Film review: The Da Vinci Code.
While I was reading Dan Brown's stupendously popular novel about a year ago (because, be honest, who wasn't reading this book about a year ago?), I kept thinking to myself: "This would work so much better in a film." I turned out to be right, but only just.
As this is a film review, I'll be short about the book: Dan Brown is a story teller. He is not an auhor. The Da Vinci Code is a pretty decent twisty thriller written by a man who turns out not to be capable of writing attractive and captivating prose or dialogue - a promising premise lost on a mediocre author. However, the book turned out to be the biggest best seller in the history of literature (ahem), so I won't bother with summarising the plot.
While on the subject, summarising is exactly this film's biggest flaw. Where the book left more than enough room to explain all the clever little codes and secrets and conspiracies, this film, still clocking in at well over two and a half hours, constantly feels like a summarised version of events. It felt cramped; too many ideas in one film. This is exemplified by one unintentionally comical scene in the film; while in London, Langdon and Neveu have to find a library to do some research - while in the book they spend hours in said library, in the film Sophie borrows some random guy's cell phone and they figure it out on a bus.
The cast: Audrey Tautou, Paul Bettany and the ever-magnificent Sir Ian McKellen do a good job, though it is clear that they are stuggling to make something out of the downright hokey dialogue. Jean Reno simply is the French police detective Bezu Fache, which makes sense, because Dan Brown had him in mind when writing the character. Hanks, however, as the 'hero' Robert Langdon, seems a slight miscast - while Hanks is usually a reliable and downright excellent actor, in this film his performance felt flat and emotionless; despite the makeover (with Hanks looking like Jim Belushi's twin brother) he seemed incapable of filling Langdon's shoes, but then, it's not an easy task to fill shoes as one dimensional as Langdon's.
The biggest 'miscast', however, is the director Ron Howard; he does the undoable - he manages to make a film, chockfull of controversial conspiracies, seem dull, at times, and he does this by his ever-so-serious and utterly humourless approach to the material. Add to this the sleepy, nocturnal cinematography, and you end up with a film that is just a constant flow of expository clues that struggles to create any tension.
So, what does this film do right? What appealed to me were the flashbacks, to support the many theories that Sophie Neveu -and subsequently, the viewer- has to ingest; these CGI heavy sequences are magnificently merged with the normal footage. This is especially apparent as Langdon and Neveu go to Newton's tomb. The score of the film is also a pleasure to listen to, truly adding to the entire experience. And, it has to be confessed, the story is gripping and original enough to keep you on your toes, even if you have already read the book.
The Da Vinci Code is many things: cramped, overhyped, 'controversial', overdirected, to an extent miscast, and at times even dull-ish. But what it also is, is entertainment. In the end, it is a reasonable adaptation of a mediocre book. It's for the most part at times striking and occasionally well-made action thriller that contains some interesting theories. One thing is for sure: Dan Brown is laughing his ass off, all the way to the bank.
a 78 out of 100.
As this is a film review, I'll be short about the book: Dan Brown is a story teller. He is not an auhor. The Da Vinci Code is a pretty decent twisty thriller written by a man who turns out not to be capable of writing attractive and captivating prose or dialogue - a promising premise lost on a mediocre author. However, the book turned out to be the biggest best seller in the history of literature (ahem), so I won't bother with summarising the plot.
While on the subject, summarising is exactly this film's biggest flaw. Where the book left more than enough room to explain all the clever little codes and secrets and conspiracies, this film, still clocking in at well over two and a half hours, constantly feels like a summarised version of events. It felt cramped; too many ideas in one film. This is exemplified by one unintentionally comical scene in the film; while in London, Langdon and Neveu have to find a library to do some research - while in the book they spend hours in said library, in the film Sophie borrows some random guy's cell phone and they figure it out on a bus.
The cast: Audrey Tautou, Paul Bettany and the ever-magnificent Sir Ian McKellen do a good job, though it is clear that they are stuggling to make something out of the downright hokey dialogue. Jean Reno simply is the French police detective Bezu Fache, which makes sense, because Dan Brown had him in mind when writing the character. Hanks, however, as the 'hero' Robert Langdon, seems a slight miscast - while Hanks is usually a reliable and downright excellent actor, in this film his performance felt flat and emotionless; despite the makeover (with Hanks looking like Jim Belushi's twin brother) he seemed incapable of filling Langdon's shoes, but then, it's not an easy task to fill shoes as one dimensional as Langdon's.
The biggest 'miscast', however, is the director Ron Howard; he does the undoable - he manages to make a film, chockfull of controversial conspiracies, seem dull, at times, and he does this by his ever-so-serious and utterly humourless approach to the material. Add to this the sleepy, nocturnal cinematography, and you end up with a film that is just a constant flow of expository clues that struggles to create any tension.
So, what does this film do right? What appealed to me were the flashbacks, to support the many theories that Sophie Neveu -and subsequently, the viewer- has to ingest; these CGI heavy sequences are magnificently merged with the normal footage. This is especially apparent as Langdon and Neveu go to Newton's tomb. The score of the film is also a pleasure to listen to, truly adding to the entire experience. And, it has to be confessed, the story is gripping and original enough to keep you on your toes, even if you have already read the book.
The Da Vinci Code is many things: cramped, overhyped, 'controversial', overdirected, to an extent miscast, and at times even dull-ish. But what it also is, is entertainment. In the end, it is a reasonable adaptation of a mediocre book. It's for the most part at times striking and occasionally well-made action thriller that contains some interesting theories. One thing is for sure: Dan Brown is laughing his ass off, all the way to the bank.
a 78 out of 100.
6 Comments:
78 %?! 78? Have you lost your mind?
That movie was hardly worth a 7 or an 8, let alone the two of them combined (and yes, I do realise that would make 15 and not 78, but I mean it!)
Like I said, the film is heavily flawed, but that doesn't automatically make it a bad film.
It's actually exactly like the book: not very good in whatever way you look at it, but damn entertaining nonetheless.
What can I say, I'm a sucker for cryptology and conspiracies.
Cheers
Is it really that bad?
I heard that it's gonna be confusing to those who hasn't read the book. Is that right?
Like I said, the book offers a lot more room for explanation and exposition, where the film, at times, skims over the smaller details.
But still not very confusing at all.
Cheers
Climax of the film = when the nun got clobbered on the head.
5 stars. *****
Audrey Tautou is gorgeous, but Ron Howard still puts me off seeing this movie.
Post a Comment
<< Home