New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

At the time, my girlfriend and I lived in the upper half - a flight of 20 stairs up - of a duplex. It was a very spacious affair, quite charming, but one with no air conditioning, and nearly a dozen windows that stretched from the pantry through the kitchen and in to the living room. Many of these glass monsters were more than happy to bring the afternoon sun blazing in on us. Curtains were helpful up to a point, but long after it had “cooled” down outside, it still felt like a blast furnace on the second floor. Oh, and she was pregnant on top of all that (whereas I was not, so I had that going in my favor.)

So on more than a few of those evenings, we opted to see a film. She graciously agreed to see both Angels & Demons and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian despite having not seen The Da Vinci Code nor Night at the Museum. In the true spirit of would-be blockbusters conceived for the global market, however, it isn’t entirely necessary to have seen the first film to be able to understand (or even enjoy) the sequel. This is especially true for these two films in that the cast and crew remained remarkably consistent from the first film to the second, and the plots of the newer films are Xerox-copies of the storylines and plot beats of the earlier features. However, I found I responded a lot more positively to Angels & Demons and Smithsonian.

At the time, I allowed for the fact that the positive vibe might simply have been the pleasant effects of the cool air freezing my brain instead of the heat melting it out my ears. But in looking again at both sets of films, I find that my initial reaction holds true. What accounts for this critical uptick, particularly when both films could have cruised on autopilot and laughed once again to the bank? ? Slight - but crucial - shifts in tone, particularly in Angels & Demons; a key co-star playing his or her role with just a hint of a wink (Ewan McGregor and Amy Adams, take a bow); and a gratifying lack of self-importance. Big budgets don’t always have to feel like BIG BUDGETS! And now, a few brief words on the respective chapter ones.

In May 2006, The Da Vinci Code rode the coattails of its prior success as a novel and controversy over its “bloodline of Christ” plot (leading to condemnation from The Vatican) to an opening weekend of $77 million and final grosses of $217 million domestically and $540 million from the rest of the world. With a director/star combo (Ron Howard/Tom Hanks) as big as they come, The Da Vinci Code should have been splashy and fun entertainment. Instead, it strikes me as glum and remarkably static, quite a feat given that it takes place over 24 hours and involves racing from one European country to the next. The story relies on all manner of contrivances to propel its lead characters from one breathless, would-be cliffhanger to the next. This is fine if one only considers the contrivances in retrospect, less so if their implausibility is called out while watching the film.

Continued:       1       2       3       4       5