Movie: The Da Vinci Code
Last night I saw The Da Vinci Code. My parents were paying, otherwise I probably wouldn't have bothered.
I've read the book. I like the book. It's not a great book but it is enjoyable. It has some major flaws (characterisation and Brown's writing style for starters) but I liked the (kinda) historical subject matter and I can read it in an afternoon if I just want to chill (I read really fast).
It's popular to hate the book. I guess it gives people a sense of superiority. Whatever. I like dipping into popular culture and have no problem with going from something like this to something 'literary'.
The movie? The movie should be hated. It's awful. The suspense which made the book work is completely absent here, making it very slow.
It's badly shot. Too many close ups of the actors' faces, not enough wide shots to give you a sense of the art and architecture that is so important to the story.
The dialog is clunky and fails to build on the book- Akiva Goldsman should not be allowed to write.
The book describes the main character, Robert Langdon, as 'Harrison Ford in Harris tweeds' so I damn well expected (Indianna Jones) Harrison Ford not Tom Hanks with a dead animal glued to his scalp pretending to be hair. Hanks is woefully miscast and doesn't even try with this admittedly two-dimensional character. He's too old to be opposite the gorgeous Audrey Tautou, who plays Sophie. She doesn't do much with her character either but she does improve towards the end of the movie.
In the book Sophie is a brilliant cryptologist, but in the film she doesn't do any of the code breaking. Instead she gets to cure Langdon's claustrophobia. I hated the romance between them in the book and thankfully that is dialed down in the film. It would have been icky to see Hanks and Tautou make out because Hanks looks really old and she looks so damn young.
Alfred Molina, one of my favourite actors, doesn't get to do nearly enough. Jean Reno is quite good. Ian McKellen is fantastic as the Grail expert Leigh Teabing and I thought Paul Bettany was excellent as Silas the monk. His character is very creepy and the whole audience gasped at one point when he just appeared.
The big controversial story line? It's handled ok.
I generally liked the flash backs to ancient times though a lot of the exposition was badly handled. I wanted more of the detail of the book .
The movie is long and I would have preferred if certain scenes were cut in order to spend more time with
Da Vinci and the actual code breaking.
The big problem is the pacing - the book managed to be an enjoyable thriller despite its many faults, because of all the twists and turns Brown employed which were manipulative but effective. The movie lacks this and thus ruins the opportunity to make a decent thriller.
However I'm glad I went because the milk shake I bought was fantastic (Swiss Choc Caramel) and I saw the trailers for Superman Returns and Casino Royale. Kevin Spacey looks like he's having fun in SR, while the new Bond film looks very pretty.
I've read the book. I like the book. It's not a great book but it is enjoyable. It has some major flaws (characterisation and Brown's writing style for starters) but I liked the (kinda) historical subject matter and I can read it in an afternoon if I just want to chill (I read really fast).
It's popular to hate the book. I guess it gives people a sense of superiority. Whatever. I like dipping into popular culture and have no problem with going from something like this to something 'literary'.
The movie? The movie should be hated. It's awful. The suspense which made the book work is completely absent here, making it very slow.
It's badly shot. Too many close ups of the actors' faces, not enough wide shots to give you a sense of the art and architecture that is so important to the story.
The dialog is clunky and fails to build on the book- Akiva Goldsman should not be allowed to write.
The book describes the main character, Robert Langdon, as 'Harrison Ford in Harris tweeds' so I damn well expected (Indianna Jones) Harrison Ford not Tom Hanks with a dead animal glued to his scalp pretending to be hair. Hanks is woefully miscast and doesn't even try with this admittedly two-dimensional character. He's too old to be opposite the gorgeous Audrey Tautou, who plays Sophie. She doesn't do much with her character either but she does improve towards the end of the movie.
In the book Sophie is a brilliant cryptologist, but in the film she doesn't do any of the code breaking. Instead she gets to cure Langdon's claustrophobia. I hated the romance between them in the book and thankfully that is dialed down in the film. It would have been icky to see Hanks and Tautou make out because Hanks looks really old and she looks so damn young.
Alfred Molina, one of my favourite actors, doesn't get to do nearly enough. Jean Reno is quite good. Ian McKellen is fantastic as the Grail expert Leigh Teabing and I thought Paul Bettany was excellent as Silas the monk. His character is very creepy and the whole audience gasped at one point when he just appeared.
The big controversial story line? It's handled ok.
I generally liked the flash backs to ancient times though a lot of the exposition was badly handled. I wanted more of the detail of the book .
The movie is long and I would have preferred if certain scenes were cut in order to spend more time with
Da Vinci and the actual code breaking.
The big problem is the pacing - the book managed to be an enjoyable thriller despite its many faults, because of all the twists and turns Brown employed which were manipulative but effective. The movie lacks this and thus ruins the opportunity to make a decent thriller.
However I'm glad I went because the milk shake I bought was fantastic (Swiss Choc Caramel) and I saw the trailers for Superman Returns and Casino Royale. Kevin Spacey looks like he's having fun in SR, while the new Bond film looks very pretty.