The Machine (2013)

An Uneven Blend of Ideas Great and Terrible

The Machine is an independent Welsh film, directed by Caradog W. James, and is currently on a film festival tour worldwide. I was lucky enough to catch the UK premier at Cardiff, due to the fact that my girlfriend was an uncredited extra (about 10 minutes before the end, a long-haired scientist does a very awkward run - she was supposed to run away from the evil robot, but not too fast for insurance purposes). It hasn't currently sealed a distribution deal, so I wouldn't hold your breath with regard to actually seeing it, but I digress.

The Machine follows the story of two irritating scientists as they stand slackjawed at the edge of one of the greatest scientific discoveries of all time. That's about all I can say without giving away any spoilers, and in all honesty that's already a more accurate plot synopsis than the one that already exists on the IMDb.

This movie had some genuinely impressive moments, which are the result of some very competent film-making; the visual effects are beyond anything I could've possibly imagined and are nothing short of spectacular given the film's low budget. Aside from this, the cinematography is very impressive - however it segues from being beautifully shot to appallingly shot so frequently it will leave you both dizzy and confused.

The set design was also impressive, and more accurate than you might assume - a Q+A with the Director revealed that care had been taken to make the sets look authentically MoD. As well as this, the techno-babble isn't as stupid as it initially sounds either - the crew have indeed done their homework.

However, I'm sorry to say it was all for nothing, as the three critical elements that keep people interested - the script, acting and casting - are nothing short of appalling. The characters are incredibly flat - often spewing robotic exposition, and they occasionally have outright bizarre sweary outbursts in a desperate bid to make the dialogue seem more brooding.

The film's leading actress is sublimely annoying, and her shrill, squeaky voice made me want to knaw off a thumb before the hour mark. As for Tobey Stephens, after 10 years of following they guy's career, I still can't tell if he's a bad actor, or if he's consistently fed awful scripts. Either way, in this film he often acted as though he'd just witnessed some horrible event and had been given a powerful sedative.

The fundamental flaw with this film is that some very talented people worked very hard to put together a visually stunning piece of work - although seemingly no one had read the script. It was awfully clear, right from the opening scenes that it'd been written in one draft, possibly over a weekend. This was incredibly frustrating to witness, because there's no reason that independent, low-budget films - when done right - can't become world-wide blockbusters (i.e. Paranormal Activity). However, once its film festival run is all said and done, Red&Black Films will see this movie fade away into obscurity; and they will say it's because they didn't really have the resources, or they didn't have bigger names attached, but they will be wrong. It's because the whole idea was flawed right out of the gate; and the basic elements that were at their own fingertips right from the get-go (dialogue, characters, pacing) were so catastrophically out of whack it sunk a film that really could've been something special. Shame.

Lincoln (2012) Movie Review

Dir. Steven Spielberg

Stars: Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Sally Field

"Lincoln" is a movie which is about just that. A city in the East Midlands. Trains are on average 17 seconds early, and average rainfall stands at roughly 23 inches per year. 6/10. The End.

Just kidding. Spielberg's "Lincoln" is an epic chronicle of the United States' legendary 16th president and his struggle to pass the 13th amendment - to abolish slavery - through a stubborn and predominantly prejudiced House of Representatives. Tommy Lee Jones co-stars as charismatically aggressive pro-abolition Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, and Sally Field delivers a fantastic turn as the equally feisty Mary Todd Lincoln. 

For those wondering about the time frame of the film, it's 2hr 36 minute duration encapsulates the week approaching the end of the Civil War, the subsequent ratification of the 13th amendment, right up to Lincoln's assassination (spoilers) ... (oops, too late). As its mammoth runtime might suggest, you do feel its length at times. This is no fault particularly of the script, which is solid - I'd put this down more to the Editor. While watching "Lincoln", you do feel like you could leave in the middle of a scene for ten minutes, come back and miss nothing of exceptional importance. It's like cooking a chicken - it takes forever, but it's still exceptionally satisfactory by the end.

Much like other political dramas of recent years, the film plays out like "Rocky", but with debates instead of boxing. In spite of the fact that the film is set in the backdrop of the bloodiest conflict in American history, there are no overindulgent battle scenes - with characters often only learning news of the war, or arriving on the scene of a battle hours after it's been fought. This film is certainly closer to "Charlie Wilson's War" than, for instance, Braveheart. On that note, the cinematography, costume and set design is fantastic. The framing of 19th century Virginia, while somewhat bleak and dismal looking (much as it is today), has a certain magnetism and appeal to it, which if anything helps emphasise the drama unfolding between the characters. Most notably, Lincoln's increasingly difficult political position: torn between passing the amendment or ending the war, this alongside his own personal conflict over allowing his son (a nigh-cameo appearance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) enlist in the Union army. 

Finally, "Lincoln"s key asset, and for which it will almost certainly sweep this year's Oscars, is the sublime performance put in by each and every one of the cast. Easily the most incredible performance of an already excellent career, is that of Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln himself. I have no other words - he just got everything completely spot on. From his somewhat awkward, gangly and hunched posture, with his subtle hand gestures, to his strained yet soft, and disarmingly high-pitched Illinois accent. Day-Lewis completely and perfectly recreates Lincoln's sublime magnetism and charisma that historians celebrate him for. With Day-Lewis' flagship performance, accompanied by an excellent supporting cast, "Lincoln" is without doubt one of the best biopics of recent years. Although yes, you will likely visit the bathroom somewhere in the middle.

9.5/10

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

Dir: Tony Gilroy

Stars: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz

“Legacy” is a word that gets thrown around a lot these days, but it’s certainly the most optimistic adjective possible to describe Tony Gilroy’s latest installment to the somewhat redundant Bourne Franchise. Perhaps “The Bourne Entropy”, “The Bourne Afterthought” or even the less subtle “The Bourne We Need F*cking Money” would’ve been or more apt title. Regardless, “The Bourne Legacy” is a mostly enjoyable, moderately intelligent action-thriller – the only real flaw of which is its somewhat pedestrian, even unnecessary connection to the rest of the series. But then again, we’ve all got mortgages to pay, and standard issue complaints about unoriginality in the film industry are rather unoriginal themselves, but I digress.

The plot of Legacy is somewhat familiar to any fan of the Bourne Franchise, and at this point one starts to wonder what percentage of the United States’ covert ops budget goes to hunting down rogue superspies. Action hero de-jour Jeremy Renner plays Aaron Cross; bestubbled assassin whose presence is quite refreshingly more charismatic than that of his predecessor Matt Damon. The film runs parallel to the events of “The Bourne Supremacy” – the second installment in the series. While events of Bourne 2 and 3 are casually referenced (usually via the medium of conveniently placed news items), Cross flees the CIA’s rather heavy-handed strategy of murdering the shit out of everyone involved in Operation Treadstone – one of many operations name-dropped by the series, but this one was apparently responsible for Jason Bourne. Accompanied by rather pretty scientist Rachel Weisz (also rather unnecessarily in the crosshairs of sinister spooks), Cross gets up to the same globe-trotting, neck punching hijinks that made it acceptable to cast Matt Damon in an action movie.

“The Bourne Legacy” does exactly what you’d expect from a Bourne film – almost to the point it feels more like a remake than a sequel. Inevitably returning are the impressive stunts, the gritty violence, the familiar back and forth between the CIA control room and the action, and of course the toe-tapping, knee slapping ominous cello-heavy score by James Newton Howard. However, what separates “The Bourne Legacy” from the rest of the series (aside from the obvious switch in protagonist) is the directionless, and somewhat pointless plot. It’s difficult to ignore how significantly less interesting Cross’ struggle against the man is in relation to Bourne’s, and the movie sometimes feels like you’re watching a half-decent episode of “Bourne: The TV Series” (side note: that should totally be a thing). It’s compelling, mostly enjoyable, but ultimately falls short of anything too impressive due to its obvious subservience to the source material. In spite of this, its positives outweigh its negatives, and one might even go as far to call it a champion of unnecessary sequels. Worth a watch, but it probably doesn’t belong in the Bourne box set.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Movie Review

INTRODUCTION

Admittedly, the Transformers trilogy has done some impressive things, but to put it bluntly, it still totally blows chunks. But why? They've got a practically limitless budget, some likeable actors, lots of explosions, attractive women and a concept that's so vague they can do more or less anything they want with it. Given all of the above, how could they possibly screw it up so badly? Well, to the film-makers credit it's easier than you might think. Allow me to explain why this entire franchise is irreparably flawed right out of the gate;

1: The Entire Idea is Stupid in the First Place

I hate the first two movies. This is no secret. I often get people argue at me that it's not Citizen Kane - it's a popcorn flick. You're just supposed to switch off your brain and look at the big shiny robots. Well, me being in cynical douche isn't the problem, as BASEketball happens to be one of the stupidest movies of all time. It's also one of my favourite.

I have this problem switching off my brain because of the concept. It shoves a mix of startling modern day reality and overblown sci-fi stupidity directly into your face-hole at 600mph. It's nauseating. Basically what I'm saying is on the one hand, they're trying to make an action movie that's as realistic and as culturally relevant as possible. They spend significant time in all three movies saying this is the world that YOU live in. Here's that car you've seen advertised, here's that games console you play while you're not masturbating, and here are some characters in that world. Now, this works fine in movies like James Bond, The Bourne series, Die Hard, The Nolan Batman movies and so on, because it's believable. But on the other hand they have to shoe-horn in these ridiculous fucking 60 foot robots causing all sorts of havoc and no one's supposed to give a damn?

See, what this does is it immediately alienates the audience, because just when you're think you've got a story you can relate to, a big clunky ridiculous CGI robot appears, shattering all the realism they've spent so much time setting up. This results in the movie looking like nothing more than your average video game, no matter how much "photo realistic" CGI you use. You can never fully evoke an emotional reaction from the audience because we immediately know and accept it's fake, but of course that doesn't stop them trying with Spielberg-style shaky camera and big dramatic scenes which pull out all the stops to evoke an emotional reaction, but it just doesn't work.

What results is a thing called "boredom". If a movie was band, the drum kit would be a thing called "tone", and the tone of the entire trilogy is seriously upset by this contradiction. Michael Bay himself describes the tone of "Dark of the Moon" as "A Homeland version of Black Hawk Down... with Giant Alien Robots". According to my metaphor, you end up with something like this.

This is the foundational flaw of all the Transformers movies, and there is nothing they can do about it. Metaphorically speaking, what they've done is bought a house in the township of Artistic Integrity, but it's sat on top of a swamp. You're boned right from the get-go. But still, let's talk about Dark of the Moon.

2: Stuff they Got Right in Dark of the Moon

Well, all the characters from the other two movies are back - this might sound terrible, but it actually pans out okay. Shia Laboeuf is back as Sam Witwicky (that's a horrible name - hope someone lost their job over that one), and he gives a much more solid performance. Not too “Even Stevens” like in the first one, and not too stupidly overacted like the second one. He gets the balance just about right, and I've got much more respect from him in the wake of seeing this film.

John Turturro's back as well – his character's still kinda “goof-ball” stupid (especially in one scene during the end credits) But he's been toned down to a satisfactory degree – and thankfully no more crappy one liners either.

The parents are back as well, but thankfully they're only in a couple of scenes, which do have some chuckles. In the first movie it felt like they were just there to do Panto-style improv, and the second movie's not even worth talking about, but here they're just about tolerable.

Now, I thought the new love interest was going to be really awkwardly shoved into the movie after their little fallout with Megan Fox, but no, they managed to just about write their way out of that one, because her and Shia actually talk to each other like real couples do - where as Megan Fox and Shia would just slow-mo run away from explosions, and the audience would just have to independently reach the conclusion they were watching true love unfold. Beforehand, they never took the time to actually develop their relationship, whereas in this movie, in the first twenty minutes they've been introduced and she actually comes off pretty likeable – although having said that, that's probably the script doing the work, because she is an abysmal actress. Yes, worse than Megan Fox.

Besides this, there were some pretty good cameos - Mr Chow off the Hangover shows up, which was a little gimmicky but not bad; so does John Malkovich, Frances MacDormand, Bill O'Reilly, Alan Tudyk - the guy from A Knight's Tale, Leonard Nimoy, and even Buzz Friggin' Aldrin. Some of these cameos are a little clunky and out of place, but it's does contribute to one's overall enjoyment, as most of these cameos include their own cultural references which aren't too cheesy (for instance, classic Star Trek starring Leonard Nimoy is shown in one scene. Nimoy himself voices one of the silly robots). Finally, the stunts were really impressive. Now I say stunts, not special effects. Because while I respect Michael Bay for all the strife he would've inevitably gone through filming the movie – considering it's all on location, using real explosions and props when possible, added to the fact that he seems to know exactly what he wants from his shots which is great - because he could just CG the whole damn thing; it'd save so much effort. But unfortunately for Bay, when 60% of your special effects are done by some guy on a laptop, the audience really start to switch off. A truckload of high-definition 3D computer-animated bullsh*t might make your movie look flashy, but it will not make it effective. Case in point, take a trip to YouTube – search for “Transformers 2 Forest Fight”, and then search “Saving Private Ryan – Omaha Beach”. The first clip is two 60 foot robots hacking each other to pieces with giant flaming swords. The second clip is a bunch of guys running on a beach being shot at. The difference is there is not one single frame of CGI in that Saving Private Ryan. Sometimes it's just better to not use it. “Visionary” directors such as Bay, Cameron and Lucas seem to completely missed this and assume it's a catch-all for a special effects display, and continue to advance motion picture technology in completely the wrong direction. Now you might say, “Well how else do you make a movie about giant robots?” Frankly, I have no idea - however I did say it was a bad idea in the first place. But I digress.

3: Pacing and Plot

The pacing in this movie is worse than Gout. Seriously. It gets off to a great start – they introduce their moon thing that was so proudly displayed in the trailer, and that was cool... then there's what feels like an hour of Shia Labouef just being an unemployed nobody, which, while totally pointless is still entertaining because it's decently scripted. But then about half way through it all grinds to a halt because everyone's trying to make sense of the ridiculous plot that's developing.

Basically, nobody has any idea what's going on, and neither do we. And once the plot is steadily revealed, the more you think about it, the less it makes sense. I don't want to give too much away, but I will say there's a cunning plan and a scheme and a double cross, and it is all completely stupid. Now I'm not saying I didn't understand the plot – it wasn't that kind of confusing – there were just so many holes in it. It just leaves you thinking “What was their motivation in the first place? And why would they choose this ridiculously complicated means to an end?” Admittedly however, lots of movies don't make any sense at all if you really think about them (*cough* DARK KNIGHT! *cough*) but this movie seemed to take lessons in villain motivation from Star Wars Episode 1.

Ultimately, I could forgive all of this – all of it if it wasn't so damn long. This movie was 2 hours and 40 minutes, and usually this isn't a big deal as long as it's paced decently, which this film completely is not. For example, at one point during the final third, they try and throw you a red herring and tug on your heartstrings by leading you to believe all the Autobots are dead or whatever - but we know they're coming back because we've seen the trailer. Regardless, they drag this out for something like half an hour. During this time, some bad stuff does go down, and you actually see some regular people die – just to let you know they're being serious. This lasts for somewhere in the region two whole scenes, before suddenly “Wahey, the Autobots are back!” Then it stops trying to be Schindler's List and it's back to the kids movie, so this is a firm contender for the most pointless 20 minutes in the history of cinema.

After this, there's this big long climax which is far too incomprehensible and drawn out to be fully enjoyed, and at this point you're not seeing anything new or interesting anyway. This just leaves one thinking that this movie would be pretty tolerable if they'd just wrapped it up twenty minutes ago. William Shakespeare once said “Brevity is the soul of wit.” Which in layman's terms means “I'm desperate for a slash – why is this movie so f*cking long?”

4: Conclusion

So in a nutshell, it was a well made, enjoyable cinematic experience - and the special effects, while pointless and generic, were still incredible, and I don't regret spending the money to see it. However, because of it's sheer conceptual stupidity, it's pathetic attempts at making an emotional connection with the audience, and because sitting through it felt like standing on one leg for 157 minutes, I am never, ever, ever going to watch this movie again. And for that I'll give it a C+.

Sherlock Holmes (2009) Movie Review

It's always been difficult for filmmakers to make the 19th Century Rock 'n' Roll without their film taking a turn for the ridiculous. Just ask the good people who brought us "Wild Wild West".

"This was definitely a good idea"

However, with his latest effort, gritty-London gangster-flick extraordinaire Guy Ritchie has made a dramatic turn-around in motifs with a big-budget blockbuster; in this case a reboot of the classic Sherlock Holmes franchise, with none other than Robert Downey Jnr. in the driver's seat. And despite being brushed off by some as "Lethal Weapon in Tweed", the ex-Mr. Madonna has delivered a highly satisfactory and enjoyable film.

The premise of the movie makes a decent homage to the original Sherlock Holmes books, as it combines the classical paranormal mystery which was so popular during the 19th Century, and the humorous buddy-cop formula which makes great comtemporary action movies. An old hat it may be, but it's put to good use here. The plot revolves around a mysterious Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who after being hanged for practising nasty-occultist-whatevers, has all of a sudden risen from the dead and disappeared. Suddenly, people are dropping dead left and right, and it's a race against time for Sherlock to yadda yadda yadda. The point is, in the way of dramatic twist-turns, "Sherlock Holmes" delivers nothing new. The culmination of the plot that Holmes discovers is by no means a guessable one, but it all seems somehow familiar. In short, while the storyline is well written and executed, it will all seem oddly reminiscent of something you can't quite put your finger on.

Despite the shortcomings in the story, the film is carried exceptionally well by the two protagonists - the world famous Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, who are each portrayed with a dynamic wit and presence by Robert Downey Jnr. and Jude Law respectively. Robert Downey Jnr's performances post-"Iron Man" often speak for themselves - charismatic, magnetic and quick-witted. Guy Ritchie's envisioning of Holmes in this reboot is by no means the refined, quintessential British Gentleman we know him to be, as Robert Downey Jnr's portrayal is far more reminiscent of Captain Jack Sparrow than any previous representation of the famous detective. Despite this step away from the original series, Downey Jnr. breathes an interesting new perspective into Holmes as a character, replacing the perfect Gentleman for a more grizzled, unwashed eccentric. This, in my humble opinion, makes for a much more interesting character, despite the obvious throwback to Pirates of the Carribbean. This influence allows Holmes to become the archetype "imperfect genius." He is two parts Will Hunting, two parts Ferris Bueller and at least one part Russel Brand. The end product is quite fantastic.

The rest of the ensemble can be given credit as well, as firstly, the typically infuriating Jude Law really brings Watson into his own; transforming him from the plucky side-kick to the partner Holmes likely couldn't live without. The chemistry between the two characters is nothing new - traditional good-cop, bad-cop, but it's marvelous to see nonetheless. Rachel McAdams also gives a decent performance as the femme-fatale/love interest, however, be it bad writing or perhaps a bad bit of casting on Guy Ritchie's part, something about McAdams' character leaves one wanting more - this may be due to her not having enough screen time, or perhaps an underdeveloped character - whatever the case, she delivered a quite forgettable performance, and you will likely find yourself feeling somewhat alienated from the leading lady, as you might find it difficult to give a damn that she's about to be murdered by the bad guy.

"Meh."

Guy Ritchie's traditional style in this one just about peers up through the typical adventure movie CGI glitz. He employs an almost neo-noir style in the lighting, creating a dark, yet somehow magnetic envisioning of Victorian London. Also, Holmes' occasional fighting scenes (in which he envisions each blow in bullet-time-esque slow-motion) are oddly reminiscent of Brad Pitt's bare-knuckle boxing matches in "Snatch." It is nice to spot that Guy the Guv'nor hasn't forgotten his roots even in the wake of some big Hollywood investment.

In a nut shell, Sherlock Holmes is an enjoyable flick, with an unconventional yet exciting collection of action sequences. The acting is for the most part excellent, thanks mostly to the talents of Robert Downey Jnr. and Jude Law, and Guy Ritchie maintains a steady upward trajectory away from the travesty that was "Swept Away". The plot is a tad weak in places, and may be confusing to some, but the open ending has a great potential for sequels which would likely be better than this film. Therefore, I highly reccomend this one for all ages.

8/10

Angels and Demons - Movie Review

2006’s “The Da Vinci Code” hit a nerve with numerous demographics. Christians, Historians, Dan Brown fans and Tom Hanks Hairstyle Enthusiasts (citation needed) all seemed equally appalled by the film’s casual treatment of history, accusations of conspiracy within the Church, and the glorification of numerous ancient societies which are either too insignificant to note or didn’t even exist. Good little film, though.

Ron Howard and Tom Hanks return for 2009’s follow-up, “Angels and Demons”, which in a nut shell delivers more of the same. A fast paced, intriguing, and entirely made-up storyline accompanied by edgy Bond-like violence and Tom Hanks, somehow landing profoundly on the line between looking like a lost puppy and a street-wise super-spy. Well - if you can take your eyes off of that ridiculous hair.

One thing to note about “Angels and Demons” seems to be that no one can decide whether it’s a sequel or a prequel. This all seems to depend on who you ask. Tom Hanks said in an interview prior to the release of the film that it was a prequel; and perhaps he’s right – the book was a prequel. Interestingly, however, one reference is made later on in the film to Tom Hanks’ Robert Langdon having a past discretion with the Catholic Church – presumably referring to the events of the first film. And even more interestingly, this seems to be the only reason Langdon is involved in the storyline at all. This background seems to be discussed literally as little as possible during the film, so there’s a good chance the writing staff weren’t sure either.

But anyway, the story is, some anti-matter has been stolen from the LHC at CERN in Switzerland. “What else is new?” You might find yourself saying. But due to some inconvenient “physics” which was likely researched on Wikipedia on a slow day, tiny amounts of anti-matter cause cataclysmic explosions once the encasement device has ran out of battery. The next thing we know, this incredibly unlikely super-bomb has been planted somewhere in the Vatican, and it’s up to Tom Hanks and plucky Cardinal Ewan McGregor to find it before it inexplicably explodes.

The impact of this film is highly reminiscent of its predecessor. Tom Hanks carries the film by playing his character with the profound combination of mild confusion and inspiring genius - being completely out of the loop one moment and explaining the plotline to the smallest detail the next. Combined with fast paced editing and an insightful, visually excellent style of direction on the part of Ron Howard – helped in part by the aestheic beauty of Rome by night, this makes the film a mostly believable visual treat, and it could be argued it bests The Da Vinci Code simply with a superior pace. In fact, as a stand-alone film, despite its historical and scientific inaccuracies, it makes for a fine thriller.

However, as hard as it tries (especially in the case of the missing back-story), Angels and Demons fails to escape any comparison that would be made with The Da Vinci Code. This is particularly because of the obvious comparisons that can be made with the archetypal characters laid out by the first film. Firstly, Robert Langdon returns, but with a significant amount less character development than last time. As a character in The Da Vinci Code, it was ultimately his personal goal to overcome his irrational fears developed in his youth and clear his name. However, in this sequel, no such goals are outlined for Langdon, and he strangely appears hugely committed to risking his life for no apparent reason. The viewer can only assume that, much like Hanks, Langdon is in his “just tell me when the cheque clears” stage of his career.

The female side-kick also makes a return – although not with the same interesting character as Audrey Tatou’s Sophie Neuveu. Ayelet Zurer’s physicist Vittoria Vettra inexplicably sees fit to follow Langdon around – presumably so that he has someone to explain the plot to. A most disappointing character. Stellan Skarsgard also takes a turn where Jean Reno left off, with the grizzled, tough guy, by-the-book cop. Skarsgard does a decent job as always, but his character serves as little more than a plot obstacle.

However, the real star of the show is Ewan McGregor, who plays Carmelengo Patrick McKenna – an Irish priest, adopted by the Pope after being orphaned as a young boy. While it’s unfortunate that McGregor occasionally stumbles over his accent, his performance is still solid, particularly in the delivery of one monologue late into the film which delivers an unexpected, yet powerful message. Summarily, he implies that Religion may not, after all be the vindictive, oppressive shackle on humanity that the Internet and all those pesky scientists would have us believe, but actually more of a strict, but ultimately well-meaning parent. Suddenly, you’ve stopped trying to keep up with whatever cryptic who-summa-fudge Tom Hanks is trying to decipher in the nick of time, and against all odds, this silly film that the critics have been bashing has actually got you thinking. And it’s all thanks to Ewan McGregor. Not bad for a man who once dived into a toilet to rescue a rectal suppository.

Ultimately, Angels and Demons is a fun thriller. Not to be taken too seriously – at least, not as seriously as the film itself would like you to take it. But, from start to finish, it is mostly well written, mostly well acted and mostly factually inaccurate. Despite this however, it is a fast paced, thought provoking thrill-ride, which culminates in a spectacular special effects display and an unexpected twist in a climax which is far and away the single best aspect of the entire series thus far.

Due to its impressive showing at the box office, The Dan Brown series could easily see a third instalment in years to come, which will likely add unnecessary baggage to two films which probably would’ve been better off on their own in the first place. Whether or not Ron Howard and Tom Hanks will return for a third film remains to be speculated, but since Creativity and Hollywood got divorced in 2007 (the writer’s strike), you can probably bet your mortgage on either a sequel within ten years, or a remake within twenty to thirty. This “re-imagining” will probably star someone who was still wetting the bed when Tom Hanks was in his prime. Until then however, we can all enjoy this film of which, for all of its flaws, Ron Howard and co. can still be proud.

8/10