?edoc terces siht daer uoy naC
URGA1 MOTW2 this week was The DaVinci Code. Yes, we actually bothered to see this movie. It wasn't nearly as good as the other movie that involved a conspiracy surrounding DaVinci's works, featuring people of power in the Catholic Church. That film was a lot more fun, but then again, it was a comedy.
Can't work out what it is?
In true DaVinci Code fashion - decrypt "Hunk - Was D'oh!"
Anyway, back to last night's film. As stated in an earlier entry, I have read Dan Brown's book (in fact, all of his novels, just to see how good they were) and although they're reasonably entertaining, they're still just airport novels. Exciting page turners, but light as fluff with no real impact or character depth.
When I read The DaVinci Code, I thought it wasn't bad, it kept me reading, but I didn't see what the big fuss was about. Then again, I'm not Catholic. The movie adaptation was very faithful to the novel. More faithful than an adaption really should be - it'll keep fans of the book happy, but it doesn't necessary make a great movie. This was the problem with the first two Harry Potter movies too... they were faithful to the story of the book, and didn't take too many liberties with the 'adapt' part of an adaption. So the story was there, but the magic wasn't. They weren't nearly as good cinematically as HP&TPoA or HP&TGoF. Similarly with The DaVinci Code. The story was told, but it lost the hurried feeling and tension of the book.
Dan Brown is a master (one of many) of high tension chapter-ending cliffhangers. The resolution and explanation of some situations is explained after the fact... and in a novel, you can get away with it. You don't explicitly say something about a situation, or leave certain speakers anonymous, and then later you can reveal what happened or who they were, etc. In a film, this is much more difficult to do - it's a visual medium, and to keep jumping back and forth to explain what has just happened (which was omitted for reasons of excitement/tension) doesn't always work.
Ron Howard tried to do this a few times with moderate success - it's far easier for an audience to see what's happening rather than to see what's not happening and be told/shown a few seconds later. The anonymity of certain characters also doesn't work unless it's done over a phone call, or with creative cuts between scenes... (this latter bit worked OK as well). He did do well in relating some of the character's backstories in very short glimpses of flashbacks, as well as painting several of the exposition scenes by showing what was happening in the ancient history being narrated by the characters. These aspects of the adaption were good.
But the tension was hardly there. Tom Hanks doesn't really make a good hero, except as the dumb-but-lovable Forrest Gump, and he's not really the ideal mold for Robert Langon. I'm not sure who would be (maybe Harrison Ford 10 years ago?) but I was very dubious of Hanks's casting from the moment I first heard it.
In the end - the story of The Da Vinci Code is told well and accurately, and it's not too confusing or overwhelming - but the movie itself falls flat as an entertaining film. Perhaps this is one book that shouldn't have been filmed?
6/10
1URGA is our movie-going group. It doesn't actually stand for anything in particular, but its true meaning is lost in the mists of time and protected as a dark secret by the... oh, ok, I did have the explanation here before, but was informed by older, wiser, minds (well not much older and possibly not all that wise) that it's a secret of the group and shouldn't be revealed on a public journal. So solve your own damn conspiracy!
2Movie of the Week. You should have been able to work that one out.
Can't work out what it is?
In true DaVinci Code fashion - decrypt "Hunk - Was D'oh!"
Anyway, back to last night's film. As stated in an earlier entry, I have read Dan Brown's book (in fact, all of his novels, just to see how good they were) and although they're reasonably entertaining, they're still just airport novels. Exciting page turners, but light as fluff with no real impact or character depth.
When I read The DaVinci Code, I thought it wasn't bad, it kept me reading, but I didn't see what the big fuss was about. Then again, I'm not Catholic. The movie adaptation was very faithful to the novel. More faithful than an adaption really should be - it'll keep fans of the book happy, but it doesn't necessary make a great movie. This was the problem with the first two Harry Potter movies too... they were faithful to the story of the book, and didn't take too many liberties with the 'adapt' part of an adaption. So the story was there, but the magic wasn't. They weren't nearly as good cinematically as HP&TPoA or HP&TGoF. Similarly with The DaVinci Code. The story was told, but it lost the hurried feeling and tension of the book.
Dan Brown is a master (one of many) of high tension chapter-ending cliffhangers. The resolution and explanation of some situations is explained after the fact... and in a novel, you can get away with it. You don't explicitly say something about a situation, or leave certain speakers anonymous, and then later you can reveal what happened or who they were, etc. In a film, this is much more difficult to do - it's a visual medium, and to keep jumping back and forth to explain what has just happened (which was omitted for reasons of excitement/tension) doesn't always work.
Ron Howard tried to do this a few times with moderate success - it's far easier for an audience to see what's happening rather than to see what's not happening and be told/shown a few seconds later. The anonymity of certain characters also doesn't work unless it's done over a phone call, or with creative cuts between scenes... (this latter bit worked OK as well). He did do well in relating some of the character's backstories in very short glimpses of flashbacks, as well as painting several of the exposition scenes by showing what was happening in the ancient history being narrated by the characters. These aspects of the adaption were good.
But the tension was hardly there. Tom Hanks doesn't really make a good hero, except as the dumb-but-lovable Forrest Gump, and he's not really the ideal mold for Robert Langon. I'm not sure who would be (maybe Harrison Ford 10 years ago?) but I was very dubious of Hanks's casting from the moment I first heard it.
In the end - the story of The Da Vinci Code is told well and accurately, and it's not too confusing or overwhelming - but the movie itself falls flat as an entertaining film. Perhaps this is one book that shouldn't have been filmed?
6/10
1URGA is our movie-going group. It doesn't actually stand for anything in particular, but its true meaning is lost in the mists of time and protected as a dark secret by the... oh, ok, I did have the explanation here before, but was informed by older, wiser, minds (well not much older and possibly not all that wise) that it's a secret of the group and shouldn't be revealed on a public journal. So solve your own damn conspiracy!
2Movie of the Week. You should have been able to work that one out.