Hey, when the VATICAN is leading the charge agsinst the film, if they had panned THE PASSION in advance, I'd bet a lot of critics would know where their bread was buttered, and write accordingly. It seems like some of the critics at least have a politcal agenda. When normally We always have something good to say about any film: Variety takes to attacking the score and the cinematography in two (count 'em ) sentences, you know something's up. When Drudge has a scathing attack on the albino monk character from an albino advocate society BEFORE the film has even been seen (I mean, come on, he could have put it up on the site the moment the book's filming was announced, and I read Drudge daily), you know they're digging for something. It's not like people had no idea who the Silas character was for 3 yrs. A big compalint about the film seems to be "it's no FUN", a couple people have used that word.
To be honest, I didn't like the choice of director or actor. I'm sorry, folks, but I have no sentimental fondness for Opie. A Beautiful Mind was a big fat snooze, (Apollo 13 was similarly slow-paced; the suspense of the story itself luckily propelled it forward.) Tom Hanks has lost alot of his mojo, though he is redeemable IF he gets inot a role. The whole project, from the director to the actors to the screenwriter, was handed to people who haven't had a hit since the 2001 Oscar high and needed a hit badly. Brown wanted ralph Fiennes for the role but of course in a big Hollywood blockbuster the lead HAS to be played by a Yank....
So I'm not one of those who was ready to praise the film to the skies before it opened, on the basis of the artistic merit. For me, it was fifty-fifty. It was also a question mark of critical response; after the fiasco of BBM not winning the Best Pic Oscar this yr I knew they were a bunch of spineless cowards. I also know they're not above politcs.
And to those people (like the NY Times) who ask questions like "So does Tom Hanks 'become' Robert Langdon?" it 's a silly question to ask, since Langdon and Sophie have all the character development in the book of a paper bag. The Harrison Ford comment was about all. The book was a real snooze on that account, and for me, that's a big account. I wasn't saying the book was well written by any means. It isn't.
Part of the "politcal agenda" (at least in the US) might be this: recently such films such as The Passion and Narnia, the so-called "Christian" community has been recognized as a vital new box-office force in a time of shrinking profits. If DVC is a massive hit, then it would be just like the TIME review said: the first "secular humanist hit." The mag's use of that word is interesting and very revealing. It's not in the habit of throwing it round liberally.
Maybe the chemistry between Hanks and Toutou is missing. Maybe the acting is wooden. Finding the film a little too long at 2 1/2 hrs is suspicious since other 3-hr + films have been tolerated nicely. Even films with bad acting and a bad script (Titanic anyone?) Maybe the film feels long and drawn-out, and that's a major screenwriting flaw. It can't be as bad as the "disaster" they're calling it...the Fox review was honest. But people are not drawn to the novel for its being a rip-roaring murder mystery. They're drawn for IDEAS. And believe me, it's much easier to lose interest in a long, slow-paced book these days (Umberto Eco anyone?) than in a slow-paced film that leaks the same ideas. People are not going to see this film b/c of the suspenseful plot (and Friedman says the suspense is there.) They're going to see what the controversy is about. And they sure are NOT expecting the movie to be "fun" (!!). So that ploy may not work. In the end, the only thing will be word of mouth. And the film has a very strong score (Zimmer hasn't gone worng yet.)
I think the film would have been attacked if it WAS as good as, say, Fellowship of the Ring (another popular novel with a huge fan base not easily adapted to the screen.) I think many in the politcal and cultural arena are just afraid of a film that forces people to THINK and ask questions...esp if they go against the party line...and no matter how good or bad it is, technically. Are summer films supposed to be fun? God forbid anything in America makes you THINK these days. And that is the big question mark.
As to the film's box office success....the critical (and political) establishment hopes that a torrent of negative reviews will have the same effect on box office as they did with King Kong and Munich. And beleive me, if the film is doing very well next week, the more money it makes, the more savage will the attacks become. It'll be like Revenge of the Sith all over again. But Everyone knew the story of King Kong so they didn't go, and Munich was about terrorists (n the poluar mind) so it wasn't good entertainment. This one though has the potentail to be interesting and entetaining. But this film has a far higher awareness base and there are few people out there who don't know the story. I suspect the critics who laughed and jeered at the "Princess Sophie" line had not read the book....one reviewer said he deliberately hadn't read it. The general public knows apparently what these benighted individuals don't. If you hadn't read the book, and if the acting is as wooden as they say, that might make you laugh. "THIS is what it's all about?!?!" But the public won't be surprised. As one reviewer wrote, "They'll take it very seriously."
It all boils down to this: is the public as hungry for a film about IDEAS as Howard and his spottily-skilled team think they are, or is the American public to be forever served a diet of cinematic McDonalds to keep them fat, lazy, and stupid? We will see. It is the fact that this film is challenging the Political-Religious Complex that what makes it so dangerous, whatever its technical flaws. Even if the film is slow-paced, with lousy acting, a dragging script and other flaws, even if it's a "bore", I'm one of those who will support it for this reason. There's much at stake. I'm a fan of the book's general premises about women and the church, NOT the specifics. I could care less about the symbols etc. I'm not a rabid Brown worshipper, like some fans are. And I'm not defending his book from crtics who say it is a well-written as a dime store pulp novel. Most best-sellers aren't these days. But someone had to do it. And with the controversy, the public who is holding out on seeing it b/c of bad reviews may wonder how it is a bore.
If the filmmakers have tapped into something in the public, if they sense a public hungry for ideas, and the film does very well, then it will join the long pantheon of deeply flawed films that have been panned by critics but have been popular classics. The most famous of these being a film that the New York Times, in its first review, famously called "The Sound of Mucus" (and which most critics still don't like.) I admit, that film is a little too sugery-sweet for my taste, though I enjoy much of it.
Fuzzy math...
