|
| The Da Vinci Code - the movie | | Date Created: May 23, 2006, 11:20 PM |
 Hey, I've actually seen this movie...
The day after it opened. I almost never go to movies in the theater and never when they opened. But this one I've been waiting for since I read the book over two years ago.
First, there's a good reason why movie ticket sales are down and will gradually fade from importance just like CD sales. $9.50 for a ticket? You've got to be kidding. That's like paying $18 or $19 for a CD. It's not worth it. It's too easy to see it at home on a big screen TV. The movie theater thing just doesn't make it anymore.
The reason this movie was important to see was because it's the ultimate in the movie-made-from-a-book genre. And I don't care what anyone says, the book read like a movie screenplay. How could you not want to see who would get the movie rights and what they would do with it? Who should play Robert Langdon? Sophie? Teabing? It was great to see Jean Reno as Fache too.
The Hollywood PC politics and the religious controversy are added bonuses. Turns out PC politics has little to do with this movie. The critics in typical pack fashion have decided to dump on the movie. I suspect this is because the book has sold some fifty million copies. It's too popular and therefore too common. Tom Hanks and Ron Howard were due for a little cut-em-down-to-size too. Tom Cruise is certainly getting knocked off his pedestal.
The best review I've read was by Roger Ebert who only gave the movie three stars but hit the issues on the head. Find it here. He even got a jab in on people who believe the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by an airplane. Here's the key paragraph.
"Let us begin, then, by agreeing that The Da Vinci Code is a work of fiction. And that since everyone has read the novel, I need only give away one secret -- that the movie follows the book religiously. While the book is a potboiler written with little grace and style, it does supply an intriguing plot. Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist; he follows Brown's formula (exotic location, startling revelation, desperate chase scene, repeat as needed) and elevates it into a superior entertainment, with Tom Hanks as a theo-intellectual Indiana Jones."
Here's another cross-hook that lands.
"But one of the fascinations of the Catholic Church is that it is the oldest continuously surviving organization in the world, and that's why movies like "The Da Vinci Code" are more fascinating than thrillers about religions founded, for example, by a science-fiction author in the 1950s. All of the places in "The Da Vinci Code" really exist, though the last time I visited the Temple Church I was disappointed to find it closed for "repairs." A likely story."
And the clincher:
"Yes, the plot is absurd, but then most movie plots are absurd. That's what we pay to see. What Ron Howard brings to the material is tone and style, and an aura of mystery that is undeniable.
...The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations."
So what do I think of it?
As one who can approach it with no dog in the hunt -- that is, one with no religious beliefs at stake -- I agree with Ebert. The plot is absurd. Playing with history and particularly religious history is fascinating and dangerous but it makes a great page-turning book and THE MOVIE IS EXACTLY LIKE THE BOOK. That's all you need to know. A book can't be a movie and a movie can't be a book but these two Da Vinci Codes are about as close as it gets. If Howard had taken liberties with the book he would have been damned for not following it. How can you win?
And for you movie buffs out there -- did you check out the setups for a sequel? One is the mention of DNA and Mary Magdalene and the other is the mole or mark on Sophie's neck. Did I miss any?
PS. Find Robert Langdon |
|
|
|
|
|
