![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Da Vinci Code (2006 movie)
I went to see The Da Vinci Code with my parents on the weekend, despite loathing the book. Well, honestly, I don't loathe it the way I've loathed other books; I just think that the author is lazy and that the prose is horrific. I wouldn't be so irked about the whole Grail conspiracy theory had Dan Brown not included a disclaimer in the front saying that things were indeed truthful and had his theory of the sacred feminine not been so rage-inducing.
That said, I was actually rather entertained by the movie, largely because Ron Howard is a much better movie-maker than Dan Brown is a writer. It's too bad the movie sticks so closely to the book (and yes, this may be the first and last time you will ever hear me say this), because the visuals of the movie are lovely. There's the opening sequence in which a man is being pursued through the Louvre, and the camera lingers on all the famous paintings for just a little.
There are the flashbacks to the Crusades and assorted other things in a muted sepia, knights in armor, cathedrals, marble effigies and etc.
Audrey Tautou is beautiful, despite having nothing to do.
So... yes, I like it as a movie in that it is beautiful to look at and a solid piece of filmmaking, with a wonderfully fun performance by Ian McKlellan.
Sadly, said solid piece of filmmaking is saddled with the book, which is, frankly, ridiculous. First, I nearly snickered through the entire opening, because the thought of a man shot through the gut having enough time to plant clues throughout the museum as he was bleeding his life out was ludicrous. The director tries to make things work, but honestly, there's only so much you can do when the villain of the piece is a fanatic, masochistic albino dressed in monk's robes who routinely flagellates himself while muttering in Latin.
Albino.
Yeah.
Just typing that makes me snicker. Also, I somehow doubt that Dan Brown realized how ludicrous said fanatic, masochistic albino in medieval monk's robes looks talking on a cell phone, even if the conversation is in Latin (or Italian? I can't tell).
And the entire explanation of the conspiracy still makes me want to laugh because it's so nonsensical. Thankfully, the script cuts a lot of the blathering that goes on in the book about the sacred feminine and blah blah blah, and there's less taking the conspiracy at face value.
So... pretty movie with much talent involved, and despite the many attempts to circumvent the awful, awful prose of the book (I mean... Mary Sue awful), still gets bogged down by the plot.
That said, I was actually rather entertained by the movie, largely because Ron Howard is a much better movie-maker than Dan Brown is a writer. It's too bad the movie sticks so closely to the book (and yes, this may be the first and last time you will ever hear me say this), because the visuals of the movie are lovely. There's the opening sequence in which a man is being pursued through the Louvre, and the camera lingers on all the famous paintings for just a little.
There are the flashbacks to the Crusades and assorted other things in a muted sepia, knights in armor, cathedrals, marble effigies and etc.
Audrey Tautou is beautiful, despite having nothing to do.
So... yes, I like it as a movie in that it is beautiful to look at and a solid piece of filmmaking, with a wonderfully fun performance by Ian McKlellan.
Sadly, said solid piece of filmmaking is saddled with the book, which is, frankly, ridiculous. First, I nearly snickered through the entire opening, because the thought of a man shot through the gut having enough time to plant clues throughout the museum as he was bleeding his life out was ludicrous. The director tries to make things work, but honestly, there's only so much you can do when the villain of the piece is a fanatic, masochistic albino dressed in monk's robes who routinely flagellates himself while muttering in Latin.
Albino.
Yeah.
Just typing that makes me snicker. Also, I somehow doubt that Dan Brown realized how ludicrous said fanatic, masochistic albino in medieval monk's robes looks talking on a cell phone, even if the conversation is in Latin (or Italian? I can't tell).
And the entire explanation of the conspiracy still makes me want to laugh because it's so nonsensical. Thankfully, the script cuts a lot of the blathering that goes on in the book about the sacred feminine and blah blah blah, and there's less taking the conspiracy at face value.
So... pretty movie with much talent involved, and despite the many attempts to circumvent the awful, awful prose of the book (I mean... Mary Sue awful), still gets bogged down by the plot.
no subject
YES! Yes, yes, thank you, yes!
no subject
no subject
It was a really pretty movie. Too bad Dan Brown apparently never heard of the two words "character" and "development." I should know more about the main character than that he fell down a well once. :-p
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not watching the movie - or reading the book, Foucault's Pendulum said all that will ever need saying in that genre IMO - but I have had to sit through the trailer a number of times, and "but why has
the rum gonePaul Bettany joined Rammstein ?" was a strong reaction there.no subject
I had a really hard time keeping a straight face every time the poor guy was on the screen, despite his best efforts.
no subject
no subject
no subject
Hee!!! This is my favorite sentence. I haven't read the book, but might see the movie because a friend wants to, and as she pointed out, "it has to be better than the book."
See you soon! I keep saying that in LJ today and it's very exciting!
no subject
I'd actually suffer through the book first (though gah, the prose), but that's just because I feel bad for the movie being bashed for things that it took straight out of the book. It really did do a very good job, considering the rough material.
no subject
no subject
no subject
So. Painful.
no subject
The book seriously has a writer interviewing the main character and writing something like, "Looking like a young Harrison Ford, blah blah blah" And a scene in which the main character looks at himself in the mirror and carefully contemplates his eye color and his hair and etc.
no subject
no subject
SNERK
I somehow doubt that Dan Brown realized how ludicrous said fanatic, masochistic albino in medieval monk's robes looks talking on a cell phone, even if the conversation is in Latin
((dies)) REALLY? Man, now I need an icon of that.
no subject
no subject
I rolled my eyes through a lot of the book because I was taking a class on the early history of Christianity at the time, and the professors did talk about Mary Magdalene and the gospels the book uses, except they actually, y'know, put it in historical context and look up what things meant instead of just jumping to conclusions.
no subject
I haven't read the book, but the excerpted paragraph in the NYT review of the book was plenty enough to give me the flavour of the atrocious prose style. Oy.
no subject
It's very pretty though....
Gah, avoid the book. Atrocious, atrocious prose style. Atrocious.
Atrocious.
Cannot say it enough.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
Albino monk punishes himself - drink!
Albino monk scares someone - drink!
etc.
no subject
Thanks for the update
no subject