tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23426625354540144112024-03-14T02:02:57.579-07:00GLB Movie ReviewsGerald Boerner's Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18238943350942848488noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342662535454014411.post-37983197397123171282009-07-15T13:06:00.000-07:002009-07-15T13:13:53.370-07:00Movie Critics and book-based Movies...<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">[Saturday, May 16, 2009]</span></span><span style="font-size:100%;"> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GTmqOcF96-U/Sl43mcHY7rI/AAAAAAAAANs/AUQc9VJnvE4/s1600-h/ecstacy.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 215px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_GTmqOcF96-U/Sl43mcHY7rI/AAAAAAAAANs/AUQc9VJnvE4/s320/ecstacy.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358781740139212466" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">What can we trust in the reviews of movies by the critics? I don't think that they are necessarily on the same wavelength as many of us. I often find that movies that I love have received poor ratings from these critics and movies that they rate highly are ones that I just don't care to see! This seems to apply especially to movies based upon screen play adaptations of popular novels like <span style="font-style: italic;">The DaVinci Code</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Angels & Demons</span> by Dan Brown. Both of these movies are fast-moving, action-filled adventures that operate on tight timelines and detailed twists of plot. The screenwriters in both cases have done a remarkable job of adapting them from book to screen.◊</span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />These two movies were made into movies in reverse order from that which they are published. They both feature the same lead character, Professor Robert Langdon (played by Tom Hanks); they were not originally written as either prequels or sequels, they were just two books that featured the same lead character. The adapted screenplays did a good job of creating a sequel of <span style="font-style: italic;">A&D</span> from the <span style="font-style: italic;">DVC</span> in such a way as not interrupt the story line. After seeing the movie, I read the review in yesterday's LA Times by Betsy Sharkey (Review: '<span style="font-style: italic;">Angels & Demons</span>' ) where she was extremely critical of the movie. Much of what she had to say would seem to be more related to understanding the action and characters amongst the audience unfamiliar with the movie version of the DVC or by reading of the books. I cannot really fully understand her criticism since I have watched the movie at least a dozen times and have read both books 4-6 times each. What is her 'gripe"?◊</span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />She makes a big deal of Tom Hanks' hair, the compressed timeline of the movie (24 hours) and the quick subplot changes. I would like to hear from those of you who have not read the books or seen the DVC on your reactions; I can't place myself in that context. I found the movie easy to follow and it kept pretty much to the plot of the book. Minor changes were necessitated by the length of the movie. It is <b>NOT</b> a Kevin Costner marathon! The movie did portray the well developed characters found in the book and was a very entertaining experience.◊</span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />In both of the movie adaptations of Dan Brown's books features a strong woman lead to support Tom Hanks' character. In A&Ds, the scientist Vittoria Vetra (played by Israeli actress, Ayelet Zyrer) played her role well and enhanced the movie by being very believable. She demonstrated great skill and contributed important insights into the plot's development, as found in the book. A similar role was played by Audrey Tautou in the DVC. The other supporting actors, especially Ewan McGregor, as the Camerlengo Patrick McKenna, was superb. Ron Howard's directorial efforts were again fantastic to create this believable adaptation of the story.◊</span><br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">The critic seems to question the structural elements of the Catholic Church, the past relations with the <span style="font-style: italic;">Illuminati</span>, and the conflict of science and theology. in general, these are integral story components. To criticize these is to criticize the book and should not be applied to the movie in my opinion. So what do critics want? Do they want movies that make one feel good at the expense of looking at problems in society? Do they want movies that use book titles as a 'jumping off' place? or what? <span style="font-weight: bold;">[Let me know your thoughts on this!]</span>◊</span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;"><br /><br />I think there is a place for movies that stick to the plot of the book. What would Chronicles of Narnia or The Lord of the Rings be like if they did not substantially follow the flow of the book.◊<br /><br /></span> </span>Gerald Boerner's Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18238943350942848488noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2342662535454014411.post-23269121664609512722009-07-15T12:26:00.000-07:002009-07-15T13:13:31.574-07:00Angels and Demons...<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">[Friday, May 15, 2009]<br /><br /></span></span><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GTmqOcF96-U/Sl42Jq-2VSI/AAAAAAAAANk/IuuqKKWUNMw/s1600-h/200px-AngelsAndDemons.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 10px 10px 0pt; float: left; cursor: pointer; width: 150px; height: 227px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_GTmqOcF96-U/Sl42Jq-2VSI/AAAAAAAAANk/IuuqKKWUNMw/s320/200px-AngelsAndDemons.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358780146402088226" border="0" /></a><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">We just got back from seeing the movie version of <span style="font-style: italic;">Angels & Demons</span>, Directed by Ron Howard. It was extremely well-done and was fairly faithful to the story line in the book, although some liberties were taken, as might be expected. Tom Hanks was very good again as Robert Langdon, Ayelet Zurer as Vittoria Vetra. and Ewan McGregor as the 'bad guy' priest.◊<br /><br />This was action-packed and moved smoothly from the intro to the ending. </span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">Some aspects of the story line were adapted to make the movie flow better with less tangential stories to confuse those who have not read the book. I was totally absorbed in the action and could not think of anything else for the two hours and twenty minutes the movie ran. I want to see it again in a few days to check out some sequences that I apparently didn't observe closely enough. </span> <span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">While this book was, in fact, a prequel to <span style="font-style: italic;">The DaVinci Code</span>, the movie included a nice set of references to position it as a sequel to that block-buster movie. Nice job of screen writing!◊</span> <br /><br /><span style="font-family:trebuchet ms;">I would encourage you to consider seeing this movie. Some critics have rated it as so-so, but I think that they are wrong. It neither bashes the Catholic Church or praises it, but treats its traditions as one of the actors in the movie.◊<br /><br /></span></span>Gerald Boerner's Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18238943350942848488noreply@blogger.com0