(no subject)
I'm sure everyone and their mother's great-uncle has seen the trailer for The Da Vinci Code at some point, but does no one else find it strange that there is a strategically placed burst of light obscuring Jacques Sauniere's naked corpse?
Like most of the free world, I've had my mind boggled by Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and as a result, had reasonably low expectations of the film adaptation. No, not even the promise of Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, and director Ron Howard could convince me that this adaptation would do Brown's dense, detail-heavy text justice. However, I did expect to be entertained. After all, what do you get when you throw in an albino monk, a cryptex or two, and an enormous glass pyramid if not pure entertainment?
Bottom line is, The Da Vinci Code is worth seeing. IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK. If you have not and you'd like a reasonable explanation of what's going on, please spend your $9 elsewhere. The film doesn't allow you the time to mull over the clues or digest the historical significance of what the hell everyone is so worked up about. Scene after scene of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou dashing all over Paris and London (she in giant black heels and he with his giant forehead) all while being pursued, stalked, and shot at by French police and the aforementioned albino monk will most likely leave you cold unless you've read the book.
Predictably, Ian McKellen steals the show with his off-the-wall portrayal of Sir Leigh Teabing. Paul Bettany is likewise brilliant as Silas, the tortured, zealous monk. Alfred Molina barely gets the chance to make an impression as Bishop Aringarosa and Tom Hanks does his best as Robert Langdon (despite his enormous forehead), while Audrey Tatou stares wide-eyed for much of the film as Sophie Neveu. There's not a weak performance to be seen, yet the script is so rushed and the adaptation so spotty that the film never really makes a statement outside of the startling implications found in Brown's novel. Fortunately for the studio, a movie like this one doesn't need to have a deep, philosophical significance: the hype alone is enough to get millions of moviegoers to cough up. If you're one of the millions, do yourself a favor and check out Dan Brown's novel before you do. It'll save you the trouble of gazing forlornly at Tom Hanks' gigantic forehead for two-and-a-half hours, searching for answers that the script doesn't provide.
Like most of the free world, I've had my mind boggled by Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code and as a result, had reasonably low expectations of the film adaptation. No, not even the promise of Tom Hanks, Ian McKellen, Paul Bettany, Alfred Molina, and director Ron Howard could convince me that this adaptation would do Brown's dense, detail-heavy text justice. However, I did expect to be entertained. After all, what do you get when you throw in an albino monk, a cryptex or two, and an enormous glass pyramid if not pure entertainment?
Bottom line is, The Da Vinci Code is worth seeing. IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK. If you have not and you'd like a reasonable explanation of what's going on, please spend your $9 elsewhere. The film doesn't allow you the time to mull over the clues or digest the historical significance of what the hell everyone is so worked up about. Scene after scene of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou dashing all over Paris and London (she in giant black heels and he with his giant forehead) all while being pursued, stalked, and shot at by French police and the aforementioned albino monk will most likely leave you cold unless you've read the book.
Predictably, Ian McKellen steals the show with his off-the-wall portrayal of Sir Leigh Teabing. Paul Bettany is likewise brilliant as Silas, the tortured, zealous monk. Alfred Molina barely gets the chance to make an impression as Bishop Aringarosa and Tom Hanks does his best as Robert Langdon (despite his enormous forehead), while Audrey Tatou stares wide-eyed for much of the film as Sophie Neveu. There's not a weak performance to be seen, yet the script is so rushed and the adaptation so spotty that the film never really makes a statement outside of the startling implications found in Brown's novel. Fortunately for the studio, a movie like this one doesn't need to have a deep, philosophical significance: the hype alone is enough to get millions of moviegoers to cough up. If you're one of the millions, do yourself a favor and check out Dan Brown's novel before you do. It'll save you the trouble of gazing forlornly at Tom Hanks' gigantic forehead for two-and-a-half hours, searching for answers that the script doesn't provide.