loveandrevolutions

Some films might arrogantly push values on to viewers and even more might botch the well-intentioned effort completely, making the concepts unreal and uneasy to swallow. Once in a while, a film will really encourage the viewer to think, to analyze, and to reflect -- 'Millions' is one of them.

The first thing I noticed about this movie was its brilliant cinematography. It reminded me a little of 'Amélie'.

As the story progressed, I fell more and more in love with the central character -- the little boy, Damien, who found the millions of British pounds that magically fell from the sky. I think the trailer to this film really did it great injustice. (They did a terrible job promoting this beautiful story.) The story is more than just about how to spend this obscene amount of money before the UK converts to Euros. To say that this film revolves around the old 'money is the root of all evil' theme is an understatement and a slight misconception. This is a story about the endurance of human kindness and faith in others. And who better to tell it than an innocent child who is untainted by how society values money? Damien inspires us to remain true to our values and never forget that we're on this earth together. The scene where St. Peter gives his more human interpretation of Jesus feeding a thousand people with one fish and one loaf of bread really shows the overarching theme of this film. It is by far one of my favorite scenes of any movie.

While the story does explore how different people might respond to large sums of money, the more important message is about giving -- and I don't simply mean giving money. Watch the film, fall in love with this tender story and its characters, and you'll know what I mean.

Films rarely fit the viewers' expectations of the books, and then there are films like The Da Vinci Code. Dan Brown's novel should never have been made into a film. First of all, in the novel, the story paces itself well, keeps up the suspense for the reader, and explains its theories in detail and clearly. When converted into a film, the story dilutes itself and the pacing falls short of anything remotely exciting or suspenseful due to the interlacing explanations. Secondly, Brown's novel is plot-driven, not character-driven, so when transferred on to the big screen, Tom Hanks and Company have little to do but recount theories, stories, and throw out clues for the viewers. While the film does stick to the novel (for the most part), it cuts out quite a bit of details that may confuse someone who has never read the book before (I went with someone who hadn't). The script should have included more suspenseful and thrilling scenes, but it ends up taking itself way too seriously and kills any potential thrills. For example, even the potentially awesome scene of Sophie driving backwards through the streets of Paris was ridiculously botched by shaky camera work and lack of focus.

As for the actors' performances... The people who really walked away winning from this film were definitely Paul Bettany and Sir Ian McKellan. Bettany is absolutely brilliant in his supporting role as the albino Silas. His performance really outshines everyone else in the film, including the King of Kings in Hollywood - Tom Hanks. McKellan was blessed with the few funnier lines in the script, which is mostly why his character really shines through. However, much credit must be given to his impeccable timing in dialogue. Tom Hanks, though a brilliant actor, falls short of anything incredible in this film. He goes through the entire film (the whole whopping 2.5 hrs) with a constipated look on his face and very little creativity. However, I think that is largely due to the fact that Brown's novel lacked greatly in character development to begin with, so it's not really Hanks' fault. Audrey Tautou -- looking absolutely sexy in this film -- has her moments of high-level performances (i.e. the scene where she confronts Silas in Teabing's jet), but overall, like Hanks, has little room for character development. Fortunately, being the eye-candy of the film, she generally alleviated much of the intense and overly serious atmosphere. Tautou and Hanks did all they could with what they had, so I don't blame them for their lackluster performances. After all, both are obviously highly qualified actors. The end product of the Hanks-Tautou partnership becomes two people running around on screen recounting the legend of the Holy Grail and shooting at or being shot by people. Even more unfortunate is the fact that they have zero chemistry.

Finally, I also want to make a note that the last 10 minutes of the film was completely unnecessary and over-the-top C-O-R-N-Y. Overall, I was quite disappointed and bored with this film. The pacing was horrible, the acting was stiff, and basically, it was a poorly-presented story. However, I will admit that Ron Howard did all he could with it because frankly, I don't think this novel should have been adapted into a film in the first place.

Most romantic-comedies are trite, cliché, and too easily predictable. Girl meets guy, girl and guy exchange witty dialog, girl looks deeply into guy's eyes and BAM! girl and guy wake up the next morning in bed together. Their relationship starts too quickly and caters to the female audience yearning for a good, cutesy love story.

Not this film. _Must Love Dogs_ makes you work for the story, which makes it extremely worthwhile. Jake and Sarah don't fall in love after the first date. They jump through several hoops and muddle through misunderstandings throughout, making their potential relationship something to look forward to. Other elements such as family relationships and other love interests come into play, which makes this story not just about Jake and Sarah. The end result is a fascinating web of characters and insights about finding love and keeping it, reflecting every person in today's society who struggles with the same problem as Sarah.

John Cusack is delightful as always on screen, and Diane Lane shines once again. But don't overlook the supporting cast as they contribute a great deal to the success of this film. Without them, this film would not be half as good. The plot is neither dull nor trite, and the dialog (perhaps with John Cusack's witty edits of the script) is clever and original. This film is a sophisticated and refreshing romantic comedy that should not be overlooked. It's nice to see a film that doesn't drench itself in fairy-tale juice to satisfy its romantically-inclined audience and instead offers a more "realistic" approach to a blossoming romance.