing "Phone Booth" ... but if we take the overall look we're not that far. A unit surveying the terrorist activity in Kenya gets activated when there's a report on several wanted names planning to meet in a hous in the area. Among these a British woman and an American citizen apparently prepare a suicide bomb attack. This information is provided with help of latest tech = a remote controlled "bumblebee". That's squad 1 - team on location. Squad 2 controls an airborne drone - "the eye in the sky", via satellite, and is formed of two US based pilots. Team 3 is somewhere in UK in a military unit coordinating the operation and led by Hellen Mirren. Finally, the 4th group is the decision committee = a gathering of British government representatives watching the events and sending approvals (or not ...) via an army general for actions to be taken. Quite complicated setup, isn't it?
Well, the plan is simple - a Kenyan special forces squad waits for an order to proceed in capturing the target group, but until they get a confirmed id the group moves to a different house. In a hostile area, where the only solution seems to be a well-placed rocket ... but the rocket will bring collateral victims ... and among the victims "the eye in the sky" detects a child, a girl selling bread ... So, it's complicated again.
All the movie is a cat and mouse game in the above context. Lots of irony to the politic class for the incapacity of assuming responsibility. Lots of criticism to the army forces for possibly rushed decisions. Although the ending might seem clear, if you look at the action up to there I don't know if you can give a simple answer on "who is right" ... this seems to change a lot up to the end. And that's probably the most interesting part of the movie ...
Posts
