Mullets are a fish, not a hairstyle. It’s the truth, dammit!

There’s a rule in movies that’s indisputable. If a well known actor in his mid forties suddenly decides to prove how young he is by growing a mullet or a ponytail in a vain attempt to prove he is rebellious, to prove he’s still got it… the the film will be shit. Irreemadble, unwatchable shit. And I call the following evidence to the prosecution ….

Exhibit 1: Steven Seagal - In pretty much everything. Mostly three letter titles such as “Out for justice”, “out for a kill”.. and as he approaches pension age, I expect we’ll soon appear in the straight to DVD title…. “out for a walk”. With a mullet. And possibly a motorized wheel chair. With flamethrower attached.

Exhibit 2: Nic Cage – in the atrocious The Wicker Man, In the lamentable Ghost Rider - in shouty mode in every film nowadays. With a mullet.  Must be the syrup that attarcts the Bees. No! Not the Bees!

Exhibit 3: Jean Claude Van Damme. In everything that doesn’t have the words “Universal” or “soldier” in the title - or Unisol to his friends. (Apply liberally to the affected area if you''ve got hamerroids, by the way). But mostly this mullet has been found guilty whilst running away from a explosion whilst on a motorbike wearing a wife beater vest. With a Mullet. That be Desert Rage that is.

Exhibit 4: Sylvester Stallone. In Rambo III. A dreadful, unwatachable piece of slime, devoid of subtext, and boring to hell to boot. Full of sadism, and bad accents. With a mullet.

Exhibit 5: Tom Hanks. In the Da Vinci Code. With not just a mullet, but a whole schoal of fish…

The Da Vinci Code was a bloated, stilted, over reverant book adaption devoid of excitement, and burdened down with the worst haircut since, well, Under Siege 2. And that’s only because they have made “Under Siege 3: Seagals On A Plane” yet. (Note – I said yet…)

Adapted from the bazillion selling Dan Brown book – so oversized it also doubles as a doorstop, and should be sold by tonnage rather than individually – a book so critically reviled, factually inaccurate and shot through with plagarism [it takes the entire of Leigh Baigent ‘s “holy blood and holy grail”, and adds in a join the dots puzzle], yet designed to read by anyone. The simplistic language, designed for the mental level of a 12 year old, combined with short, sharp sentences and a cliffhanger at the end of every chapter, made it a blockbuster. A treekiller of a book.  So they filmed it. And forgot about the book before it, Angels And Demons…

Surprisngly Filming out of order like the Bond films plays to its advantages here – and its weaknesses. As a self contained, isolated adventure, Angels And Demons far outshines its staid and placid predecessor ; and like all sequels should, it raises the stakes. The first film was a puzzle that had lain undisturbed for centuries, and there was no real urgency. And here, there’s a ticking clock to stop the death of millions. An antimatter bomb primed to explode under the Vatican, destroying the city of Rome, the hierachy of the church and leaving Christianity decapitated at the very moment of papal interregnum. And every hour on the dot, a kidnapped cardinal will be executed.

Yet it is all very.. tenseless. Very matter of fact. It all plays out at a strict tempo, almost devoid of suspense. Never is there a sense of danger, or threat.

Tom hanks stars as the rather bland and featureless Robert Langdon, professor of symbiology at Harvard University, who is called to investigate following a killing in the Louvre  sorry, large Hadron Collider where a respected professor at the top of his field is found slain with arcane symbols on his chest. In this case, he is called to the Vatican where they need his help to divine what exactly is going on, and why. All against the ticking clock…watched over by the Papal guard and a beautiful french Scientist, and all with forces conspiring against him from all sides.

Now, we all know that given that this was written first, that there will be a happy ending – and that also removes a lot of the tension here. However, you also know it will make an absolute shedload of money. However, unlike the first, there is a real sense of danger, ratehr than discovery. The plot moves forward, quickly, steadily, at pretty much the same speed and pace throughout. Everyone here does exactly wht they need to do – which is mostly turn up, look serious, say a couple of plot advancing lines with gravitas and then disappear. However, particular attention must be paid to the production design and cinematography ; in both cases, its exemplary, marrying a backlot in California with a real location in Rome and CGI jiggery pokery means that this is often seamless, whatever the preposterousness of the plot.

At the end of the day, its more of the same. But much bteer – pacier, more entertaining, more at stake – than the first. If you loved Da Vinci Code, you’ll love this. If you didn’t, you’ll probably shrug your shoulders. Plus la Change, more of the same. It’s a fast paced, entertaining, money grubbing blockbuster made with skill and craft – but no passion. None at all. Mechanical rather than emotional, there’s far worse films out there, and far better. And most of them, don’t even include Mullets…

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.

Powered by AkoComment 1.0 beta 2!