The only memorable passage (which tells you something, considering how recently I watched it) was Lincoln’s legal explanation for why he was demanding passage of the 14th Amendment (and that’s really what the movie was about). I’d never heard the argument laid out that way and thought it was rather fascinating from an historical perspective. There may be documentary evidence that Lincoln treated his anecdotes like parables, but they seemed more annoying than revealing. Daniel Day Lewis mostly managed to look Lincolnesque, but I have to give Sally Fields some points for turning in a surprisingly 3-dimensional portrait of Mary Todd. The movie had a fabulous cast, and it could have been better if they’d been given more to work with.
The makers of Into the Blue understood this. Their movie presumably had a plot about something but they knew the real reason why people were buying tickets.
I’ve always wondered how much of the blame goes to Paltrow, how much to the director, and how much to current acting styles. I recently saw a bit of Sliding Doors, and Paltrow seemed able to play a more decisive character than she did in Sky Captain. And I’m not sure I can think of anyone better for the role; what current (well, 9 years ago now) actress has that confident, fast-talking style in her repertoire? (Jennifer Jason Leigh in The Hudsucker Proxy, anyone else?)
No, I went in to the movie thinking it would be funny.
It wasn’t.
Aykroyd made the mistake. He should have read the script he wrote and realized if he removed his pitiful attempts at humor it would have made a great international spy movie instead of the stupid farce it was.
I agree. That flick should have been awesome. It was dreary.
Why didn’t you say something to them about screwing up what could have been a decent film?
When I read The DaVinci Code I thought it was a bad book, but I thought it could make a fairly entertaining, mindless movie. It really didn’t. Maybe I was wrong all along (I can’t say I wasn’t) but it read like a movie.
Usually, novels made into films have to cut out large parts and/or creatively change certain parts to make it better for the big screen. When the movie Twilight came out, I thought there was absolutely no way in Hell it could possibly be any worse than the book as long as it was shorter. Boy, was I wrong. I didn’t realize the parts they cut actually were the best parts in the book (the whole chase and kidnapping.) Then, they emphasized the worst scenes from the book (the whole sparkle sparkle scene) and changed scenes to make them even worse (High speed piggy back riding.) I thought it would be impossible to make vampires playing baseball any worse on the screen than in the book, but somehow they found a way.
Twilight, the book, was as bad as a book can be, but somehow, it’s better than the movie.
Karate Kid 4: Pat Morita came back, and they had a future two-time Academy award winner in Hillary Swank. How could it possibly go wrong? This wrong: “Who uses cat stance to avoid hit by car?” My guess would be a giant pussy.
28 weeks later: Look, there’s only one reason 28 days later was such a hit: the main character seems like such a nice guy but when he’s cornered, he’ll literally rip your head off with his bare hands. “Crouching tiger, hidden badass” is just about the best trope because you don’t expect it, particularly from Cillian Murphy. It crossed genres, appealing to both horror and action fans. What did the sequel bring? Basically a remake of Resident Evil. Speaking of…
Resident Evil 3-6: Look, make up your freaking minds if you are going to give her extra power or take it away. If you keep giving it and taking it nobody will care anymore. Also, what exactly does the T-Virus do? It’s like the swiss army knife of viruses or something, it seems like no matter what happens, everybody thinks it’s totally natural that the T-virus caused it. Telepathy? T-Virus. Immortality? T-Virus. Levitation? Natch. Huge tentacles coming out of your nose? Sure!
Good call. I enjoyed the book the first time I read it because the pace was so unrelenting and kept moving so fast it created a feeling of breathless excitement and kept you from thinking too much about the plot. The movie was somehow boring. Where was that breakneck pace? Maybe better music would have helped? Something to keep you feeling on edge? I dunno, but I do know that they managed to lose the most winning element of the book.
Fantastic Four grossed more than triple its budget. Rise Of The Silver Surfer grossed more than double its budget. Into the Blue failed to break even on a smaller budget, because people didn’t actually buy tickets.
Can you explain your point a bit better? Because as I saw it, Aykroyd made a comical spy movie. When I saw it, it was basically as I expected it to be. You make it sound like it was based off of a book you read, and it fell flat compared to your expectations.
If you can point to ANY movie that is a comedy AND a “great international spy movie”, maybe I could understand your gripe more.
At that point in his career, Aykroyd was doing comedy. Team him up with an SNL alum (Chevy Chase) and without knowing the plot line at all, I assumed it would be a comedy and would have been surprised and disappointed if it wasn’t.
If you don’t like Aykroyd at all, well that’s ok and understandable. He doesn’t appeal to everyone. I’m just confused as to how you thought that movie, with the lead parts having Aykroyd and Chase in them, could have ever been taken as a serious attempt at anything but humor. And like I said, I can’t think of one funny spy movie that I’d consider a great international spy movie.
