Quick, I must get to a library!
So we went to see The Da Vinci Code last night. I'll start by admitting that I haven't read the book - I started, but I stopped after only about a chapter. It was last year, so I can't now remember why I stopped, but it was probably either boredom or annoyance at the writing style.
My thoughts on the film will be behind a cut, to avoid spoilers.
Well, I predicted the main 'oh my G-d, who'd have thunk!' twist within about twenty minutes of the start, just because, even without having read the book, I know that there have been theories about the Sangreal being a person around for years. When they revealed this fact and started to hit us over the head with the idea that it might be a woman I just wanted to yell at Langdon "for G-d's sake man, it's Sophie! How stupid are you?!".
I nearly dropped off a couple of times, but I'm not sure if that was down to boredom at the really slow bits or just the fact that it was a late screening of a long film. Probably a combination of the two - it did get very slow at parts, when they were taking ages to slot together obvious clues. The anagrams were quite cool, though, and the treasure hunt lover in me appreciated the trail of clues and cryptic riddles.
Was it just me, or did Tom Hanks just seem to be strolling through the film, not really invested? The man is a double Oscar winner, and thoroughly deserved them for astonishingly powerful performances in Forrest Gump and Philadelphia - I was listening to some random classical music a while back and the aria that he described in the latter came on and I was in tears, just remembering the sheer emotion of his naration of the piece. The man can act. But in this, he just kind of... lacked. He was acted off the screen by Ian McKellen, who was, as usual, superb. It's that little twinkle in his eye and the half smile - draws me in every time. I didn't see his character twist coming at all, but it was a good one.
Other things that were good:
- They get points for casting French actors in French roles, rather than just having US or British actors doing bad French accents.
- Paul Bettany was very very good, and the combination of his performance and the directing made Silas a very sympathetic character for me - yes, he was a crazed murderous monk, but he was also an innocent who'd been drawn into this dark ring of lies and honestly believed that he was doing the will of G-d, while feeling horribly guilty for the things he'd done. He had almost a childlike innocence. Self-flagelation is ikky, though.
- Ron Howard's direction was nothing amazing, but generally very good, as I'd expect from a director I respect. There were no wow shots, but nothing that made me wince, either.
- Hans Zimmer has been one of my favourite film composers ever since Gladiator - and I've since gone back and listened to some of his older stuff, which I also love. This score did not disappoint and was a definite highlight. There was nothing that stuck in my head - though scores seldom do after only one listen - but his big finish at the glass pyramid was so beatiful that I shed a few tears.
- I rather liked most of the history bits, both animated and live action, and the swirling planets when Langdon was tring to figure out the Newton clue.
Regarding, the subject line of this post, at the weekend bossythecow had told me that two lines had ellicited laughter from test audiences, quite unintentionally. I don't remember what the first was, but the second was Langdon's "I must get to a library!". I can see how to a general film audience such a line would be out of place in a fast-paced 'action movie'. We all agreed, though, that to us hardened Buffy fans, such an exclaimation is perfectly natural - research is just as important in a fight as big weapons, after all. Just ask the Doctor.
So, all in all, it was ok. I feel no great need to see it again, but at least now I know what the hooha's all about. Anyone who regards the story as anything but fiction takes things far too seriously, of course. And, as moose_biscuit pointed out after the film, it's all a bit of a waste of time for those of us who don't believe in Jesus. I mean believe that he was the son of G-d, not that he existed. As far as I'm concerned, who cares if he had kids? He was just a prophet, and there are probably thousands of decendants of prophets wandering around.
My thoughts on the film will be behind a cut, to avoid spoilers.
Well, I predicted the main 'oh my G-d, who'd have thunk!' twist within about twenty minutes of the start, just because, even without having read the book, I know that there have been theories about the Sangreal being a person around for years. When they revealed this fact and started to hit us over the head with the idea that it might be a woman I just wanted to yell at Langdon "for G-d's sake man, it's Sophie! How stupid are you?!".
I nearly dropped off a couple of times, but I'm not sure if that was down to boredom at the really slow bits or just the fact that it was a late screening of a long film. Probably a combination of the two - it did get very slow at parts, when they were taking ages to slot together obvious clues. The anagrams were quite cool, though, and the treasure hunt lover in me appreciated the trail of clues and cryptic riddles.
Was it just me, or did Tom Hanks just seem to be strolling through the film, not really invested? The man is a double Oscar winner, and thoroughly deserved them for astonishingly powerful performances in Forrest Gump and Philadelphia - I was listening to some random classical music a while back and the aria that he described in the latter came on and I was in tears, just remembering the sheer emotion of his naration of the piece. The man can act. But in this, he just kind of... lacked. He was acted off the screen by Ian McKellen, who was, as usual, superb. It's that little twinkle in his eye and the half smile - draws me in every time. I didn't see his character twist coming at all, but it was a good one.
Other things that were good:
- They get points for casting French actors in French roles, rather than just having US or British actors doing bad French accents.
- Paul Bettany was very very good, and the combination of his performance and the directing made Silas a very sympathetic character for me - yes, he was a crazed murderous monk, but he was also an innocent who'd been drawn into this dark ring of lies and honestly believed that he was doing the will of G-d, while feeling horribly guilty for the things he'd done. He had almost a childlike innocence. Self-flagelation is ikky, though.
- Ron Howard's direction was nothing amazing, but generally very good, as I'd expect from a director I respect. There were no wow shots, but nothing that made me wince, either.
- Hans Zimmer has been one of my favourite film composers ever since Gladiator - and I've since gone back and listened to some of his older stuff, which I also love. This score did not disappoint and was a definite highlight. There was nothing that stuck in my head - though scores seldom do after only one listen - but his big finish at the glass pyramid was so beatiful that I shed a few tears.
- I rather liked most of the history bits, both animated and live action, and the swirling planets when Langdon was tring to figure out the Newton clue.
Regarding, the subject line of this post, at the weekend bossythecow had told me that two lines had ellicited laughter from test audiences, quite unintentionally. I don't remember what the first was, but the second was Langdon's "I must get to a library!". I can see how to a general film audience such a line would be out of place in a fast-paced 'action movie'. We all agreed, though, that to us hardened Buffy fans, such an exclaimation is perfectly natural - research is just as important in a fight as big weapons, after all. Just ask the Doctor.
So, all in all, it was ok. I feel no great need to see it again, but at least now I know what the hooha's all about. Anyone who regards the story as anything but fiction takes things far too seriously, of course. And, as moose_biscuit pointed out after the film, it's all a bit of a waste of time for those of us who don't believe in Jesus. I mean believe that he was the son of G-d, not that he existed. As far as I'm concerned, who cares if he had kids? He was just a prophet, and there are probably thousands of decendants of prophets wandering around.