5th February 2009

Every now and again my brother calls me up asking what to see at his local multiplex. “Is ‘insert title of well-advertised film here’ any good?” he questions. I usually answer no, it’s rubbish and he shouldn’t waste his time or money. Then, about a week later, he’ll call again and say, “Oh I went to see that film and you were right, it was awful”. To which I always scream, so why did you go then? “Well, you know, you have to, don’t you?” comes the pathetic reply.

Er, actually, you don’t. Just say no to the media hype. But my brother, bless him, doesn’t understand the vicious commercialism side of the movie business. I know I’ve been around showbiz for ages but there are some films I will never go and see because a) I’m just not interested, b) I don’t like the genre, c) I loathe the star, d) I hate the writer, e) Life’s too short.

The first category would include any Working Title rom com I’ve never seen the BRIDGET JONES movies or LOVE, ACTUALLY actually. The second includes period dramas, so called because there’s one a month. “You haven’t attended any of THE YOUNG VICTORIA screenings”, said my PR contact at the distribution company in question. “And I won’t be”, was my quick response. I have no idea if the film is any good or not but I’d already slept through The Old Victoria in MRS BROWN, so why would I want to go through that dismal experience again!

The third has at the top of its list Rupert Everett with Keira Knightly coming a close second. The fourth is anything adapted from Shakespeare, except WEST SIDE STORY and Baz Luhrmann’s ROMEO + JULIET because those are musicals. And it may surprise you to learn I love musicals!  I am suspicious of anyone who raves about Shakespeare films because they are usually pretentious twats. The endless TITUS? I rest my case. The fifth would include anything by, with or from Jude Law. Okay if Law starred in HOSTEL III then I would go, but the chances of him making such a great career choice and appearing in anything worthwhile like that would be nano-slim. I mean you saw SLEUTH, right? Will I be seeing SHERLOCK HOLMES? Guy Ritchie, see a), strike two!

I was thinking about all this the other day when I saw the ANGELS & DEMONS poster. This sequel to THE DA VINCI CODE (although written as a prequel, clever writing duo that Akiva Goldsman and David Koepp - not) opens in May, one assumes without the doomed Cannes launch that sealed critical response to it. Now, no one who had read and liked author Dan Brown’s mega bestseller thought director Ron Howard’s dreadful adaptation was any good. Those who hadn’t read it hated it too. So did those who were totally indifferent to the book.

By that logic there should be no audience whatsoever for the latest Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks without the mullet hairdo) pseudo-crypto-symbolic-religious puzzler. As the old saying goes, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. But the marketing men will be working overtime to drum the title into the public conscious. Hanks will do the usual premiere appearances so the world’s media can use meaningless sound bites alongside vetted clips making it look exciting. The critical response is bound to be along the lines of, ‘Well, it’s not as bad as DA VINCI’. As if anything could be! And unless I’m completely mistaken over its dubious merits, my brother will call and ask if it’s any good and then about a week later…

And anyway, wasn’t ‘The Solomon Key’ supposed to be the next book after THE DA VINCI CODE? Weren’t there clues on the ‘Da Vinci’ book jacket promising its publication in 2008? Okay, Brown did get sort of distracted by court cases and legal stuff but still no word about this secret society saga geared around Freemasons in Washington D.C. Perhaps he’s had to rewrite sections of it now to shush the Bush and up the Obamarama. No doubt ‘Robert De Niro’s Waiting’ if Hanks says no thanks to the threequel.

Until next time.

Back to
Blog Central