The Greatest Trick

Smashing actions scenes, low on characterisation – that just about sums up this third X-Men instalment. It’s an enjoyable slice of summer blockbuster nonsense, but director Brett Ratner lacks the subtlety, depth and narrative clarity Bryan Singer brought to the franchise. Within the overall plot there are too many subplots vying for attention, all of which deserve more screen time than they get. Instead the story is propelled from set piece to set piece and whilst these are impressive the movie never achieves the emotional gravitas that it ought.

For the uninitiated, the X-Men comics are about a bunch of mutant superheroes (and supervillians) and their stories are cunningly disguised allegories for whatever minority/oppressed group you want to fit them to. Here, the subject of prejudice is taken a step further as government scientists discover a “cure” for mutation which some mutants take in order to fit in with society, and some vehemently protest against. Xavier and his X-men (the goodies) are merely unsettled by this development, whilst Magneto and chums (the baddies), are convinced this cure is the first step towards a war against mutants and that the cure will be forced on them.

Performances range from the very good (Ian McKellen and Patrick Stewart as Magneto and Xavier respectively) to the utterly dreadful (Vinnie Jones as newcomer Juggernaut – in the name of all that is lovely and true, someone please put an end to his “acting” career). In between these two extremes, X-men regulars Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Halle Berry (Storm) and the rest acquit themselves admirably, whilst newcomers Kelsey Grammer (Beast), Josef “the baddie from Witness” Summer (The President) and Ben Foster (Angel) do terrific jobs with sorely underwritten roles.

There are a few unexpected plot turns, as well as much from the comics for fans to “geek out” over. For instance, we finally see a glimpse of the danger room and a Sentinel, a giant mutant killing robot (as an aside: Fox Executives please note: if there is an X-Men 4, please do one with the Sentinels). Also we get the “Dark Phoenix” plotline which was rendered more effectively in the comics – again thanks to lack of screen time. There are also scenes with Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) and Moria McTaggart (Olivia Williams), the latter of whom is involved in a cunning post-credits plot twist, so stick around for that if you do go and see this.

And as I’ve already said, the action scenes are very exciting, especially the ones involving Magneto and the Golden Gate Bridge. So if you want a bit of mindless spectacle, this is good stuff in a Mission Impossible III sort of way. It’s just a shame it couldn’t have been more than that.

Simon Dillon, May 2006.

Here’s an idea for a bestselling novel/film: The De Niro Code. A film student stumbles across a coded message in Taxi Driver, and uncovers a conspiracy that could shake the very foundations of cinema. He discovers Travis Bickle did not go on a bloody rampage at the end, but instead married Harvey Keitel’s character (who is in fact a woman), and their descendants are alive today.

OK, that’s silly. But its more probable than the nonsensical theory put forward by The Da Vinci Code (about to be well and truly spoilt here); namely, that the disciple that should be John in The Last Supper painting is in fact Mary Magdalene, and that Da Vinci was trying to tell the world through coded messages in his work that she had married Jesus, emigrated to France and that his descendants live today, protected by a secret society called the Priory of Sion.

I’m not going to bore you by systematically debunking the so-called evidence for this absurd theory, since it’s been done so brilliantly elsewhere, for example, here: www.mbts.edu/Resources/DaVinciCodeInaccuracies.pdf, and most amusingly by Tony Robinson on a Channel 4 documentary that showed how much of the “research” and “facts” listed on page one of Dan Brown’s bestselling novel were based on a practical joke perpetrated by a French prankster in an attempt to return the monarchy to France. A friend of mine also pointed out that if Christianity is so anti-women, then why did were the Catholics so desperate to elevate Mary the mother of Jesus into a divine figure? Surely a “Mrs Jesus Christ” would have been even better!

As you can see, I am very much in a huff about The Da Vinci Code. Why? Because Dan Brown is trying to put forward his theory as truth, and there are countless people out there unversed in the necessary Biblical and historical lore to realise it is rubbish. As Hitler said; the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it.

If Dan Brown’s book had simply been passed off as a work of fiction, I might have a somewhat more tolerant attitude towards it. After all, there is no shortage of anti-Christian literature, and in a fallen world, the best mankind can hope for is a free, democratic society where there is a level playing field for truth to be proclaimed alongside the ugliest of lies.

But when this kind of material gets passed off as fact, things get a little stickier. Remember the film U-571 a few years ago? It showed an American submarine crew heroically capture an enigma decoding machine from the Germans in World War II. With its bold tagline “Based on a true story”, millions of Americans lapped it up as historical fact. Yet in truth the Americans weren’t even in the war in 1940 and it was the British who captured the decoding machine. Again, perhaps this could be tolerated if it were marketed as fiction, but most people accept films they watch that are “based on a true story”, as being true. How much more seriously then, should Christians take a story that distorts the truth of the Gospel?

When the book came out, my father (who is a Christian) shocked me by saying it was a “rattling good yarn”. As I gawped incredulously, he pointed out that of course he didn’t take it seriously, as it was so obviously absurd. For one thing there is nothing new about the Mary Magdalene theory. It has been around for 2,000 years as anyone who has read the Gnostic Gospels will tell you. The real conspiracy has been against the Church, since it has had to deal with endless false gospels, false teachings and distortions of the Christian message following the resurrection of Jesus. Matthew chapter 27 tells how there was a conspiracy from the word go to distort the truth of the resurrection, and The Da Vinci Code is simply the latest in 2,000 years worth of attack on the truth.

Unfortunately, not everyone is as well educated as my father, and to paraphrase the Bible, in the last days people will believe anything other than the truth. I often joke about the endless talk amongst Christians of the “end times” and have made up my own apocryphal signs of the end (“In the last days there shall be remakes and rumours of remakes”). However, if we truly are in the “last days” as a lot of Christians seem to think, then The Da Vinci Code is definitely a sign of the times.

To be fair, there is a tiny concession made to Christians at the end of the film where Tom Hanks suggests Jesus could still have been divine and married Mary Magdalene (something that wasn’t in the book). But it’s too little too late. The damage to historically ignorant audience members has already been done, and judging by the comments I overheard from people coming out of the cinema, my worst fears have been realised. For every well informed person who knows the Da Vinci Code’s “facts” are anything but, there are several others who do not read books, listen to critics, historians or Christians, and instead feed on a diet of Eastenders, Big Brother and films based on books by Dan Brown. These are the people I am concerned for, as their eternal destinies are being placed in jeopardy by this insidious deception.

Anyway, onto the film. On a purely aesthetic level, Ron Howard’s adaptation is surprisingly boring, though not quite the turkey critics are making it out to be. Nevertheless, I thought The Da Vinci Code would make a better movie than it was book, especially as trashy novels sometimes translate into classic films (The Godfather for example). Instead it’s far too long and packed with lengthy exposition leaving little room for thrills. Like the Harry Potter films, it is too faithful to the source material. Where it does reinvent for the screen, the film comes across as patronising, for example in its use of flashbacks as sloppy cinematic shorthand for historically ignorant audience members.

On the performance front, Tom Hanks was bereft of his usual energy, and frankly miscast. Someone like Kevin Spacey might have been better in the role. Jean Reno, Audrey Tatou, Alfred Molina and Paul Bettany provide unremarkable support, and only Ian McKellen infuses an iota of drama into the tedious proceedings.

Although critics have sided with historians and the church in slating the film, it will still be a box office smash. Therefore, in response, I suggest Christians take every opportunity to debunk its theories by brushing up on their apologetics, since The Da Vinci Code is quite possibly one of the greatest deceptions I have seen unleashed in recent years. Its abhorrent message denies the divinity of Christ, and suggests that the only way to get near God is to have ritualistic sex whilst other cult members chant and watch!

The Da Vinci Code also tries to distract people from the wonderful news that Jesus died for the sins of all mankind, rose from the dead, and that through him we can have eternal life if we choose to. Like all lies, the truth will outlast it, but I fear for those who are deceived by it (Christians included), and particularly for Dan Brown. To quote Mark chapter 9: “And if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a large millstone tied around his neck.”

I certainly don’t intend to hang a millstone around my neck by recommending The Da Vinci Code to anyone. Both the book and film remain a monumental slice of heresy.

Simon Dillon, May 2006.

…I just fancied a change of look. Hope it works for you.

Mark

And so the most recent viewing. Should say a lot more about this, and I know Simon will comment extensively, so I’ll keep the review short. The film doesn’t quite hang together as well as many other Spielberg films, and I reckon this is probably due to JG Ballard’s source novel (not having read it, I can’t say for sure). Jamie, rich Brit kid, gets separated from his parents when the Japanese invade Shanghai during WWII. Forced to live by his wits and then in a labour camp, he is obsessed with flying and the Japanese planes, and finds wonder even in the most horrific of circumstances. Christian Bale is brilliant in the role, and totally carries the film at the tender age of 13 or so. But the structure and time frame of the movie can mean it’s hard to engage or get a good handle on the characters around Jamie. Worth watching though.

Much-loved composer Cole Porter (Kevin Kline) looks back on his life as if it was one of his spectacular stage shows, with people and events becoming the actors and action onstage. The film just revealed how unpleasant and selfish a man Porter was, with very little to redeem the character - that’s real life I guess. His astonishing relationship with his wife was just pitiful to witness, and if you don’t particularly care about his music, it’s not going to hold your interest much really. The other thing you’re supposed to enjoy is spotting the musical cameos of varied performers such as Alanis Morissette, Elvis Costello, and everyone’s favourite self-obsessed grinning idiot, Robbie Williams. Sadly these appearances couldn’t redeem the picture for us.

Again, the child-friendly stop-motion animated classic, rented for Caleb’s sake. He seemed to enjoy it, but I hadn’t appreciated just how slow it is at certain points. Ratty and Moley singing about picnics and boats and stuff at the start isn’t the impacting beginning most kids are used to these days. But Toad is a great character to watch, and his disdain for authority figures is really very comical - David Jason provides the voice brilliantly. And the battles between the stoats and weasels and our four intrepid heroes is still lots of fun too. Nothing to cause offence here, except that the Wild Wood scenes will perhaps be creepy for young and sensitive viewers (which our son is weirdly turning into…).

Fascinating to go back to this, a movie about the early days of the computer game industry and the first breakthrough of CGI onto the cinema screen. Jeff Bridges is a game designer who ends up playing in a game for real alongside digital characters, who function as representatives of their real-world ‘users’. Tron is the Spartacus of this world, who will lead the others to freedom by riding his lightbike thingy really fast and skilfully. The plot just about makes sense, and while anyone under 20 will look at it with disdain in their eyes, those of us who were just about there when computer games first hit the world can watch this with some admiration and interest, even if it’s just academic. I’ve put it in the ‘historical’ category because in gaming and CGI movie terms, this is ancient but important history!

Watched it to check before showing it to our son, and found that it was totally dull and standard fare about a young robot (Ewan McGregor - it’s a long way from The Pillow Book!) trying to make it in the big city. Not particularly offensive, but with some scary-ish visuals for the youngest film-viewers, so we sent it back on the grounds of it just not being good enough. Why is it that anyone making computer-animated movies apart from Pixar totally fail? Well, because Pixar have high standards and an incredible devotion to the stories rather than the merchandising, I guess. Call me a cynic, but there you go.

Another Caleb-pleasing rental. Or so we thought - 18 months ago he loved it when we got it from the library - totally disinterested this time. But as it goes I think it’s not a bad movie, in this age of basically crap Disney ‘traditionally animated’ movies. Stitch is an alien genetic experiment gone wrong who crash-lands in Hawaii where he is adopted as a pet by Lilo, a troubled little girl who lives with her sister and the threat of being taken into care. You know the rest of the plot, but it’s just about worth watching (once, though - don’t go crazy) if you have kids, especially for the Elvis soundtrack and the gag with the record player.

A load of rubbish about an irritating idiot. He’s not charming. He’s a slacker who does stupid things for no discernable reason, and lives out his life in a fantasy world. I have no time for watching men behave like the boys they should have grown out of years before. Supposedly a comedy, but our lounge was decidedly un-ringing with guffaws as we watched this.