johnnychimpo

Just got back from seeing this in a packed house at the local fleapit, and it seemed most of the crowd were as impressed as I was, although to be fair most of them were probably predisposed to enjoying an hour and a half of on- and off-track action from the run-up to the 2010 TT, and the event itself.

The Isle Of Man TT Races are familiar to motorsport fans around the world as the Holy Grail of roadracing, an astonishing course set over, in, through and around 37 and a bit miles of the Isle Of Man's countryside, mountains, towns, villages and 'road furniture'. Riders blast through narrow country lanes with stone walls, lamp-posts, kerbs...at speeds approaching 200mph.

To some people in this risk-averse age, the obvious question is "Why do these men (and the odd woman) risk their lives?". The majority of the non-racing scenes in the film give the riders point of view on this; it will not spoil anything to say that the consensus is that riding is a thrill like no other; riding at the extreme is something else beyond that. The passion for the race is all-consuming.

When considering the risks these riders take, it is worth bearing in mind that for many of the riders (and their crews) this is not a full time job. They are not millionaires like formula 1 drivers. While other people get a look in, the focus and star of the show here is Guy Martin, the part-time lorry mechanic, part-time superbike racer, full-time charismatic rebel who has the talent, drive and popular support of a great champion but has never won a TT. Will he do it this year ? Those who follow the sport know the answer, those who don't will be willing him on during the film's race scenes.

I would recommend this without hesitation to anyone who is into motorsport, anyone who wants to understand why other people are into it, and most strongly I would recommend it to anyone who has the slightest interest in learning about other people, what makes them tick, and what you can learn from them.

Before reviewing such a 'controversial' film, it may be worth making it clear where I am coming from.

First of all, I thought the book was entertaining, if badly written hokum. Second, as someone who was raised Catholic, I did not find any of the ideas in the book offensive, as I consider myself to be intelligent enough to realise that the central conceit of the film- that Jesus fathered a child- is a fiction, just as I now believe that much of the bible is apocryphal.

The problem I have with this film is that it is so slow. Every scene has the life stamped out of it by journeyman directing , painful (long) moments of exposition, and what I can only assume was penny-pinching by the producers. An example- the film contains the shortest and least exciting car chase ever, lasting approx 20 seconds and involving a car driving between two bin (garbage to Americans) wagons. I seem to recall the chase in the book was quite involved, allowing the Prof to have a Dan Brown trademarked 'really big think' whilst Sophie handled the driving.

Some bits are just plain hilarious- exhibit 1- Paul Bettany's mad monk turn was straight out of panto exhibit 2- The low flying plane- Sophie looks out of a plane window at the police cars, the way it is edited gives the impression that the plane is about 30 feet in the air. I'm no air traffic controller, but I would assume that planes do not fly that low until seconds before landing. exhibit 3- when they are investigating the body of the old bloke at the Louvre- why do they always shine a really bright light at the body's crotch? To be fair they do this on CSI as well, so it must be standard practice for Coroners to do this.

To be fair, I thought there were two good scenes- the scene with the Cryptex (where the prof visualizes the planets after visiting Newton's tomb- another 'really big think') and the scene at the end where he visits the Louvre- more thinking. This had nothing to do with the writing, directing, editing (etc), rather the music swelled up real good, and Tom Hanks did some of his best 'thinking acting'. He is one of the few Hollywood actors to be able to convey the impression of someone who is actually thinking (and remain credible) rather than just daydreaming.

Also it just occurred to me that Ian McKellen steals every scene that he's in, and the scenes showing stuff happening in historical times look awesome- like they are out of a much better movie. So I give it an extra star (from 2* to 3*).

In all, a big let down. I don't think I will ever watch this again, even if it shown on TV on a Sunday and there is nothing else on.

I felt this film showed a lot of promise- good director, great lead (Jake Gyllenhaal) excellent trailer.

Watching the finished article was quite different. The film drags quite badly. There is no story- this would be OK if there was plenty of character development, but this is also notable by it's absence.

For a film that has been compared to Full Metal Jacket and Buffalo Soldiers, this film is very disappointing.

Jamie Foxx stole his scenes, but that's not saying much.

Maybe it was trying to say that the desolation of the ubiquitous war-torn landscape reflects the soul of modern America. All I got from it was the message "I feel cheated because I did'nt get to kill anyone". Probably not what the writer intended.