Now here's the big truth: the screen version of THE DA VINCI CODE was not as good as I expected it to be.
The book by Dan Brown was certainly phenomenal. But the movie wasn't.
First, I asked myself, "what happened to Robert Langdon's personality?
" I felt that there was no connection between RL and Sophie Neveu. The way RL looked at SN in the book was ignored in the film. I wonder what happen to RL in the movie who was a "sought-after bachelor" in the book. He didn't look like such in the movie. He looked like a boring professor who wanted to do nothing but to solve puzzles. He did it so quickly-- he did it in the absence of emotion.
There is a danger that those who haven't read the novel won't be able to follow the story well. The movie was like a long documentary with few dramatic insertions. Ron Howard (the director) used a lot of flashbacks and documentary insertions to explain the controversy. There were more dialogues than there was action in the movie so it became quite boring.
The book by Dan Brown was certainly phenomenal. But the movie wasn't.
First, I asked myself, "what happened to Robert Langdon's personality?
" I felt that there was no connection between RL and Sophie Neveu. The way RL looked at SN in the book was ignored in the film. I wonder what happen to RL in the movie who was a "sought-after bachelor" in the book. He didn't look like such in the movie. He looked like a boring professor who wanted to do nothing but to solve puzzles. He did it so quickly-- he did it in the absence of emotion.There is a danger that those who haven't read the novel won't be able to follow the story well. The movie was like a long documentary with few dramatic insertions. Ron Howard (the director) used a lot of flashbacks and documentary insertions to explain the controversy. There were more dialogues than there was action in the movie so it became quite boring.
The story, actually, was superb, since the fiction was said to have been anchored on facts (?) but the movie prevented the audience from enjoying the drama of RL's life with a new woman, SN. I consider her a new woman to come in RL's life because I think the first woman he met was Vittoria Vetra, the one he knew in ANGELS AND DEMONS.
The film attempted to include so many information, yet it failed to capture some important details. That, I think, was the main problem. The director wanted to take all info instead of focusing on the dramatic side of solving the puzzle. Some points were not properly explained like the scene wherein Sophie was telling RL that she saw her so-called grandfather doing a "spiritual act." The movie should have responsibly explained what that "spiritual act" was in relation to the Priory of Sion.
But I have to commend the performance of the actor who portrayed Silas. British actor Paul Bettany gave life to the real Silas that Dan Brown described.
By the way, the ending in the movie was different from the way Dan Brown ended his novel. I wonder why. Did the director intentionally omit the romantic side of the film? Did the screenplay writer think only of the controversial side of the movie? The screen version could have been great if it focused only on the best side of RL's life as a symbologist and as a bachelor.
Well, despite the criticisms, I still enjoyed watching because it seemed like I was reviewing the novel minus the action-packed adventure in the book. Of course, I also enjoyed looking at the paintings on big screen and I definitely like the experience of seeing RL and SN plus Sir Leigh Teabing come into life.
The next movie to look forward to? ANGELS AND DEMONS.
Ooppss, the best thing I like about watching at Robinson's was the fact that after over two decades, I've had a chance to watch in theaters with my mother. The last time we watched a movie together was in 1984 (if I'm not mistaken) when I was still a kid -- we watched SUPERMAN then at now abandoned theater in Malabon.
We watched THE DA VINCI CODE last Saturday with my husband, and with Vivien and James. That was our first time to be together on a theater.
Comments
»