A Typical Film Adaptation: Abridged and Banal

the Da Vinci Code (2006) - dir. Ron Howard - 2.5 stars

Given the success of the blockbuster novel by Dan Brown, it is not very surprising that Hollywood would want to get in on the fun (a.k.a. MONEY). All they needed were a star-studded cast, inherited action sequences and a kick-ass trailer. And that's all Hollywood did, which is a very cost-effective way to make big bucks in the land of mass-produced celluloid.

As the formula demands, we have Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno, among other internationally acclaimed stars. The narrative simply follows the book but is very action oriented. It omits most of the knowledge that's already limited in the book, so the film does not have the same mystery-oriented narrative. As any reader of Dan Brown knows, when you take out the mystery or cliff-hanger aspect of his novels, you're left with a kindergarten level book. Unfortunately, this is what Howard has done with the film.

On a separate note, it would be interesting to see what this film will do for Audrey Tautou's career. Will it become her Hollywood debut which will propel her to international acclaim, much like Penelope Cruz, or will it be a dead-end? I think the most interesting aspect of the film will be revealed in Tautou's future. Can a blockbuster take someone to Hollywood stardom even though it sucks on cinematic terms? We'll all wait and see, but I wish the best for Tautou.

Solomon disappoints, despite the strong cast, with cheap scares and a late plot twist

An American Haunting (2006) -dir. Courtney Solomon - 2 stars

It seems like Hollywood advertising got the better of us. Again. The first incident was M. Night Shyamalan's 'The Village,' where moviegoers were lured into the cinemas expecting the next best horror movie since 'the Sixth Sense.' What they found instead was a decent drama with tons of abrupt cuts and sound effects that made you jump, not be afraid. The same goes with 'An American Haunting,' where the hype doesn't live up to the offering.

Even though the visual and sound effects are positively creepy, the story itself is better cut out for a drama, rather than a horror film. Solomon gives you enough to make your own nightmare throughout the film, but it's very disappointing to not see it come to life on the big screen. As the film progresses, the screenplay steers towards themes of incest and sexual abuse that somehow relate to or even cause paranormal energy. Even if you buy into the plot twist, it comes so late in the film that it just feels like the writers ran out of scary moments and decided to wrap up the plot. It's unsatisfying at best.

Only the strong cast saves the tired old story from the Hollywood horror flick formula of 'spirits in the old, creaky house.' Solomon is lucky to have Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek as part of his cast. They bring an air of truth and believability to an emotionally dead film. Without their performance or mere presence, there would be almost no character development or viewer empathy towards the unfortunate Bell family.

Either Hollywood has not counted how many years have passed since the original Exorcist, or they just have too much money lying around. They keep funding films that try to deviate from the haunting slightly to add a psychological twist to the story, which they hope will separate each of these films from the pack. In the guidance of this new breed of horror films, Solomon's film attempts to become better than just a horror movie, which fails miserably. The only twist comes towards the last ten minutes of the film and is not explored in depth, which is very disappointing given the possibilities the twist could accommodate.

Nonetheless, 'an American Haunting' has inspired me. I have finally made a rule which I will follow fervently. If the scares are always in the editing or post-production stage of a film, I will not consider that film as a horror film. It'll be in the 'Genre Confused Failed Horror Films' section.

Wonderfully Acted Characterizations Steal the Show

Friends With Money (2006) - dir. Nicole Holofcener - 4 stars

Review: Friends with Money is full of wry, sharp dialogue between four women who are equally neurotic, no matter how much money they have. They all seem like they have identified their passions in life, found the love of their lives, and even have had time to help out the poor and the homeless through charity events, but it's all a show.

One of the women doesn't realize that she is not helping her closest friends financially even though she feels self-righteous for giving $2,000,000 to charity, whereas one of them takes years to realize that her safe-haven marriage is actually not working. The third gal completely gives up on life, because she doesn't see what to look for for the rest of her life. She finds comfort in sarcasm and a bad temperament: Why wash your hair when it's inevitable that it'll get dirty again? It's denial and lack of motivation at its utmost strength, even though these characters are pretty well-versed and outspoken. Only one of them, Olivia-the poor friend, recognizes her limitations and accepts the fact that she hasn't found her calling in life yet. Even though she is a step ahead of the others, she is held back by an affair she recently had, which glues her to her current state, disabling her to make any move or change. The others respond with pity to her self-acceptance; they just feel bad for her, but do nothing much to help her. Slowly, these four women realize their short-comings and through accepting their neurosis with their partners' and each other's help, they toast to a more meaningful life. At the end, they all look like they were the prettiest in the room.

Holofcener's latest does not contain a novel concept , but is written well, has amazingly well-rounded characters and is cast brilliantly. It is a very realistic look at modern relationships and how the money revolution hasn't really changed our most basic needs, wants and desires. What am I doing here? What is my purpose in life? Why should I keep going? We all want the answers to these questions, and money can't help us answer them; it can only help us shrug them off. Holofcener reminds us that among our busy schedules, we might forget that these questions are what make us human.