Despite the fact that advertisements for the Da Vinci Code have lined streets, malls and subways for the past month, the publicity for this movie that was most effective was undoubtedly thanks to the Catholic Church. Religion has fascinated people since the beginning of time, and for some reason, the idea of religious conspiracy has a far more intriguing grasp on people than religious faith. Not to mention that this film is based on a book that is the adult equivalent of Harry Potter. It is no wonder that film audience around the world flocked to this movie, disregarding the horrendous reviews it received from critics.
Before I go any further, I must say that I did read the book. I was completely enthralled by it, and was on the edge of my seat. Although, I do appreciate it as a piece of fiction (much like the Bible itself.) My biggest concern going into the film was what they were going to cut. Not that I minded one less puzzle or a missing line, but I just was a little wary that audiences would be able to follow it if they had not read it. After seeing the film with someone who had not read it, I realized that although I needed to fill him in on tiny aspects, he seemed to get the general gist of it. I wish they had explained some things slightly more (for instance, they show those shocking images of the ritual that Sophie, played by Audrey Tautou, walks in on, but never really explain what's going on.) If you are interested at all in the religious mythology and the conspiracy, I definitely recommend you read the book first. You can enjoy the movie for what it is without reading it.
That being said, let's move on.
Director Ron Howard did an odd job of starting the story off. Similar to the book, the film starts out with the murder of Jacques Sauniere (John-Pierre Marielle), which is fine, but the events that follow seem extremely awkward. Everything is spun quickly into this desperately overdramatic sequence of events. There was such a heavy weight given to the things they were talking about, but it was not giving that same meaning to the audience. We could tell that yes, these things were very important to these people on screen... but we did not feel this importance.
The performances were sub-par. Tom Hanks as the lead role of writer Robert Langdon was definitely miscast. He played the part as extremely dull, which in turn made points of the film extremely dull. And one thing that should have been completely removed was his claustrophobia. Howard tried to use it as a character builder by adding a childhood story to it, but in fact, it made it corny and unnecessary. Tautou was fine. Unfortunately, her character was not given much. The family aspect of the book which was such a big part, did not carry over to the film, and so it seemed much of what made Sophie's character interesting was left out. Ian McKellen, although not at all how I pictured this character, played grail historian Sir Leigh Teabing. He definitely was one of the more interesting parts of the movie. And I must say that I have never disliked Jean Reno, who plays Captain Fache, and I continue to agree with my belief. (I even liked him in Pink Panther.)
Although far from the fictional "masterpiece" that Dan Brown's novel has come to be, this film definitely did not deserve the scorn it got from all the critics. It is an interesting film, and definitely worth seeing. It is a nice change of pace from the lighthearted comedies and blockbuster action movies the summer will be jam packed with. There were some disappointing changes made from the book (the fate of Bishop Aringarosa, played by Alfred Molina, and the odd Priory ending,) but readers and non-readers alike can enjoy this film. I definitely recommend seeing it in theatres if you are really excited about it, but be prepared to sit for a long time.
Overall Grade: B-
No comments:
Post a Comment