truly dire

Rating: 1/10 (23 May 2006)

This was the worst film I have seen in years: indeed, the worst ever, if you consider how much money was spent on it. It is right up there with Heaven's Gate, or Antony and Cleopatra, in terms of how much money, intelligence and talent was expended for so bad a result. Just a few instances: Paul Bettany's naked bottom, yet again. In case we had not seen enough of this in The Knight's Tale (where at least it was deployed to great humorous effect -- as a long-time Chaucer scholar, I can tell you that the naked Chaucer was worth a thousand dull articles) we see it not just once, not twice, but -- oh, I stopped looking after a while. And just in case we had not got the message, that this was one weird monk: we saw him whipping himself and the blood dripping off his leg again, and again, and in case we had not got the message, yet again. And what sort of brilliant direction is it, that EVERY TIME some historical event is mentioned (Mary Magdalen at the cross, Constantine, etc) we got to have a full-blown flashback, done in swirly oh-this-is-the-past colours? And who wrote a script that managed to make the dull patches and longueurs in the book even duller and longer? As for the actors: Hanks and Tatou looked plain bored throughout, with a total lack of chemistry between them; McKellen provided the film's only bright moments, and that was it. Finally, I did something I have never done in films before: I did not go to sleep; I just STOPPED WATCHING. I did not see the last fifteen minutes. From the dull silence in the (packed) auditorium I think I was not alone in this reaction.