The DaVinci Code
May. 20th, 2006 11:49 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
roguem
Director: Ron Howard
Writer: Akiva Goldsman
Producers: Brian Grazer, John Calley
Actors:
Tom Hanks as Robert
Audrey Tatou as Sophie
Ian McKellen as Leigh
Genre: Thriller
Plot: A symbologist is called into France’s Louvre museum when a man there is discovered dead with symbols cut all over himself. A cute cop (no, not Jean Reno, although he’s pretty cute himself) joins him on his trek to find the meaning behind it all, and to figure out why Tom Hanks’ hair looks so weird here. Oh yeah, religion is involved in the film’s mystery and so is history and a whole bunch of other stuff…that don’t interest me. Da Vinci coding ensues.
From JoBlo.com
First I have to say that I am not religious in any way, so I am sorry if something I write here might offend anybody.
I never thought I would say this, but I liked the book better... and I didn't really like the book in the first place. Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman pretty much had a ready script with the book, all that was needed was to make it into a script, but apparantly this was too hard for them. There have been changes from the book, changes that were completely idiotic, most notecably the ending, which I maybe wasn't too crazy about in the book either, but the movie ending is just so ridicoulous.
Now to be honest I don't think I would have enjoyed the movie any more or less if I hadn't read the book. The material drags along and I couldn't really give a damn about the characters involved. For me it was less engaging than the book I have to say.
Acting wasn't the best either, Tom Hanks seemes to be bored out of his mind, Audrey Tautou didn't seem to know what to think, and Silas looked more like he was addicted to clown makeup than an albino. Paul Bettany didn't really deliver either acting wise, he seemed as if he was in a haze. The only actor that seemed to at least try to give it his all was Ian McKellen, but then again he's very good even on his off days. His was the only character I enjoyed in the film, that I felt had some kind of depth to him.
I enojyed the theories put forth in the film though, that Jesus was married, was a human just like the rest of us, with wife and child. The bible was written so long after his death, that I find this easier to swallow than what's written in the bible, I have to say. However, these things that might have helped the movie gain some ground, just fell in the cracks and drowned in what was supposed to be suspense. Calling this film a thriller is just silly as I wasn't thrilled at any point during the film.
The film was also way to long. 149 min is way to long to expect people to sit still for this. Towards the end I was going through how many more things would happen before the film would finally be over, according to what I had read. It was just too much. They could have easily made this a two hour film and much more engaging, the flashbacks were awkwardly done, and I was left thinking that we really didn't need Silas' flashbacks as he really is a minor character.
The style and cutting of the movie also felt awkward to me, something that pops up in the first scene. The scene shows Sauniere running for his life, this is intercut with a very calm and collected Robert Langdon getting ready to make a speech, to hold a lecture in an auditorium. It was just so badly cut together, and totally ruined the flow of what should have been a suspenseful scene.
When it comes right down to it the only things I enjoyed about this film was Ian McKellen, the soundtrack and the theories put forth.
Bottom line, if you really want to see this film, wait for the DVD and chip in for it with some mates.
Snippets from other reviews (that I agree with):
JoBlo.com: Tom Hanks was “ayight”, but nothing more than that. His character is actually kinda boring and considering that he’s the centerpiece of this bloated affair, I guess that may be part of why I felt the film to be, well…“bloated”. Doc Ock’s character wasn’t all that interesting either and could have been cut down dramatically.
George Floyd (GF9): Sir Ian McKellan too, it totally fantastic, and really steals most scene's he appears in. He delivers some great one liners too - a real character actor playing a real character.
Simon Cobb: Unfortunately, for me those good points are outweighed by a wooden dialogue which poor old Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have virtually no hope of making anything meaningful from. There is simply no chemistry between the 2 leading characters and some of their lines made me cringe because they were so embarrassingly weak. At no point did I feel involved in what should be a powerful and emotional story; it simply failed to engross me in any way. Bored is a strong word, but I was verging on it by the end.
Jeffrey M. Anderson: Ostensibly aimed at six year-olds and mental vegetables, the script explains everything twice, spelling out the big words three times, so that even if you've never heard of Jesus or Mary Magdalene you can still figure out this story.
Josh Bell: Every time Langdon starts to educate Sophie, the urge to tune out is overwhelming, and even with visual aids, the informational asides are uninteresting and, worse yet, not nearly as informative as those in the book.
Angela Baldassarre: “The Da Vinci Code” is essentially just another average Hollywood thriller. Nothing more.
I never thought I would say this, but I liked the book better... and I didn't really like the book in the first place. Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman pretty much had a ready script with the book, all that was needed was to make it into a script, but apparantly this was too hard for them. There have been changes from the book, changes that were completely idiotic, most notecably the ending, which I maybe wasn't too crazy about in the book either, but the movie ending is just so ridicoulous.
Now to be honest I don't think I would have enjoyed the movie any more or less if I hadn't read the book. The material drags along and I couldn't really give a damn about the characters involved. For me it was less engaging than the book I have to say.
Acting wasn't the best either, Tom Hanks seemes to be bored out of his mind, Audrey Tautou didn't seem to know what to think, and Silas looked more like he was addicted to clown makeup than an albino. Paul Bettany didn't really deliver either acting wise, he seemed as if he was in a haze. The only actor that seemed to at least try to give it his all was Ian McKellen, but then again he's very good even on his off days. His was the only character I enjoyed in the film, that I felt had some kind of depth to him.
I enojyed the theories put forth in the film though, that Jesus was married, was a human just like the rest of us, with wife and child. The bible was written so long after his death, that I find this easier to swallow than what's written in the bible, I have to say. However, these things that might have helped the movie gain some ground, just fell in the cracks and drowned in what was supposed to be suspense. Calling this film a thriller is just silly as I wasn't thrilled at any point during the film.
The film was also way to long. 149 min is way to long to expect people to sit still for this. Towards the end I was going through how many more things would happen before the film would finally be over, according to what I had read. It was just too much. They could have easily made this a two hour film and much more engaging, the flashbacks were awkwardly done, and I was left thinking that we really didn't need Silas' flashbacks as he really is a minor character.
The style and cutting of the movie also felt awkward to me, something that pops up in the first scene. The scene shows Sauniere running for his life, this is intercut with a very calm and collected Robert Langdon getting ready to make a speech, to hold a lecture in an auditorium. It was just so badly cut together, and totally ruined the flow of what should have been a suspenseful scene.
When it comes right down to it the only things I enjoyed about this film was Ian McKellen, the soundtrack and the theories put forth.
Bottom line, if you really want to see this film, wait for the DVD and chip in for it with some mates.
Snippets from other reviews (that I agree with):
JoBlo.com: Tom Hanks was “ayight”, but nothing more than that. His character is actually kinda boring and considering that he’s the centerpiece of this bloated affair, I guess that may be part of why I felt the film to be, well…“bloated”. Doc Ock’s character wasn’t all that interesting either and could have been cut down dramatically.
George Floyd (GF9): Sir Ian McKellan too, it totally fantastic, and really steals most scene's he appears in. He delivers some great one liners too - a real character actor playing a real character.
Simon Cobb: Unfortunately, for me those good points are outweighed by a wooden dialogue which poor old Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou have virtually no hope of making anything meaningful from. There is simply no chemistry between the 2 leading characters and some of their lines made me cringe because they were so embarrassingly weak. At no point did I feel involved in what should be a powerful and emotional story; it simply failed to engross me in any way. Bored is a strong word, but I was verging on it by the end.
Jeffrey M. Anderson: Ostensibly aimed at six year-olds and mental vegetables, the script explains everything twice, spelling out the big words three times, so that even if you've never heard of Jesus or Mary Magdalene you can still figure out this story.
Josh Bell: Every time Langdon starts to educate Sophie, the urge to tune out is overwhelming, and even with visual aids, the informational asides are uninteresting and, worse yet, not nearly as informative as those in the book.
Angela Baldassarre: “The Da Vinci Code” is essentially just another average Hollywood thriller. Nothing more.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Hahahaha...
Date: 2006-05-20 02:25 pm (UTC)Re: Hahahaha...
Date: 2006-05-20 02:45 pm (UTC)Glad you enjoyed the review though. ;)
Oh man!
Date: 2006-06-09 08:05 pm (UTC)Re: Oh man!
Date: 2006-06-09 10:42 pm (UTC)I got to hung up in the stereotypes and prejudice view of people from Easten Europe.
Now you know...
Date: 2006-06-12 05:20 pm (UTC)Never having been to Europe I didn't see it. Huh.
Re: Now you know...
Date: 2006-06-13 10:29 pm (UTC)I watched it with my parents, and since my mom is from Eastern Europe, we tend to notice stuff like that a lot more than other people do. It was just the whole set up... like what Tom is wearing in his first scene, it's so stereotypical.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 02:28 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 02:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 06:29 pm (UTC)I'm uber critical.
Ah, that explains it. Hans Zimmer usually does good.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 06:01 pm (UTC)Some people from the churches around here have agreed that this movie is great for discussion. Can't say anything yet about the movie as I haven't seen it. But you're wrong about one thing thoug. Silas isn't a minor character.
Have you heard what Sir Ian said about Jesus marriage? The Catholics should be happy he married, cause then they could be sure he wasn't gay.. (Homofili og Katolikker er ikke en god match)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 06:32 pm (UTC)I know Silas isn't a minor character, but that's in the book. He didn't flow as well, and he felt like a moinor character in the context of the film, which made the flashbacks (which weren't like in the book) unnecessary.
I did hear that, think it's well said.
I find it all kind of silly. If the catholic church hadn't spoken out so strongly against it, nobody would have cared as much. They've worked against what they wanted and given the book and movie free publicity.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-20 08:26 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-21 10:40 am (UTC)The characters are really underdeveloped, and that kind of sticks out like a sore thumb in the film. I really didn't care what happened to them at all.
Thx. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-21 04:32 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-21 10:41 am (UTC)Save your money for X3, that sounds like a solid plan. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-22 08:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-05-23 01:35 pm (UTC)I've started saving too.