I know there are some of you out there that haven’t been able to catch the movie yet.
I suggest to those that haven’t read the book to go and watch the movie before you actually read the book.
Why you may ask?
Well its ‘cos the book version and the movie version often don’t run along the same lines.
Okay, the movie did maintain the plot at the beginning but eventually towards the end, I was swamped with a resounding “HUH? Where in the world did that come from?”
For those that have read the book and watched the movie, you’ll get what I mean.
I can’t really blame Ron Howard.
Dan Brown played the greater part in producing the screenplay for the movie. So please don’t go and get all huffy with Mr. Ron Howard. He’s a fabulous director. And I think he did a fabulous job.
Okay, as a literature student who often has to rely on movies to support our understanding of the novel, the movie often turns out to be a disappointment. You will have to eventually turn back to the book. Cos the movie turns out to be (sometimes) a great wash out.
This movie is great for history buffs. Especially religious history buffs. I’ve been fascinated with this genre since the first time I ever caught Charlton Heston in “Ben-Hur”. I have no idea how many times I’ve watched “Ben-Hur” already.
Point being, history buffs, go catch it.
Okay, back to my take on the movie version of “The Da Vinci Code”.
The movie helped to give me a greater understanding to the parts of the book that I couldn’t understand. Like how Bezu Fache was involved in the whole scheme of things. Well then again some people might like to disagree with me. But then again, how you interpret the movie is entirely up to the individual, yes?
But I digress.
Movies are a great way to help you give visual aid to certain parts of the book that you weren’t able to imagine in your mind. Like the part where Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu got off the plane in the hangar at London.
But most importantly, what the movie failed to capture was the intensity of the lead character Robert Langdon. I don’t think Tom Hanks fulfilled the role. Somehow there was something big that was lacking in his performance as Professor Robert Langdon.
Audrey Tautou gave a passable performance. Nothing to WOW about.
To me, the characters that gave passion in their roles was the guy who played Silas (can’t remember his name now) and of course Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing. He really acts like the crazed Grail enthusiast he’s supposed to be.
And is it me or is the guy that acts as Silas, (who was naked at one point in the movie) is always naked in the movie that he acts in? I don’t mean Firewall where he acted alongside Harrison Ford but the other movie where he starred in together with Heath Ledger. What’s it called? A Knight’s Tale, yes that’s the one!
If you would kindly remember, he played Geoffrey Chaucer in that movie and was first introduced to us as the guy who was butt naked walking the middle of the dirt road. He was extremely hilarious in that movie and in this movie, my God! Excellent delivery of Silas! I couldn’t have been more revolted when he fastened the cilice on his thigh and whipped himself. I couldn’t imagine a better actor to fill his shoes.
So don’t watch movies just based on the plot itself. Characters are also part of the movie so enjoy their performance. Because movies are just an extension of acting on stage.
I remember many months ago when I first caught the trailer to the movie, I couldn’t conceal my disappointment when Tom Hanks was cast to be the lead role. But I cast away all the doubts before watching the movie and still I wasn’t moved by his delivery. It was lukewarm. Truly. I wanted to be moved like the time I watched “Braveheart”. Tom Hanks should just stick to his romantic comedy genre.
Overall, I guess the movie deserves just a 3 out of 5 rating.
When will the next “Braveheart-like” movie come out I wonder?
Fin.
No comments:
Post a Comment