WARNING: Some spoilers ahead
I saw The Da Vinci Code last night with my co-workers (free for all of us – thanks, boss!). I liked it. I’m puzzled why it got such a low Tomato Meter rating of 17%. That’s like Deuce Bigalow territory. I mean a lot of reviewers thought it was bad. I could say, in keeping with the spirit of the movie, that it’s a conspiracy! The Opus Dei used their long reach and influence to coerce film critics in giving it a bad review!
But seriously, I’m thinking the reviewers, especially the ones who read the novel, had such high expectations that the movie just fell short. I guess that happens. I haven’t read the novel myself and maybe that’s good. I bought the paperback book for $4.95 at Costco last week but I haven’t had the time to read it. As a mystery movie, it was decently made. As for the controversial claims made in the book, yes, they were all there (or so I’m told by a co-worker who’s a big Dan Brown fan). But you know what? The claims were made by a character who turned out to be a nut job. So the feeling I got, and I’m thinking others did too, is why believe this guy? In addition, the protagonist lecturer played by Tom Hanks was presented as the level-headed one who somewhat countered the outlandish claims made by this person.
The main complaint of movie critics is that the movie was tedious and too long. To me, Audrey Tautou’s pretty countenance sure made it easier to bear. As for Tom Hanks, doesn’t he resemble Kyle MacLachlan in In Justice?
Although I haven’t read the book, I have a feeling Ron Howard did the best he could in adapting the book to film. He used enough cinematic devices to move the film along. It would’ve been better fitting if Oliver Stone directed the movie though. He’s no stranger to putting forward conspiracy theories. And if his film tanks, he could always blame the fundies.
Just got home from watching the movie. Like you, I too like it. I didn’t find it dragging as some critics have mentioned. I admit some parts could have been tightly edited but not annoying enough that it affects ones viewing pleasure. I thought each scence brought something to the movie and yes Audrey’s subdued performance lent a calming addition to a movie that’s full of intertwined facts.
Yes, Ron Howard did his best in adapting the book to film. Now that you’ve seen the movie, I wonder what your opinion would be of the book.
Yup, if I ever get to it. I’m still trying to finish another populist book, The Purpose Driven Life. Hey if that had a movie, I’d also watch it first.
I get the feeling that Ron Howard sanitized the movie adaptation a bit. Is this true? Is this the real reason critics didn’t like the movie? It wasn’t as in-your-face as the book perhaps?
Aye, I haven’t finished TPDL yet. I should have just joined the discussion groups at church.
To answer your questions, I think everyone had high expectations of the movie and for some reason, it fell short of those expectations. The movie was true to the book but it didn’t feel as compelling to watch as it was to read. I think the scene where Langdon plays devil’s advocate (well, sort of) towards the end of the film was not in the book. That’s the sanitized portion.
We actually hosted a TPDL discussion group at our home. We were one of many throughout the church. I’ve been meaning to write about it. Soon…