Eh. Sure, there were a hundred things wrong with it. Yes, I’m a lame square for admitting this. But I actually kinda liked it.

It wasn’t a terrible movie, but the book (which I read after I saw the movie) was much better. It did skip some stuff that I think is rather important, but would have probably made the movie too long. They also did a lot of direct talking from the book it seemed, which I guess isn’t bad, just normally the movies are so different.

Well, finally managed to catch the moview! The moview has been banned all over Tamil Nadu (Drat!!!), but I chanced to catch it. IPrehaps because I have read the book, the actors seem to be mere narrators of the script. I could hardly accept Tom Hanks (guess he is getting a little old these days), as Robert Langdon. I like Silas though, but would have expected a more burly man!

Aringarosa, fails to convey the passion that he felt for christianity!! But nevertheless, the movie is a must watch, atleast for you to realise, you are better off reading a book, than watching it!

Tonight Benjamin and I went to see The Da Vinci Code with Benjamin’s parents at The Majestic Bay theater in Ballard (love that theater!). I haven’t read the book, so my opinions don’t include a comparison to the original. I enjoyed the movie. It didn’t feel too long and it felt pretty well acted and put together. Certainly you can drill holes in the story if you want to, but that just doesn’t bug me all that much. I guess I’m a pretty easy movie critic. Benjamin and his parents thought the movie was pretty mediocre, but what I heard of their criticisms of the logic didn’t impress me that much. (POSSIBLESPOILER) On the other hand, the lack of any of Jesus’ DNA with which to compare the alleged heir’s seemed like a critical flaw. Who cares if they could prove she was related to Mary Magdalene? If everyone believes that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute then why would they think that Jesus was the father of her child? Anyway, I still thought it was an entertaining movie. I’m in favor of suspending one’s disbelief for fiction so it worked fine for me. :-)

While I did not think that it was a great movie, it was entertaining enough, and thus not really a waste of money. I do think the book was better, though (which was just OK as well). I thought the CSI-style writing of the book would translate better for the movie screen, but it did not really turn out that way. The movie stuck to the book for the most part, but there were changes, perhaps to keep those who read the book interested; otherwise, the changes did not add much.

It does pale in comparison to the last movie I saw, but, as I said, entertaining enough.

For a Ron Howard film, it’s mediocre. Aside from that it’s not a terrible film, it’s just not great. The premature backlash to the film is part political, part overhype let down. The film sticks mainly true to the book and many of the characters, from Teabing to Captain Fache to Bishop Aringarosa were well cast. Audrey Tautou is limp in this, Hanks’ hair is horrid, Silas’ blue contacts are obnoxious and the syrupy melodrama taking place in flashback scenes were too much. Those are my main complaints. Other than that, go see it.

I say ‘Worth Consuming’ – but only because I know most people are going to go see it anyway! It’s a pop culture reference rather than a good film – but I’m kinda glad I saw it, so sure I’ll say yay over nay.

Upside: very dark atmosphere, a few good performances, faithful to the book, and some great locations. Oh, and being able to see the art that’s being described is a great help.

Downside: can I just say everything else?!

The story is daft, but I’m fine with that – it’s fiction, it’s entertaining. But I’m disappointed that the filmmakers went with such a direct retelling: remembering that most of the audience is likely to have read the book, the first third/half drags somewhat, and there’s rather too much exposition. Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) exists solely to say “This is preposterous!” and have things explained to her, I think!

That said, the cast are mostly a relative strength. I’m still not convinced about Tom Hanks: while he wasn’t bad at all, I still sat there slightly irked that it was Tom Hanks! Ian McKellen was delightful, and Jean Reno is just cool. Paul Bettany, however, really did very little for me. Well, not true: he looks rather lush in the nuddy ;) But the character, or the portrayal – meh. He constantly looked like he was about to burst into tears. Perhaps not surprisingly given the brutality of the self-flagellation scenes :(

Worse, there’s no real sense of working things out: clues and solutions fall into their laps, help is always at hand – at least at the beginning. Fortunately things do pick up pace, and the fast-packed action of the latter scenes take your mind off some of the more ridiculous moments.

I can’t believe the book manages to be better than the film in this case, but it does. Just. Which is a shame, ‘cos I do think this could have been a tighter, darker piece. So many mysteries and clues – but switching your brain on for this film would be a big mistake. If you’ve read the book, you know what’s coming… and there isn’t much else to hold this film together.

Go see it, just so you know what people are talking about. But don’t expect to see a masterpiece.