I had to see The Da Vinci Code earlier rather than later so I could draw my own conclusions, rather than allow the critics any sway. Film reviewers are nasty buggers sometimes. Also I was a bit stir crazy on Saturday and craved distraction.

The Da Vinci Code phenomena reveals just how clever Dan Brown is. Setting his tale in a medium that lends itself to endless discussion, conspiratorial posturing, and religious backlash, elevates the story far beyond his capabilities as a story teller. It’s more than a novel or movie; it’s an event. Thus, it’s not necessary for the execution to be amazing, provided the premise engages the audience and the ball never stops rolling. And at both it does well.

Overall the movie is a good adaptation of the novel, though it’s possible to enjoy the movie cold, without reading the book. The Wife confirmed that theory. And now the story…

A Harvard scholar finds himself the main suspect in a murder investigation where the victim left clues exposing a 2,000 year old conspiracy: did Jesus and Mary Magdalene marry? His odyssey takes him and a sidekick to important historical sites all over Europe decoding anagrams and symbols while chasing leads. Even briefer, this a why-they-done-it, rather than a who-done-it.

What works:
1) Content. The best plot points from the novel made it to the screen.
2) Pacing. As the novel, the story moves.
3) Casting. Looked and sounded about right.

What needs improvement:
1)Sophie – the most important character – is muted, and lacked the depth she had in the book. Partly the fault lies with the medium, films make characterization very difficult. But a weak Sophie makes a weaker story.
2)Dialog – not exactly Dan Brown’s strong point, what the mind tolerates on the written page is painful on the screen. Oh yes, there are howlers.
3)More narrative, less chatter. From the blueprint of the novel, the movie inherited quite a few points that might have been better shown, instead of told. What works on the page does not always work on screen. To the director’s credit, there are many moments where he accomplishes so much visually. So much so I believe he could have done it more consistently and frequently.
4)Ending. Lame. Like the book.

Verdict: Matinee so you can brag at the water cooler. DVD rental if you can bear the wait.

The Sentinel typifies the disease that Hollywood has lately, in that audiences — the very people the studios believed could never tire of half-baked, thrice recycled ideas — expect a movie to suck and avoid it. Or at least they do until reviewing the Internet rumors. When news of poor ticket sales hits the mainstream, even more potential viewers make the wait for DVD rental or catch it on an airplane without renting the headphones decision.

This cycle makes for carnage at the box office, and it’s a real shame, because the Sentinel is actually a decent movie. My preconceptions proved well placed. Expecting nothing, I got entertainment.

The story focuses on a Secret Service agent at odds with his environment. In the twilight of his career, he finds himself enmeshed in a conspiracy to kill the President. For added tension, he’s also servicing the First Lady. Secretly. Michael Douglas does well here — even for an old guy. And boy, face lift or not, the heir to Kirk is showing his age. No matter, though. Overall, this is a competent thriller.

What works:
1) If you like the TV show 24 or Tom Clancy movies, this story is for you.
2) Pacing – action never stops.
3) Concept – we have seen tales of betrayal at this level before, but this more than an Air Force one rehashed; it feels fresh.
4) Ending – reasonable and acceptable given the characters and story arc.

What needs improvement:
1) A few moments of MTV styled shots and production values I could do without, but otherwise the film works.

Delivering an entertaining movie with a message is a tough proposition for a filmmaker. Time spent on the thematic content often comes at the expense of story, hobbles the narrative, and gives the film a preachy tone. Waver on the theme by focusing exclusively on action, and the movie rings hollow. And then there’s the minimum dosage of eye candy theatergoers such expect on a big screen. Light it up or blow it up, but I want fire and blood, damn it. So talented is a director who strikes a tight balance between story, theme and pyrotechnics.

Largely, V for Vendetta succeeds. The film is a compelling story about a corrupt government who wrongs a man and woman in such a way that the audience roots for them; the theme is easy to swallow: government answers to the people, not the reverse; lots of buildings explode. Diggety.

There are slow points. V, the hero, has a vocabulary and manner of speech that rivals an English professor cloistered in an Ivory tower. The chemistry between Natalie Portman and V is almost unsettling, because one never sees V’s eyes.

Overall, an enjoyable ride.

Verdict: Matinee or DVD purchase.

Oscar madness is in the air. Luckily, I never watch awards shows, unless I feel like yakking in the litter box. But I did see two movies nominated in the best film category: Brokeback Mountain and Capote. In the spirit of the Academy Awards, here’s a movie review doubleshot.

Brokeback Mountain
Based on Annie Proulx’s story, this drama captures twenty years of two men’s sad and very confused lives. First thought: their sexuality made them neither confused nor sad; it was the fact they lived near Riverton, Texas in the 60’s and drank so damn much Wild Turkey. Honestly, pairing a sex addicted alcoholic, who craves committment but can’t possibly with a tight-lipped good old boy, who fears committment but is relatively monogamous, could only lead to disaster. Thank you. Come again.

NOTE: To the ninety-year-old couple who left during the pup-tent love scene, that was as rough as the love got. Next time, give it a few more minutes before running for the hills.

Pluses:
1) Good performances. Good casting.
2) Excellent dialog. Probably the largest concentration of great one-liners of any theatrical release this year.
3) Magnificient cinematography. How tight were the visuals? I wanted to hop the next train to Wyoming.

Verdict: DVD rental is fine. Matinee if you must see it now.

Capote
Truman Capote is the sort of guy I would have ejected from a dinner party after he drank all my gin. A brilliant, possibly genius writer? Absolutely. Insipid pain in the ass to be around? I say, “Yes, sir!”

Phillip Hoffman gave a great performance. He was Capote. As such, if I ever meet Mr. Hoffman, I’m kicking him to the curb for drinking all my gin. True words, his performance was so good, it compensated for the lack of a plot, story, or theme.

A sample page from the screenplay.

Scene 1: INT – APARTMENT – DAY
Capote sits at typewriter, bottle in hand. Empty gin bottles surround the desk. Pages litter the floor. He rips a page from the typewriter, tearing it to shreds.

Capote: This is ruining me.

Scene 2: INT – APARTMENT – NIGHT
More pages, more empty bottles. Same Capote at the desk with the typewriter.

Capote: Oh, oh, oh. I’m ruined.

Inspiration strikes. He types a few sentences, and reads his words in a low voice.

Capote: I’m a genius. Time for a drink.

Verdict: DVD purchase for the performance. Punch Mr. Hoffman only if you must.