|
Originally Posted by acid
Frankly I don't understand all the animosity for this movie. It's not nearly as bad or boring as people are making it out to be.
Is it fairly straightforward and paint-by-numbers? Oh god yes. Is the entire premise absolutely ridiculous and should no way be attributed to being fact? Absolutely. Does it have some pretty bad diologue? Yes (I need to get to a library!).
However, is it an entertaining popcorn movie? Is it a resonably good thriller? Is Ian McKelllan more over the top than an arm wrestling Stallone? Yes. If you go into it expecting a serious religious conspiracy story that will change the foundation of the Catholic Church you will be disappointed. As a good way to fill the gap between MI:3 and X-Men on the summer blockbuster checklist, it works just fine. People are being far too hard on it, expecting it to be something that it is not.
When the biggest criticism of the movie is that the lead actor's hair is different from how he usually wears it you know that really, it's not that bad.
|
Considering that it has a very well known and star studded cast, as well as an excellent director, this movie had enormous potential but Ron Howard did a poor job with adapting the script to his will, though the source material wasn't very strong character wise.
I don't think people are being too hard on it. It was hyped beyond belief and failed to meet critial expectations though it just slayed the box office with a $77 million opening.
It would be more entertaining if it wrapped up sooner.
There's nowhere I can't reach.