The Da Vinci Code
Hold the phone, what
happened here? The movie event of the year? Not in my opinion. I went
and saw the Dan Brown Blockbuster Novel turned wannabe Blockbuster
Movie and am sad to say I was disappointed. I was expecting a lot
more.
When I read the book last year, it was just after they announced that a movie of it would be made. I loved the book. I devoured it in 2 days. Sure Dan Brown isn't the worlds greatest writer but he paced his story well, and it kept me as well as the 40 million other readers turning the pages I'm sure with it's intricate plotting and skill of jumping from one location to the next.
Then as more news of the movie spread out, things were looking good. Ron Howard was directing, Tom Hanks was starring and joining him was a stellar cast who I could picture well in each of their roles.
But as the saying goes "The Book is always better than the movie" which in this case was true again. This film was slow, and not because it was 2 1/2 hours long, but the pace of it was slow. The photography, in my opinion, was poor, making it look like the film was made on the run, as if they didn't have enough time to make it look as good as it could have or should have looked concerning the talent involved.
As far as the performances go, Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany played their parts well. Jean Reno seemed out of place and as for Tom Hanks, well I am surprised at how lacklustre his effort was. I've always been a Tom Hanks fan, as he can play just about any role and brings a special something to each character he plays. Has he lost that touch?
Overall, I think a lot of people will be disappointed with the movie. It's been hyped up well enough, with it's controversial subject matter and the fact that the novel is still selling mountains of copies. But perhaps because it was such a good book, it should have stayed a book, because no Hollywood movie, no matter how well crafted or acted can compete with our own imagination.
It's a shame really. Oh well!
When I read the book last year, it was just after they announced that a movie of it would be made. I loved the book. I devoured it in 2 days. Sure Dan Brown isn't the worlds greatest writer but he paced his story well, and it kept me as well as the 40 million other readers turning the pages I'm sure with it's intricate plotting and skill of jumping from one location to the next.
Then as more news of the movie spread out, things were looking good. Ron Howard was directing, Tom Hanks was starring and joining him was a stellar cast who I could picture well in each of their roles.
But as the saying goes "The Book is always better than the movie" which in this case was true again. This film was slow, and not because it was 2 1/2 hours long, but the pace of it was slow. The photography, in my opinion, was poor, making it look like the film was made on the run, as if they didn't have enough time to make it look as good as it could have or should have looked concerning the talent involved.
As far as the performances go, Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany played their parts well. Jean Reno seemed out of place and as for Tom Hanks, well I am surprised at how lacklustre his effort was. I've always been a Tom Hanks fan, as he can play just about any role and brings a special something to each character he plays. Has he lost that touch?
Overall, I think a lot of people will be disappointed with the movie. It's been hyped up well enough, with it's controversial subject matter and the fact that the novel is still selling mountains of copies. But perhaps because it was such a good book, it should have stayed a book, because no Hollywood movie, no matter how well crafted or acted can compete with our own imagination.
It's a shame really. Oh well!
No comments:
Post a Comment