| |
|
Ok, so, I'm sure the vast majority of you who are going to see the movie while it's in theatres have seen it by now, so I'm going to have hella spoilers here. If, for some reason, you haven't seen it and plan to, consider yourself warned.
It was a passably good movie; nothing that will ever be a classic, and certainly not one of Ron Howard's best, but it was entertaining. I'm not sure I understand a good deal of the complaints that seem to be coming from the mainstream critics, who decry the movie's lack of action and lots o' words. Did you guys even read the book? It's a slow-moving thriller with very little action and lots of dialogue! It's Theology 201 meets Sneakers!
No, my main problems with the movie come in where it deviated from the book. I don't believe in slavish devotion to the source material when adapting it to the screen, 9 times out of 10 it will make for a very bad movie. I make fun of my fellow Harry Potter fans on a regular basis for their constant nit-picking of every film. ^_^
The problem with DaVinci Code is that it strictly follows the book in parts that could stand a bit of revision, and then completely alters characters in ways that necessitate further, and stupid, story changes. Examples, you say? Okay!
*spoilers begin here. You have been warned, again.*
-Sophie's role in solving any of the puzzles / riddles throughout the movie is almost completely eliminated, as though it wasn't small enough in the book already. It's as though she exists simply to take on the role of Messiah-lots-removed at the end.
-Robert is turned into a near-complete doubter of the Magdalene-as-Grail theory, the existence of the Priory of Sion, the evil of the early Catholic Church vs. the evil of the pagans, whether the sky is blue, if the Pope wears those goofy-ass hats when he's out of sight... it's all well and good to have someone represent the other side of the fence, but they took it too far. I wouldn't have been surprised to see movie-Robert-Langon arguing whether the grass is really green. It's too jarring of a change from his character in the book.
-The creation of a whole new level of conspiracy in the Catholic Church (the "Shadow Council"? wtf??) was fucking DUMB. Dear god, is the movie industry so afraid of the Catholic Church being offended that it can't even call them on 1000-year-old bastardry without being afraid of them getting all pissy, especially in a movie that's destined to piss them off based on a book that's already pissed them off?
-Related to the Shadow Concil turd: Bishop Aringarosa and Silas, The Amazing Albino Killer Monk have been elevated from decently written, used-but-still-basically-good pawns in Teabing's obsessive grail quest to out-and-out asshats. The essential innocence of these two was one of the few nicely subtle points in Brown's novel, it was a shame it got chopped because american audiences can't do without their unambiguous Bad Guys.
So, you know, fairly entertaining book becomes moderately entertaining movie with some really grating moments that should have been a LOT better in the hands of a director of Howard's caliber. |
|
|
