Oscar winner Milk continues at Major Cineplex Pattaya!
Pattaya movies beginning Thursday, April 23
by Thomas Ohlson
Best Bet: Milk.
Here is the 88th edition of my weekly compilations of movie times and comments for Pattaya! And the 1st – the First – online edition!
Yes, now online! However, unlike my Chiang Mai website (http://thomatfilms.blogspot.com), I am not going to attempt to keep the Pattaya movie times up to date. I know my limitations! They’ll be shown as published on Thursday by the cinemas, and you’ll have to call or go to the website after that. You can use this website as a fairly accurate guide to what’s playing, but only a rough guide as to the times.
Milk continues at Major Cineplex, which continues its showing of Oscar nominees and winners. Good for them! This one features the Oscar-winning performance of Sean Penn (seen in the picture to right), and the best screenplay Oscar, by Dustin Lance Black, about the assassination of the first openly gay elected official in the United States. Well worth seeing for a variety of reasons – don’t miss it!
Hotel for Dogs, promised for this week, has entirely disappeared, with no trace of it in posters or listings as even being considered for a showing. Too bad; I know some who were rather looking forward to it.
Separately is my tabulation of movie times beginning Thursday, April 23, 2009, for Pattaya Major Cineplex (at Villa Supermarket Center), for the SF Multiplex at Central Plaza (Big C), and for the spanking new SFX Cinema Pattaya Beach on the 6th Floor of Central Festival Pattaya Beach, the new huge and beautiful mall located between Sois 9 and 10 and running the length of the soi from Beach Road to 2nd Road. The cinema at Royal Garden Center is closed.
Now playing in Pattaya * = new this week
* The Haunting in Connecticut: US, Horror/ Thriller – 102 mins – Rotten Tomatoes: “A direct descendent of classic haunted-house films like Burnt Offerings (1975) and The Amityville Horror (1979), The Haunting In Connecticut also features the classic premise of a family moving into a new home where the bad deeds of previous tenants have left a foul psychic residue. Reportedly based on true events experienced by the Snedeker family in the 1970s, Peter Cornwell’s film has plenty of effective scares, but it is also a moving family drama featuring an impressive performance by Virginia Madsen (Sideways). It is 1987, and Connecticut teenager Matt Campbell (Kyle Gallner) is undergoing painful, experimental cancer treatments. Long drives to the hospital are making a trying experience even worse, so his mother, Sara (Madsen), rents an old house and moves the family closer to Matt’s clinic. Soon after moving into the house, Matt begins to have disturbing hallucinations of strange figures; but believing these visions to be unfortunate side effects of his cancer therapy, he keeps them to himself. When the visions persist, a bit of sleuthing reveals the Campbells’ new abode to be an old funeral home where séances were held in the 1920s by a mortician who also had dealings in the black arts that have left some restless spirits wandering the house. The first half of The Haunting In Connecticut, where it isn’t clear if Matt’s visions are real or imagined, is driven more by the touching story of a mother and son caught in a painful situation than by shocks and scares. Once it’s confirmed that the ghosts are real, however, the film becomes a tight little thriller with some genuinely creepy moments. Martin Donovan, as the alcoholic father of the Campbell family, and Elias Koteas, as a sympathetic priest, do great work in supporting roles.” Generally negative reviews: 33/39 out of 100.
Roger Ebert: The Haunting in Connecticut is a technically proficient horror movie and well acted. We have here no stock characters, but Virginia Madsen and Martin Donovan in a troubled marriage, Kyle Gallner as their dying son, and Elias Koteas as a grim priest. They make the family, now known as the Campbells, about as real as they can be under the circumstances. The film has an alarming score and creepy photography, and a house that doesn't look like it has been occupied since the original inhabitants ... died, let's say.
New York Daily News, Elizabeth Weitzman: Don't misunderstand: the proceedings are pretty silly, and the scares were a lot fresher back in 1979, when we first saw The Amityville Horror. But Cornwell and his cast take things just seriously enough to keep us at least intermittently on edge.
Associated Press, Pat Eaton-robb: Horror film 'A Haunting in Connecticut' draws unwanted visitors to house
SOUTHINGTON, Conn. - A Hollywood horror film that depicts the alleged haunting of a former funeral parlor in central Connecticut is turning into a nightmare for the home's current owners and their neighbors. The movie, A Haunting in Connecticut, doesn't open until Friday, but curious fans are already making a beeline for the Southington home that inspired the movie.
"It's just been really, really stressful," said Susan Trotta-Smith, who bought the home 10 years ago with her husband. "It's been a total change from a very quiet house in a very quiet neighborhood to looking out the window and seeing cars stopping all the time. It's been very, very stressful, and sometimes worrisome."
The family has never seen anything unusual inside their five-bedroom, two-family white wood-frame house and does not believe the property was haunted. [The picture of the actual house shown here was taken on March 18.]
"It's got beautiful woodwork, and there is a nice warm feeling to the house," Trotta-Smith said. "Because it was a funeral home, the upstairs apartment is much more spacious. It's like two full houses, and it has a beautiful yard, too."
The movie is loosely based on stories that revolved around the house in the 1980s. The residents at the time, the Snedeker family, claimed their son would hear strange noises in his basement bedroom, which once held casket displays and was near the old embalming room. He also claimed to see shadows on the wall of people who were not there. A niece visiting the home said she felt hands on her body as she tried to sleep, and her covers levitated.
The family brought in Ed and Lorraine Warren, self-described paranormal researchers, who became famous for documenting the alleged "Amityville Horror" haunting of a home on Long Island. Lorraine Warren says she felt an evil presence in the Southington home and experienced the haunting herself when she spent a night there.
"In the master bedroom, there was a trap door where the coffins were brought up," she said. "And during the night, you would hear that chain hoist, as if a coffin were being brought up. But when Ed went to check, there was nobody down there."Warren said the house was "cleared" of the evil presence after a séance in 1988. A book and a television documentary followed.
Note that the movie was actually filmed in Teulon, Manitoba, Canada.
Milk: US, Biography/ Drama/ Romance – 128 mins – Some amazing performances in a mesmerizing film about the assassination of Harvey Milk, with Sean Penn, winner of the acting Oscar. An Oscar also went to Dustin Lance Black for the script, as the best original screenplay. It was also nominated for Oscar best picture and best director – eight nominations total. Directed by Gus Van Sant (My Own Private Idaho, Good Will Hunting). Rated R in the US for language, some sexual content, and brief violence. Reviews: Universal acclaim: 84/83 out of 100.
IMDb viewer: Everything comes together in this one – Let's get one thing out of the way. Is it entertaining? And how! Sean Penn's best performance to date – Oscar quality; Emile Hirsch riotously perfect (best "supporting?"); James Franco heartbreaking; Diego Luna, devastating; Josh Brolin, flawless. Not one false note in any of the actors – a very complicated story unfolds with absolute clarity. I will be seeing this one again just for the screenplay. I was very gratified that no attempt is made to be "delicate" about Harvey Milk's personality, either his sex life or his out-sized ego, which perhaps ironically for some, makes him all the more heroic. The finest "political" film I think I've ever seen. It does more than dramatize a strong true story, it captures convincingly the truth about a whole political movement. (One that's as freshly active as today's headlines: Prop 6 or Prop 8 — does it ever end?) There is an ease and familiarity to the "scene" — to the historical period and place — with very few, small anachronisms, as far as I could tell. This is also the most assured work of Gus Van Sant, a genuine film artist, who here delivers a complete drama with real visual style and brazen wit. The blending of documentary footage is the most seamless I can remember seeing anywhere. The crowd scenes are remarkable, and all of the location shooting miraculously right. For a couple of fast, fast hours, I felt as though I had spent a couple of days — hilarious, intense, inspiring days — immersed in 1970s San Francisco. This movie does what all movies should do. See it.
Roger Ebert: Sean Penn amazes me. Not long before seeing Milk, I viewed his work in Dead Man Walking again. Few characters could be more different, few characters could seem more real. He creates a character with infinite attention to detail, and from the heart out. Here he creates a character who may seem like an odd bird to mainstream America – and makes him completely identifiable.
Reel Views, James Berardinelli: Milk feels like an important picture, but not in a way that makes it tedious to watch. There's no pretentious sheen to the proceedings. In fact, the essential story is comprised of basic elements: the triumph of the underdog, David vs. Goliath, and the American tragedy of a strong voice silenced too soon. Knowing how the story ends merely emphasizes the importance of the steps taken to get to that point. . . For those who are not dissuaded by the homosexual subject matter (and it would be unrealistic to pretend that the film's potential box office will not be depressed as a result of this), Milk represents a thought provoking, cathartic, and mostly true tale of politics and courage.
Khan Kluay 2 /ก้านกล้วย2: Thai, Animation/ Adventure – 90 mins – Khan Kluay, the legendary elephant, is back in action in this superb sequel to the animated movie Khan Kluay. Brilliant, beautiful animation that looks 3D though really only 2D, with an engrossing story, set after the victory at Ayuthaya against the invasion of the powerful Burmese Empire, when Khan Kluay is appointed King Naresuan's royal elephant. I especially like the animators’ skill in the opening sequences behind the credits, as the camera swoops through forests and jungles and finally the city of Ayuttaya, using effective multi-plane techniques and just showing off their artistry. The filmmakers seem much more assured than in the first Khan Kluay, and their skills are now really quite advanced. I was also struck by the beautiful final images while Khan Kluay was “dead” awaiting his children to return him to life. There are some truly scary parts involving death and destruction. But what can you do? In a bitter and vicious battle between two warring tribes vowing death to the vanquished, it’s difficult to make things look pretty.
Bangkok Post, Kong Rithdee: Khan Kluay, a Thai feature-length 3D animation, splashed brilliant colors on the big screen with the intent of making us proud. And while our chests are certainly swelled with the pride and joy that Thai artists have produced an animation of startling technical achievement - one that's breathtakingly close to the flag-bearers like Pixar - the movie also force-feeds us Thais with the pride deeply associated with a primitive brand of patriotism. Considering that the film is supposed to be a children's treat, the 150-million-baht Khan Kluay presents a pretty yet profoundly odd package, especially when the young elephant of the title receives a pep-talk on how he should be proud to sacrifice his life for his country by battling, who else, the invading Burmese.
The sharp note of jingoism, when the cerulean pachyderm becomes the royal steed of King Naresuan in his historic elephant duel against Phra Maha Uparacha of the Burmese army, renders its final 20 minutes unusually intense for a kid-oriented cartoon. In the traditions of Disney or Pixar animations, the heroes, animal or men, will not be directly responsible for the deaths of the bad-guys (a lot of blood-thirsty creatures die in The Lion King, but Simba didn't actually maul them to death). So there's something disturbing when Khan Kluay performs his final act of bravery against the satanic, mammoth-like Burmese elephant - and we're told that in war, even animals have no choice but to kill for their countries.
The moody tone of the final act is a contrast to the jolly humor of the film's first hour, when both children and adults will find it difficult not to fall in love with the orphaned, plump, sky-blue, cuddlier-than-Dumbo Khan Kluay (voiced by Anyarit Pitaktikul and later Puri Hiranyapruek). Separated from his herd, Khan Kluay wanders the forest and bumps into a pink girl-elephant Chaba Kaew (voiced by Nawarat Techaratanaprasert). After we learn that even elephants are capable of puppy love, Chaba Kaew brings Khan Kluay to the training camp of Uncle Mahout, who endures the bullying of Burmese marauders and whose duty is to supply war elephants to the palace upon request.
Crank: High Voltage: US, Action – 96 mins – The indestructible hopped-up hitman Chev Chelios is played to the hilt once again by Jason Statham, picking up where the first film left off – except this time, Chelios is chasing a Chinese gangster who hijacked his heart and substituted it with a mechanical one that needs to be jolted regularly with an electric charge to stay pumping. With David Carradine. Rated R in the US for frenetic strong bloody violence throughout, crude and graphic sexual content, nudity, and pervasive language. Mixed or average reviews: 47/56 out of 100.
Rotten Tomatoes: For those who thought there couldn't possibly be a sequel to Crank, this adrenaline-fueled film marks a return for the character of Chev Chelios (Jason Statham). In Crank: High Voltage, Chelios tears through Los Angeles as he searches for the Chinese criminal who has possession of his heart. Mark Neveldine and Brian Taylor are back in the directors' chairs, and Amy Smart, Dwight Yoakam, and Efren Ramirez revisit their roles from the original film.
Race to Witch Mountain: US, Adventure/ Fantasy/ Sci-Fi/ Thriller – 98 mins – A perfectly acceptable action/ adventure film for children (mostly) with all the standard chills and thrills. Well done of its type, and the ex-Rock Dwayne Johnson is (mostly) charming as a Las Vegas cabbie who enlists the help of a UFO expert to protect two children with paranormal powers from the clutches of an organization that wants to use the kids for their nefarious plans. Mixed or average reviews: 52/51 out of 100.
Roger Ebert: Innocuous family entertainment.
Variety: Strikes a deft balance of chase-movie suspense and wisecracking humor, with a few slam-bang action setpieces that would shame the makers of more allegedly grown-up genre fare.
Make It Happen: US, Dance/ Drama – 90 mins – Embarking on a journey to fulfill her dreams as a dancer, a young girl discovers a new style of dance that will prove to be the source of both conflict and self-discovery. From the writer of dance movies such as Step Up and Save The Last Dance.
IMDb viewer: Make It Happen contains two positive elements. The dance sequences are extremely sexy and are also packed with confident energy. In the lead role, Mary Elizabeth Winstead is instantly likable and human. She isn't terrific, but she is still good enough that she puts the rest of the cast (who seem to be waiting for their pay cheques) to shame.
Unfortunately, apart from the dancing and Winstead's performance, the movie falls flat. The plot is utterly predictable, the writing and direction are incredibly lazy and the pacing drags. This just feels like an attempt to cash in on the big public response to movies such as the High School Musical and Step Up instalments.
Monsters vs Aliens: US, Animated/ Action/ Sci-Fi – 94 mins – An animated feature that has gotten what has to be called rave reviews from a number of reviewers, and some others highly critical. I found it half imaginative and amusing, half irritating – the really irritating part being Reese Witherspoon’s shrill voice, and her character, the creepy All-American-cheery-housewife-but-liberated-woman type. The bug is more fun. Mixed or average reviews: 56/59 out of 100.
The Charlotte Observer, Lawrence Toppman: The movie may best be appreciated by people who know the references. All five monsters come from low-budget science fiction films of the 1950s. The towering Ginormica (Reese Witherspoon) was inspired by “Attack of the 50-Foot Woman.” The missing link, silent in “Creature from the Black Lagoon,” has Will Arnett's voice here. Roaring, wordless Insectosaurus is a “Godzilla” slug magnified by radiation, while Bob the Blob (Seth Rogen) comes from – well, “The Blob.” Dr. Cockroach (Hugh Laurie) has a counterpart in “The Fly,” where another scientist acquires the characteristics of an insect after a failed experiment.
Los Angeles Times Betsy Sharkey: "Nice" is the adjective that seems to surface most in trying to pin down the film's most salient quality, which means that while the film is enjoyable enough, it is unlikely to become a classic for us, or a Shrek sort of franchise.
Sassy Players / Taew Nak Te Teen Rabert / แต๋วเตะตีนระเบิด: 
Thai, Comedy/ Drama – 90 mins – A gay teen soccer comedy in the vein of “Satree Lek" (Iron Ladies), the internationally popular comedy about a gay and transgender men's volleyball team. There’s a little bit of everything in the film – something for everyone. It’s fun, if your proclivities lie in this direction. Directed by Poj Arnon (Bangkok Love Story).
A girl's school decides it wants to field a team to contest national secondary school football championships, and calls for applications from young men. It ends up with 16 applicants, seven of whom are katoey - or as they tell their coach, not 'real' men at all. Can football players of the third gender prove their mettle on the pitch? See the movie to find out . . .
Fast & Furious 4: US, Action – 107 mins – Vin Diesel and Paul Walkerreteam for the ultimate chapter of this film franchise built on speed and cars, which started in 2001 with the hugely popular The Fast and the Furious. Although this is the fourth of the series, time-wise it fits in between the second and the third films. It’s almost entirely about car races and car crashes, and it's a profoundly silly movie. During the non-action parts, Vin Diesel intimidates people. He’s very good at it. He does it by furrowing his permanently furrowed brow even further. Very impressive! Look, some people like all this nonsense! Mixed or average reviews: 45/45 out of 100.
Variety: A series that's provided a successful, moderately enjoyable ride up to now blows its tires, gasket and transmission on its way to flaming out in Fast & Furious. Trying to refill the franchise's tank by bringing back the four stars of the 2001 original, the producers forgot to get a script worth shooting, resulting in a picture that's all hollow posturing and indiscriminate action cut in incoherent Quantum of Solace fashion. These deficiencies may not matter that much at the box office, where the "Furious" films have continued to prosper, particularly internationally, but this is by far the weakest entry of the four.
Hollywood & Fine: Acting isn't really the point of Fast & Furious. Indeed, this cast can barely act interested.
New York Times: Led by Vin Diesel, an inexpressive chunk of man whose actorly range is largely restricted to the occasional furrowing of a brow, the cast is slotted into a narrative involving revenge against a Mexican drug cartel, outlandish vehicular mayhem, flaunting of custom bodywork (both automotive and anatomical), and settings that encourage people to wear tank tops.
Salon: Diesel, as always, has some charm: He's the kind of cueball lug that guys can admire for his coolness and that women wouldn't mind cuddling up to, and here he delivers even the lamest dialogue with just a hint of a wink -- he's clearly trying to have fun, hoping we will, too. Walker, on the other hand, is a lost cause. He has appeared in plenty of movies since The Fast and the Furious -- including 2 Fast 2 Furious and the Disney sled-dog drama Eight Below -- and still hasn't managed to grow a personality. With the exception of one brief scene, in which he gets to choose the car he'll be driving in the line of duty (with the mischievous greediness of a little kid, he wants them all), he has all the charisma of a potted plant.
Chicago Sun-Times, Roger Ebert: Exactly and precisely what you'd expect. Nothing more, unfortunately. You get your cars that are fast and your characters that are furious. . . . I admire the craft involved, but the movie leaves me profoundly indifferent. After three earlier movies in the series, which have been transmuted into video games, why do we need a fourth one? Oh. I just answered my own question.
Rahtree Reborn / บุปผาราตรี 3.1: Thai, Horror/ Romance – 90 mins – A rather amateurish half comedy, half laughably inept horror film, starring Love of Siam heartthrob Mario Maurer, experimenting in a different movie genre, one hopes for the last time. The striking posters are truly much better than the film. It’s a sequel to Yuthlert Sippapak’s quite well-known horror films Buppha Rahtree (2003) and Buppah Rahtree Phase 2: Rahtree Returns (2005), and is set in the same apartment where the haunting story was told before.
Knowing: Australia/ US, Drama/ Mystery/ Thriller – 130 mins – Delightful! And a lot of fun, in a gloomy sort of way. Particularly if you like Nicolas Cage. A teacher opens a time capsule that has been dug up at his son's elementary school; in it are some chilling predictions – some that have already occurred and others that are about to – that lead him to believe his family plays a role in the events that are about to unfold. Starring Nicolas Cage and directed by Alex Proyas (I, Robot). Mixed or average reviews: 41/42 out of 100.
Roger Ebert: Knowing is among the best science-fiction films I've seen – frightening, suspenseful, and intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. The plot involves the most fundamental of all philosophical debates: Is the universe deterministic or random? Is everything in some way preordained or does it happen by chance? If that questions sounds too abstract, wait until you see this film, which poses it in stark terms: What if we could know in advance when the Earth will end?
Los Angeles Times, Betsy Sharkey: Whatever else Proyas has done in Knowing, he has created an ending that is sure to divide audiences into camps of love it or hate it, deeming its message either hopeful or hopelessly heavy-handed. For me, it doesn't quite work; still I'm glad he took the risk.
San Francisco Chronicle, Peter Hartlaub: If you see only one bad movie this year, definitely make it Knowing. The first major disappointment from director Alex Proyas is a disaster movie, a horror picture, a "Da Vinci Code"-style thriller and an end-of-days religious film all at once.
SmartCine: “What do you believe?” Does everything happen for a reason? Is there a purpose or is it completely accidental or coincidental? MIT Professor John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) seemed to believe that everything is just coincidence and that there is no higher, driving purpose. That is until he ran into a 50 year old sheet of paper filled with numbers retrieved by his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) from the opening of his school’s 1959 time capsule. After finding the meaning of the code, his beliefs along with his faithlessness began to shift. Whatever you believe one thing is for sure; life is fragile and can end at any given moment. That is a somber reality that this movie strongly points out and it adds to the dreariness of this film. This movie is eerie, mysterious, chilling, penetrating, and depressing. There are religious undertones hinted upon throughout which gave the movie a little more edge. But this is not a movie for the weak-hearted. I’ve been feeling kind of paranoid after watching it. If it was able to do that to me, it’s got to be good.
The best aspects of this film are the special effects and the cinematography in general. From the awesome satellite type images towards the beginning of the movie of the U.S. east coast which slowly zoomed in towards Boston, to the jaw-dropping disaster scenes, the special effects work for this movie is top notch. It made the movie that much more realistic and thus that much gloomier. The visuals cut in through your eyes and tore straight to your heart. The cinematography also had the same effect. It really made this movie more of a mystery thriller than a dramatic thriller. There were some moments that I would even consider scary. This is not just another typical Nick Cage action flick. This is more along the lines of a Day After Tomorrow or even more like a Day the Earth Stood Still. There is plenty of hopelessness and inevitability which will keep you grounded. So if this movie is so somber, why bother to see it? It is a really good production with a very interesting storyline that doesn’t exactly end in total catastrophe. There is a light of hope in the midst of this darkness. Many of you might be turned off by the way this movie is resolved, but I didn’t mind it at all. One of the weaker aspects of this film, however, is the script. It didn’t seem to keep up with the intensity of the story. The acting on the other hand was pretty good. Nick gave a standard performance, nothing spectacular but good enough for the context. Chandler was borderline freaky with his role which gave it more mystery. His was arguably the best performance. Rose Byrne plays Diana Wayland, the daughter of the author of the sheet of numbers. Like Nick, there was nothing spectacular about her performance but good enough for the context. One thing that amazed me is the resemblance between her and Lara Robinson who plays Diana’s mother Lucinda back in 1959. Lara was sharp with her brief but effective role. She reminded me of the girl from The Ring . . . freaky. Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot) has done another mesmerizing piece of work. He co-wrote, co-produced, and directed.
Scheduled for Pattaya cineplexes on Wednesday, April 29
X-Men Origins: Wolverine: US/ New Zealand/ Australia, Action/ Fantasy/ Sci-Fi/ Thriller – 97 mins – Marvel Enterprises, following hard upon the highly successful reemergence of their comic book franchises in 2008 with Iron Man, starring Robert Downey Jr., and then a month later The Incredible Hulk, with Edward Norton, has topped them both with their latest, Wolverine, starring Hugh Jackman. I think it a superb action film for anyone who likes the genre, with excellent performances by Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, and many others.
Scheduled for Pattaya cineplexes on Thursday, April 30
Mor 3 Pee 4 / ม.3 ปี4 เรารักนาย: Thai, Romance/ Comedy – 90 mins – A nice little advertisement for MSN: Four teenagers make friends and chat online on MSN. Thee and Nut are brothers living in Bangkok, June and Jane are sisters who live in Phuket. Do the two pairs finally meet? Well it’s called a “romance” after all!
Saranae howpeng / สาระแนห้าวเป้ง!!: Thai, Comedy – 90 mins – Movie version of "Saranae Show" – a popular Thai comedy TV show that has been on the air for 11 years. With many well-known Thai comedians, including Mum Jokmok (Petchthai Wongkamlao), Kietisak "Hoi" Udomnak, Ple Nakorn, and Willy McIntosh.
And looking forward:
May 7 – Star Trek (2009): US/ Germany, Sci-Fi/ Adventure/ Action – 126 mins – All new! This much-anticipated film is a reboot of the series, going back to the series’ ’60s roots by depicting the formative experiences of the legendary heroes Kirk and Spock, and their young, new crew. From director J.J. Abrams (Mission: Impossible III, Lost, and Alias). Early reviews: generally favorable: 75 out of 100.
Time Out Online, Tom Huddleston: It’s a genuine pleasure to report that Abrams’s Star Trek is a winner on almost all fronts. The cast – from Chris Pine’s whisky-soaked, pugilistic lothario Kirk, through Bruce Greenwood’s commanding Pike, to Simon Pegg’s overenthusiastic Scotty – are almost flawless. Perhaps the hardest task goes to Zachary Quinto, not just essaying the series’ most iconic character, Spock, but face-to-face with his predecessor Leonard Nimoy, thanks to the film’s time-mangling plotline. Luckily, Quinto delivers a note-perfect performance, managing, as Nimoy did before him, to make this taciturn, officious, archly superior lifeform enormously likeable.
May 14 – Angels & Demons: US, Crime/ Drama/ Mystery/ Thriller – 140 mins – Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican. The Vatican appears not to be too pleased with this film, understandably, and Vatican officers banned the movie from being filmed in its grounds. The filmmakers had to build a scale replica of St. Peter's Square, one of the crucial locales of the story. Note that although the novel upon which the film is based is set before the events of the novel The Da Vinci Code, the film has been written as a sequel to follow after events in The Da Vinci Code (2006).
And yet a third sequel to The Da Vinci Code is in the offing.
Author Dan Brown has announced that his next installment in the "Da Vinci Code" series will be "The Lost Symbol," which Doubleday will publish in the U.S. and Canada on Sept. 15. The first print run will be a whopping 5 million copies. Much more than that will be needed if the sales of "Angels and Demons" and "Da Vinci Code" are anything to go by.
"Angels and Demons" has sold 39 million copies to date, and that number is certain to go up following the book’s recent reemergence on the New York Times bestseller list in anticipation of the film’s release. Those sales lag behind "The Da Vinci Code," whose 81 million copies sold puts it behind the Bible but not much else.
Sources said Brown has completed his manuscript. Sony has the rights to the Robert Langdon character, which gives the studio the right to negotiate a deal for the new title. The studio will be bullish. "The Da Vinci Code" grossed $758 million worldwide in 2006, and Columbia has high hopes for the sequel.
The numerical scores
The scores given, on a basis of 100, are from two web sources. The first, in bold, is from Metacritic.com, and the other is from RottenTomatoes.com. Both read a great number of critics and convert what is said into scores, which are then averaged. For movies released in the US only.
