Post by ZapRowsdower on May 23, 2006 3:25:16 GMT -5
So Dark the Con of Man
I first heard of Dan Brown's novel around the time Disney's National Treasure was being released. The historically-inspired treasure hunt scenario intrigued me. I was very satisfied with National Treasure (Mickey Mouse as it was, pardon the pun), but had to check out this Da Vinci Code that caused it so much criticism.
A couple months ago, I started reading the novel. I could not put it down. It was a fun read - sometimes insightful, other times farfetched, but overall I'd be lying if I said I didn't love the book.
So now it gets the film treatment, and the Vatican gets its panties all up in a bunch. Why? Because it makes some suggestions about the life of Christ that are different from the Bible. I guess "Fiction" must be a new word to these people. So came the controversy, the protests, and the Cannes Film Festival. Yes, that infamous premiere where audience members allegedly booed/laughed at the movie, emphasis on allegedly. Critics panned it, too. But how can a movie with such top notch casting and a fine director to boot be all that bad?
The answer to that: it's not. It would seem the critics were put off by another religiously-inspired story and quite possibly alienating their Catholic readers (who were probably still pretty pissed off over their cruel treatment of the Passion of the Christ). No, the film was actually very well-made, thought-provoking and like the book, very fun.
Complain all you want about Tom Hanks's hair, I thought it was awesome. As for his performance, it was pretty ordinary, which is fitting because the character Robert Langdon is a pretty ordinary guy. I felt most of the performances were well done. Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina - I really couldn't have picked a better cast. Especially -- and this is the one thing which I will agree with the critics on -- Sir Ian MacKellen does in fact steal the show. Not a particularly difficult feat, considering his character in the book made the book that much more interesting.
As for Akiva Goldsman's screenwriting... considering the film was about 2 1/2 hours long, there's still a lot of good material in the book that wasn't covered in the film. GOOD MOVE. The reason for that is if all that material were included, the pacing of the film would have been hurt, and the movie would have had its running time extended at least another hour. And Ron Howard's direction was fine. Not much to say about it, other than the man did a fine job.
My one complaint about the movie (this would apply to the book as well), is that there's not a lot of character development going around. I mean, sure, we got the growing relationship between Robert and Sophie, but by the end of the movie, you really don't know much about these characters other than they're really smart. This factor contributed to Hanks' shockingly ordinary performance.
But overall, this was a very good movie. Unless you're a hardcore Catholic who protested the movie Dogma, you should have fun watching the movie - especially if you enjoyed the book. Every so often, the critics will shove off a good movie without even realizing it. This is one of those movies.
Story: 10/10
Acting: 9/10
Direction: 18/20
Screenwriting: 16/20
88%
EDIT: Give me a break, I wrote this at 1am.
I first heard of Dan Brown's novel around the time Disney's National Treasure was being released. The historically-inspired treasure hunt scenario intrigued me. I was very satisfied with National Treasure (Mickey Mouse as it was, pardon the pun), but had to check out this Da Vinci Code that caused it so much criticism.
A couple months ago, I started reading the novel. I could not put it down. It was a fun read - sometimes insightful, other times farfetched, but overall I'd be lying if I said I didn't love the book.
So now it gets the film treatment, and the Vatican gets its panties all up in a bunch. Why? Because it makes some suggestions about the life of Christ that are different from the Bible. I guess "Fiction" must be a new word to these people. So came the controversy, the protests, and the Cannes Film Festival. Yes, that infamous premiere where audience members allegedly booed/laughed at the movie, emphasis on allegedly. Critics panned it, too. But how can a movie with such top notch casting and a fine director to boot be all that bad?
The answer to that: it's not. It would seem the critics were put off by another religiously-inspired story and quite possibly alienating their Catholic readers (who were probably still pretty pissed off over their cruel treatment of the Passion of the Christ). No, the film was actually very well-made, thought-provoking and like the book, very fun.
Complain all you want about Tom Hanks's hair, I thought it was awesome. As for his performance, it was pretty ordinary, which is fitting because the character Robert Langdon is a pretty ordinary guy. I felt most of the performances were well done. Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina - I really couldn't have picked a better cast. Especially -- and this is the one thing which I will agree with the critics on -- Sir Ian MacKellen does in fact steal the show. Not a particularly difficult feat, considering his character in the book made the book that much more interesting.
As for Akiva Goldsman's screenwriting... considering the film was about 2 1/2 hours long, there's still a lot of good material in the book that wasn't covered in the film. GOOD MOVE. The reason for that is if all that material were included, the pacing of the film would have been hurt, and the movie would have had its running time extended at least another hour. And Ron Howard's direction was fine. Not much to say about it, other than the man did a fine job.
My one complaint about the movie (this would apply to the book as well), is that there's not a lot of character development going around. I mean, sure, we got the growing relationship between Robert and Sophie, but by the end of the movie, you really don't know much about these characters other than they're really smart. This factor contributed to Hanks' shockingly ordinary performance.
But overall, this was a very good movie. Unless you're a hardcore Catholic who protested the movie Dogma, you should have fun watching the movie - especially if you enjoyed the book. Every so often, the critics will shove off a good movie without even realizing it. This is one of those movies.
Story: 10/10
Acting: 9/10
Direction: 18/20
Screenwriting: 16/20
88%
EDIT: Give me a break, I wrote this at 1am.
Like albinos are used as villains in movies as often as say, people from the middle east or Europeans. 
