Inferno

Dir: Ron Howard

2016

*

The Da Vinci Code made good money, of course it did, it was based on a bestselling novel. Angels & Demons was panned by everyone, it did well because people wanted to know if the story would be as good/better/as controversial as the first, it wasn't but it still made good money. The whole bad movie/profitable movie discussion continues, because some people still don't understand that good or bad, people still have to pay to see it. It has been seven years since the previous Robert Langdon movie and time can be a great healer, those that hated Angels & Demons in 2009 might now be prepared to give the franchise another go, hoping that valuable lessons had been learned. Inferno is actually the fourth Robert Langdon adventure, it was published in 2013 and followed The Lost Symbol which came out just after Angels & Demons in 2009. The Da Vinci Code was actually the second book published, Angels & Demons came before but was adapted for the screen as a follow up. The same team did try and develop The Lost Symbol as the follow up to Angels & Demons but the script was never agreed and they scrapped it and made Inferno instead. You could argue that this mixes the story up enough for people who have already read the books but you could also suggest that they've messed up the original stories to the point they are running out of clever ideas. So you would hope that Inferno was something of a new beginning for them, a change of pace and style maybe, but no, it's just as awful as the previous films, if not worse. It seems time hasn't cured anything and indeed most people hadn't recovered from Angels & Demons and Inferno did much worse than predicted in the cinema. I didn't think much of the whole memory loss theme from the get go. It's been done before and all of the story's twists were obvious way before they were revealed. On paper the rest of the story is strong, I liked all the bits about Dante's Inferno, his death mask and Sandro Botticelli's Map of Hell, it was just the endless car chases, shoot-outs and constant jumping out of windows that I hated - again. It was also amazing what Robert Langdon didn't know this time round. He knows all sorts of secrets, the secret passage ways hidden in Florence's Palazzo Vecchio for instance, but he doesn't know about the Basilica Cistern underneath Istanbul's Hagia Sophia, even though it's one of the world’s most famous tourist attractions? It's in From Russia With Love for goodness sake! This is the guy were lead to believe found The Holy Grail! Ron Howard is a better director than this, I didn't hate the fantasy scenes where Botticelli's Map of Hell came to life through Langdon's state of amnesia but it didn't really fit well among the silly action. It also didn't make sense that we could see it as the viewer, especially as we didn't see other things through Langdon's point of view. Hitchcock wrote the book on this kind of direction back in the 60s and dismissed the style as being patronizing and disrespectful towards the viewer. It's a technical matter but by this point I'm not sure that even the most serious of cinephile would be giving the film their full attention because there is little that is captivating and even vaguely interesting about it. I have said in the past that The Da Vinci Code was like a poor man's Indiana Jones, but Inferno is even poorer. When you break the films down and compare them they are all pretty much as bad as each other, however, Inferno is worse because it doesn't learn from any of the mistakes of the first two, even though critics and audiences have been pretty vocal about them. It's sad when talented film makers, who I have huge respect for, keep making terrible decisions.

Angels & Demons

Dir: Ron Howard

2009

**

Ron Howard's 2006 adaption of Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was overblown, so in his 2009 follow up adaptation of Brown's Angels & Demons he addresses this criticism by making it even more over the top. The Da Vinci Code was suped-up for the big screen, I can see why Howard did it but it was totally unnecessary and everyone said so. Brown's Angels & Demons was actually the first book of his Robert Langdon series but it was never as popular, Howard decided to rewrite the story so that it worked as a direct sequel to The Da Vinci Code so he could develop the main character with more fluidity and so he could connect the series a little better. He also commented that it was the second novel that was the best seller and most people read it before the first novel anyway which is true and fair enough. Many aspects of the story is changed but most people argue that the changes were for the better, however, the constant action sequences have become a bone of contention and Angels & Demons saw less puzzle-solving, more pointless action and some unexpected (and awful) religious fantasy. In this sense the adaptation really doesn't work but at least the returning Tom Hanks is given a proper haircut. Yet again, it's the story's silliness that makes and breaks the film, give me a film exploring the Illuminati, Vatican conspiracies and a science vs. Religion smack-down any day but I lost a bit of interest when the Roman Catholic Church starts helping our hero and the Large Hadron Collider is clearly suggested as being something negative. Its handling of real science is as ridiculous as their handling of organised religion, the silliness only captives for a limited amount of time before it all becomes rather tiresome and then slightly irritating. The subject matter should be full of intrigue and suspense but the reality is that the whole thing falls flat and is as boring as it possibly could be. Adding a fantastical element to the mix makes it a lot less believable and nonsensical. The only thing I really liked about the first film was the history and architecture, there is hardly any of that in the second film and it is a lot poorer for it. Again, it tries to be more James Bond than it should be and less Indiana Jones that it so desperately wants to be, or at least a intellectual version of, which it fails miserably in achieving. Tom Hanks is the only actor to reprise his role from the first film, which is no surprise given the order of the books but there is something rather James Bond about the new female partner/romantic interest and new villain. The cast is strong as it is brave (ha, they got paid handsomely I'm sure) and includes Ewan McGregor, Ayelet Zurer, Stellan Skarsgård, Pierfrancesco Favino and Nikolaj Lie Kaas. Ron Howard's direction is much the same if not a little better, and while I don't like the fantastical element of the new film, he is rather good at it. Overall it is forgettable and probably best forgotten.

The Da Vinci Code

Dir: Ron Howard

2006

**

I like a bit of sudoku during a long train journey but I was never that interested in reading Dan Brown's Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade rip off (main character Robert Langdon even being mentioned as looking like a 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed'), no matter how popular it became. It is a work of fiction, Brown has stated categorically that, as well as copying the works of other conspiracy writers, he wrote Robert Langdon as an adventurer of his fantasy, conjuring up puzzles based on famous landmarks and historical and largely religious artefacts. There is an overblown conspiracy theory thrown in also, because people love puzzles and they love conspiracy theories, mystery literature is full of it and he tapped into something with a winning formula and made handfuls of other authors wonder why they hadn't thought of it first, with many coming forward claiming that they had. However, many fans of the book became convinced that Brown was lying about it being fiction and believe The Da Vinci Code to be absolutely true. I find this aspect of the book more interesting than the story but to be honest, any book that upsets the likes of the Vatican, Catholic Church, Priory of Sion and Opus Dei is alright in my book. I've not read the book so I can only review the adaptation, with that in mind, Tom Hanks wasn't the first person that came to mind when I thought 'Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed', especially not with foppish hair. He's okay I suppose, I can think of many other actors who I would have chosen over him but I can't think of many who couldn't have made a good job of it, such is the simplicity of the character. I enjoyed some of the mystery, I think it should have been less of an action film and more of a problem solving venture. I enjoyed all the places they visited, thought that most of the links were clever and it held my attention. I think what I enjoyed most about it though was just how ridiculous it all was. I've given it a low star rating because of how ridiculous it was but there was something outrageously stupid about being chased by an albino monk that I both loved and hated. Adding humour would have been a mistake, so it was always going to be a poor man's contemporary Indiana Jones, its biggest mistake was trying to make it into something else at the same time, adding far too much espionage stuff, making it also feel like a poor man's James Bond. I suspect the book was probably more scavenger hunt than car chasing, it's a shame the film tried too hard to cater for everyone. The supporting cast is strong and dependable; Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Jürgen Prochnow, Jean Reno and Paul Bettany all do a good job and Ron Howard's direction is fine. Great idea, not such a great film, I only really like it because it caused some very stupid people to make a mockery of themselves and I think that the fact that so many religious organisations protested so much, they only made themselves sound less believable and Brown's novel more believable, which I find hilarious. It's not original but it's clever and I like what Brown has achieved but seriously, after all the controversy, who was responsible for Tom Hank's hair?

Bridget Jones's Baby

Dir: Sharon Maguire

2016

*

I was never in Helen Fielding's target audience, I disliked and loathed her two Bridget Jones adaptations respectively and I still can't quite believe she has been nominated for British Book of the year (1997), the Writers Guild of America (2002), the BAFTA award for Best Screenplay (2002), the Bollinger Everyman Wodehouse Prize for best Screenplay (2013), The Peter Sellers Award for Comedy (2016), was named in the Sunday Time's list of 'Britain's 500 Most Influential People' and was voted as 29th most influential person in British Culture in a BBC poll. The Guardian newspaper named Bridget Jones’s Diary as one of the ten novels that best defined the 20th century. If that is true then we are doomed as a race. Bridget Jones's Baby isn't based on a book by Fielding although she did co-write the script (aspects of the story are based very loosely on columns she wrote for The Independent in 2005), it is really down to the author and the greedy/creatively redundant production companies who hoped that enough time has elapsed that people would have forgotten just how awful Bridget Jones: The Edge of reason actually was. Forget the books, the films are where the money is at, just churn out a flimsy and rather familiar script and 'hey presto', profit. I bloody worked too, but then of course it did, mainstream audiences will watch anything vaguely familiar, tell them it's funny and they will laugh, tell them it's sad and they'll cry, and so on. I often wondered just who the two previous films were made for, I know that everyone I know who liked both the books and the films have certainly grown out of them and I can't see people either in their early thirties or early forties liking it. People over fifty will watch anything but surely the kids will reject this well past-its-sell-by-date rubbish? Hugh Grant has some integrity at least, and he was in Did You Hear About the Morgans? Patrick Dempsey seems to be the totty of choice among forty somethings these days and played characterless billionaire perfectly, the only way a characterless millionaire can. Colin Firth disappoints me greatly, although it doesn't look like he's having much fun throughout the whole ordeal and I'm guessing it was easy money. Renée Zellweger's Bridget Jones is different this time round, she had to be as both she and Zellweger are older but this isn't handled particularly well in terms of character, the changes make her someone else and the similarities are no longer convincing. The comment on the state of contemporary media falls quite flat as the story adopts many of the terrible ideas it fails to ridicule and makes itself look old and outmoded in the process. Nearly every social situation explored is unbelievable, like it's all been written by someone who hasn't experienced any of what they are writing about. The Ed Sheeran cameo is horrible, just horrible. Emma Thompson (who wrote the screenplay for 1995's big film adaptation of Pride and Prejudice) was brought in to co-write the script that had gone through years of problems, one can only wonder what she brought to the story (probably the small part she had in it) but you have to wonder how it is that this is the best they could come up with after all these years? The 'whose the father?" story is old and weak, her flat is now worth double what it was in 2004 making her a millionaire and once more the poster makes Zellweger/Jones look like a blow-up sex doll, one with a slow puncture. Horrible. Hate it. Make it stop.

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason

Dir: Beeban Kidron

2004

*

I disliked 2001's Bridget Jones's Diary quite a bit but I detest it's follow up: Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason. Helen Fielding had much success with her 1996 novel, so continuing the story was a given, as was the film adaptation (the first film was made after the second novel). I'm not alone either, critics panned Beeban Kidron's sequel, the film did well financially as all follow up films to popular movies do but neither book nor film followed for a long time. It was clear that Fielding's luck was up. I believe this is due to it being clear to even the densest of film goers that she didn't have an original bone in her body. The second film is pretty much a carbon copy of the first film, by all means play the hits but don't force feed the fans the same crap. I disliked everything, from the horrible poster that sees Renée Zellweger pouting like an over inflated sex doll to the fact that Fielding used Sandra Gregory's story without her consent (Gregory was imprisoned in a Thai Prison as Bridget is in the film, Fielding knew the next door neighbours of Gregory's parents and used her story through the power of gossip). It became less and less obvious who this film was actually meant for and somehow, even though everyone pretty much hated it, it was nominated for loads of awards. I argue that the film industry really lost its way in the early 00s. Beeban Kidron was an odd choice of director, she brings nothing special to the story and it's odd that a documentarian like her would be attached (although I loved her TV series Oranges are Not the Only Fruit). Colin Firth and Hugh Grant lower themselves even further and even though I can still think of several actors who could have played Bridget better, I'm now really glad they didn't. The whole story is contrived and tired, we've seen it all before and it isn't interesting to anyone. The whole film seems to revolve around Bridget finding love (with the person she's already found it with) and having clumsy accidents. Her and her friends are also tired stereotypes, I don't know anyone in the mid-thirties that could take any of it seriously and I can only guess that it only appeals to adolescent girls, it certainly doesn't seem to push anyone else's buttons.

Bridget Jones's Diary

Dir: Sharon Maguire

2001

**

Bridget Jones's Diary, based on the 1996 novel of the same name by Helen Fielding, is a modern adaption of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice but with a contemporary (and contemptible) twist. The question one has to ask is whether there are women who are like Bridget Jones in real life? There probably are, but how many of them would admit to being happy about the comparison? I know quite a few women who read the book when it came out, half liked it and the other half loathed it. The ones that loathed it passed it off as unrealistic and ridiculous clap-trap and the ones that liked it all seemed to fear that they were either like or could turn into a Bridget Jones type character. I get the fear of being single in your early thirties, it is just the insulting stereotyping that I don't understand. Also, why like something you technically don't like? I'm clearly overthinking it but then I would argue that many people who like this nonsense under-think a lot of the rubbish they watch. Pride and Prejudice is a classic, much of its content can translate into today's way of life but a lot of it can't and for me Bridget Jones's Diary just doesn't make any sense. As a character she is terribly written, her persona constantly contradicting her actions and the story's narration (as is written in the diary). The script is awful, the awkward scenes are excruciating, I know they're supposed to be but they are excruciating in the wrong sort of way. Having Colin Firth as Bridget's 'Mr Darcy' is a bit of a cheap shot, given Firth's famous portrayal of Mr. Darcy in the popular 1995 TV adaptation of Austen's Pride and Prejudice - a clear influence, but I suppose it was something of a coup for Fielding and her fans. Firth and Hugh Grant (who also stared in an adaptation of Pride and Prejudice in Ang Lee's 1995 film) pulled in the punters and having Richard Curtis's name down as a screenplay co-author (really, how much input did he actually have?) certainly got people's attention, particularly as he and Grant were seen as a hit team following Four Weddings and a Funeral and Notting Hill. I think what I find most contemptible about the story is just how lucky and successful Bridget Jones is, while all she can do is moan about how unlucky she is. I found it impossible to warm to her. I hate all the Home Counties stuff, the fact she acts like no thirty-two year old acts and lives in what would be a million pound flat if it were real. I don't understand why Renée Zellweger was cast as Bridget (actually I do, Jerry Maguire), I can think of many other actors better suited, I don't really care that she's American but I can think of a few British Actors who would have been better. How she was nominated for an Oscar is anyone's guess, slow year I suppose. I liked Colin Firth's performance but always felt he was too good for the film, it is a confused load of nonsense that I think women should reject. If you don't agree the film is confused then I would draw your attention to the film's two big cameos, Salman Rushdie and Jeffrey Archer, I can't help but think it is trying to please everyone but pleases no one, not those concentrating anyway.

Jason Bourne

Dir: Paul Greengrass

2016

**

Jason Bourne? Jason Bored more like! Matt Damon said back in 2007 after The Bourne Ultimatum that he was done with the franchise stating that "We have ridden that horse as far as we can". So why he decided to get back in the saddle and run that horse into the ground for a fourth time is beyond me. He's doing alright isn't he? I'm sure the money was good but seriously, I can't see the script being any more exciting than the final result, surely he must have read a thousand and one scripts just like it and rejected them all? Paul Greengrass knows better too, doesn't he? I'm in the minority but I quite liked The Bourne Legacy, mainly due to Jeremy Renner's performance but also because it embellished on the original film's idea, it expanded it and opened up the franchise to many different possibilities. It's completely lazy that all that was scrapped and they set about reusing the original plot in many respects and forgot that the last film ever happened. If Bourne was brought back into the story following on from The Bourne Legacy then I think they would have been on to something but as it is this film is indistinguishable from all the other Bourne films and twice as boring. It begins with a fight, which is followed by a car chase, which is followed by nonsensical computer speak, followed by another car chase and then another fight. The car chases are uninteresting and the fight scenes are long, drawn-out and relentlessly dull - not to mention unnecessary. Everything that should be exciting about the film is incredibly un-enthralling and largely forgettable. It desperately needed that 'one scene' to be remembered for but no scene comes close, the action is simply filmed using shaky-cam techniques to try and make up for the fact that nothing of much interest is really happening. There are a couple of scenes where you can actually see people in the background pointing at the film crew and taking pictures of the filming, and even they look bored. There's no writing here, no real plot, Bourne knew all he really needed to know at the end of The Bourne Ultimatum, he had it all sussed, there was no need to bring in a ridiculous story about his father and how he was recruited. There really isn't much I liked about the film if I'm being honest, it has two of my favourite rising stars in it, the brilliant Alicia Vikander and my boy Riz Ahmed - who are very convincing as an ambitious CIA agent and Mark Zuckerberg-like Social Media CEO respectively. I love Tommy Lee Jones and Vincent Cassel but both play tired characters, a double-crossing CIA director and a menacing assassin, neither bring anything new to their roles but then there is nothing new in how they are written. I was never a huge fan of the series but I imagine this must be the mother of all anti-climaxes for hard-core Bourne fans? I was looking forward to another Bourne following on from The Bourne Legacy but I've lost all interest now. The horse is dead, time to get of it and bury the poor thing.