Saw The Da Vinci Code on Friday...
... meh. Color me disappointed. Okay, let me start off by saying that I really did like the book, and shook off all the "BLASPHEMY! EV0L!" talk surrounding it. First off, it's very clearly a WORK OF FICTION. F.I.C.T.I.O.N. Considering all the contradictions and inconsistencies in modern-day religion, I thought it was a decent page-turner. It took me two days to finish, and piqued enough intrigue and interest to satisfy the disenchanted Catholic in me, and I was actually looking forward to how it translated onscreen. Good, I 'spose, but nowhere near what I'd hoped.
QUICK OVERVIEW (for those of you not familiar with the story): When the curator of the Paris Louvre is found murdered with unusual clues surrounding the crime scene, celebrated Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon finds himself caught in between a murder mystery and one of the greatest secrets in modern history. With the help of police cryptologist Sophie Neveu, Langdon finds himself involved in a treasure hunt for the most sought-after object in the world -- the famed Holy Grail -- before it falls into the wrong hands and is lost forever.
When I heard about the film version, I rolled my eyes because I knew it was only a matter of time before Hollywood cashed in on the book's success. My eyes rolled even further when I found out Tom Hanks was playing Robert Langdon (not who I pictured at all -- stupid hair notwithstanding), and Ron Howard directing. Don't get me wrong -- I dig Tom Hanks and Ron Howard's an awesome director ... I just don't think this was the appropriate vehicle for them. Just the same, there I was on opening day with the ticket in my hot little hand, expectations high, but not too high.
And ... it was ok. Hanks actually did a decent job as Langdon (I still think he was miscast, but props either way), though with a different actor I might have liked the character more. Audrey Tautou as Sophie worked alright, but I think she was miscast as well -- didn't ring totally true as Sophie for me. They did win brownie points in casting Paul Bettany as Silas (pretty spot-on casting there), Jean Reno as Fache (cos seriously -- he's the fucking MAN, even if he wasn't given much to work with on screen), and Ian McKellen as Teabing (dude ... perfect!). Despite some of my issues with the casting, the visuals and locations throughout the movie are just this side of breath-taking, and parts of the storytelling really do the book proud. Granted, there is a lot of ground to cover from the book and the movie is pretty damned long as it stands now, but they could have done a better job with the storytelling and the pacing, and the material they chose to use in the film. After about the first twenty minutes, the movie just falls flat, gets better, falls flat, gets better ... you get the idea. It's never consistant and by the end, I'd been ready to leave the theater an hour beforehand.
My real beef with the movie was that while they captured all the big events, almost all of the little details that tie them together were either altered or left out completely. To someone who hasn't read the book beforehand, I think the movie might come across as confusing and hard to follow. That is a shame, because it's all the small details that make the story so powerful.
The beginning sequence intermingles Langdon lecturing in Paris with the curator's murder at the hands of Silas the mad albino monk (heh, sorry) and is one of the better moments in the film, as are almost all of McKellen's scenes *waves her fangirl flag*, and I enjoyed the ending (Sophie reuniting with the Priory, Langdon 'finding' the Grail). See -- that's exactly what I mean -- the movie begins strong and ends strong ... but most everything in between? Eh.
So many other things are left virtually unexplained (why Sauniere contacts Langdon in the first place, what motivates Silas to hunt down the Grail, what motivates Fache to pursue Langdon and Sophie as ruthlessly as he does, what was it that caused Sophie and her grandfather's falling out, etc), which bothers me because these details would have tied the film together and made it comprehensible and more enjoyable.
One thing in particular than irked me was the slight reworking of Sophie's history -- in the film, it's hinted that Sauniere (the curator) wasn't Sophie's grandfather at all, merely her caregiver, and it seems that her brother was left out of the film altogether. In the book, Sauniere clearly was her grandfather; he and Sophie's grandmother separated her and her brother and raised them separately for their own safety. And the cause of Sophie and Sauniere's estrangement? As a young woman she accidentally witnessed a religious ceremony that involved her grandfather having sex on an alter while a crowd in ceremonial garb watched (it turned out to have been part of a deeply sacred ceremony; she mistakenly saw it as some sort of satanic ritual and distanced herself from him as a result) -- in the film, we see a flash of a man and woman bonking on an alter, but that's never explained, only that Sophie happened to see it. WTF!vague, anyone? Oy.
Overall? It was ok, and I did like it. I 'spose my expectations were too high, but I didn't care for it as much as I'd hoped. And it didn't help that Jean Reno was woefully underused. *le sigh*
QUICK OVERVIEW (for those of you not familiar with the story): When the curator of the Paris Louvre is found murdered with unusual clues surrounding the crime scene, celebrated Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon finds himself caught in between a murder mystery and one of the greatest secrets in modern history. With the help of police cryptologist Sophie Neveu, Langdon finds himself involved in a treasure hunt for the most sought-after object in the world -- the famed Holy Grail -- before it falls into the wrong hands and is lost forever.
When I heard about the film version, I rolled my eyes because I knew it was only a matter of time before Hollywood cashed in on the book's success. My eyes rolled even further when I found out Tom Hanks was playing Robert Langdon (not who I pictured at all -- stupid hair notwithstanding), and Ron Howard directing. Don't get me wrong -- I dig Tom Hanks and Ron Howard's an awesome director ... I just don't think this was the appropriate vehicle for them. Just the same, there I was on opening day with the ticket in my hot little hand, expectations high, but not too high.
And ... it was ok. Hanks actually did a decent job as Langdon (I still think he was miscast, but props either way), though with a different actor I might have liked the character more. Audrey Tautou as Sophie worked alright, but I think she was miscast as well -- didn't ring totally true as Sophie for me. They did win brownie points in casting Paul Bettany as Silas (pretty spot-on casting there), Jean Reno as Fache (cos seriously -- he's the fucking MAN, even if he wasn't given much to work with on screen), and Ian McKellen as Teabing (dude ... perfect!). Despite some of my issues with the casting, the visuals and locations throughout the movie are just this side of breath-taking, and parts of the storytelling really do the book proud. Granted, there is a lot of ground to cover from the book and the movie is pretty damned long as it stands now, but they could have done a better job with the storytelling and the pacing, and the material they chose to use in the film. After about the first twenty minutes, the movie just falls flat, gets better, falls flat, gets better ... you get the idea. It's never consistant and by the end, I'd been ready to leave the theater an hour beforehand.
My real beef with the movie was that while they captured all the big events, almost all of the little details that tie them together were either altered or left out completely. To someone who hasn't read the book beforehand, I think the movie might come across as confusing and hard to follow. That is a shame, because it's all the small details that make the story so powerful.
The beginning sequence intermingles Langdon lecturing in Paris with the curator's murder at the hands of Silas the mad albino monk (heh, sorry) and is one of the better moments in the film, as are almost all of McKellen's scenes *waves her fangirl flag*, and I enjoyed the ending (Sophie reuniting with the Priory, Langdon 'finding' the Grail). See -- that's exactly what I mean -- the movie begins strong and ends strong ... but most everything in between? Eh.
So many other things are left virtually unexplained (why Sauniere contacts Langdon in the first place, what motivates Silas to hunt down the Grail, what motivates Fache to pursue Langdon and Sophie as ruthlessly as he does, what was it that caused Sophie and her grandfather's falling out, etc), which bothers me because these details would have tied the film together and made it comprehensible and more enjoyable.
One thing in particular than irked me was the slight reworking of Sophie's history -- in the film, it's hinted that Sauniere (the curator) wasn't Sophie's grandfather at all, merely her caregiver, and it seems that her brother was left out of the film altogether. In the book, Sauniere clearly was her grandfather; he and Sophie's grandmother separated her and her brother and raised them separately for their own safety. And the cause of Sophie and Sauniere's estrangement? As a young woman she accidentally witnessed a religious ceremony that involved her grandfather having sex on an alter while a crowd in ceremonial garb watched (it turned out to have been part of a deeply sacred ceremony; she mistakenly saw it as some sort of satanic ritual and distanced herself from him as a result) -- in the film, we see a flash of a man and woman bonking on an alter, but that's never explained, only that Sophie happened to see it. WTF!vague, anyone? Oy.
Overall? It was ok, and I did like it. I 'spose my expectations were too high, but I didn't care for it as much as I'd hoped. And it didn't help that Jean Reno was woefully underused. *le sigh*