Retro Reviews: 'Da Vinci Code' as a Movie.

Last week I managed to write and publish an article that reviewed the book version of Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code'. In the article, I tried to be as objective as possible about the various merits of the book and how the novel could have been even better. 

Indeed, even though there were some issues in it (point of view stuff, historical inaccuracies etc.), there's no question that as a whole I was impressed by the quality of the novel. This was really a surprisingly immersive and entertaining book that you couldn't put down.

Naturally, once I was done with reviewing the book, I thought about watching and reviewing the movie too. I was interested in knowing how well the Tom Hanks / Audrey Tautou film would fare compared to the original version, since I had enjoyed the book so much.

Having now finally seen the movie too (a couple of days ago with my friend), I have to say that - as unfortunate as it is - I was not impressed by the film. It's not even remotely as good as the book, even though a lot of talented people were involved with making the movie.

So when it comes to those flaws in 'Da Vinci Code's' film version, surprisingly enough, the biggest problem has to do with its screenplay. The screenplay is genuinely lacking and suffers from all kinds of storytelling problems (especially exposition) that you can think of.

By that I mean is that once you start watching the film, it won't take long before you'll notice that there is something wrong with the pacing of the movie. The story is rushed and way too many story beats are crammed in the first 30-40 minutes of the film.

In practice, what this means is that once Hanks's character Robert Langdon is taken to Louvre to check out Sauniere's dead body, there isn't enough time to introduce us to those the things that are needed. The stuff really comes out of nowhere and without any explanation.

Indeed, when Tautou's character shows up a bit later and immediately starts helping Langdon, things don't make any sense. This includes stuff like her seeing the Fibonacci series right away, her having the cell phone plan & and her knowing that Hanks is 'bugged'.

Story-wise, what makes these mistakes so bad is that when you don't give proper introduction to your characters, their situations and their background, the story just won't work. The audience is going to be in the dark and won't feel comfortable with the film.

Indeed, as I was watching the movie with my friend, I was pretty much panicking about the whole thing. As things kept unfolding in the first act, I couldn't believe how unbelievably under-exposed and all over the place the story was here.

At the same time, just because the first act was indeed awful, it has to be said that the film does get a bit better in its second half. Once we're finally done with the film trying to explain what the story is supposed to be about, things get better.

Indeed, once our characters manage to escape Teabing's mansion and subdue Silas, the movie finally starts to make at least a little bit sense. There's some pacing to the story and fortunately the movie doesn't follow the book 100% anymore. 

After all, these changes - that include there being only one 'code' at the Zürich bank, that there's only one layer in the cryptex and the revelation of the villain being faster - are solid. These changes work rather well and clearly help the movie.

Still, just because things do get better and the third act and the finale are relatively watchable (there are some changes to the book too), that wasn't enough to make the movie work for me. I wasn't impressed with the execution and how the script was put together as a whole.

After all, even though there were some changes later in the movie that were needed, we didn't get those crucial changes when they were needed the most. The first act didn't work and was almost a carbon copy of the book (without any of its exposition and background info).

In that sense, in the end, if you're one of those who still haven't seen the movie and are thinking about watching it, I think it's safe to say that you should not get too excited about the film. You shouldn't get too excited about it just because you perhaps liked the book.

After all, even though there were so many Oscar winners working on this movie (director, actors, writer) that's not all it takes to make a good film. You shouldn't be thinking that these guys would be automatically able to deliver the goods here no matter what.

On the contrary, especially when it comes to this film, these guys failed us big time. They (Ron Howard, Akiva Goldsman) failed us and weren't able to deliver, even though the book that the film was based on was really good and was something that managed to entertain us.

Retro reviews: Dan Brown's 'Da Vinci Code'.

A couple of weeks ago, as I decided to go through our fairly book library at our house I noticed an interesting book there. I noticed that there was Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code standing on our book shelf - a book that I hadn't managed to read before.

Indeed, even though I usually try to keep myself updated on popular culture stuff relatively well, for some reason I had missed this particular phenomenom completely. I hadn't read the book and I even hadn't managed to see the movie either.

Not surprisingly, since I've tried to get back to reading books lately, I thought that I had to give it a chance. I had to give it a go, because certainly its subject matter of historical conspiracies warranted my attention - even though I had read some negatives things about it.

Having now finally read the book, I have to say that as a whole, I was pleasantly surprised by the quality of 'Da Vinci Code'. I was surprised in a good way by its quality, even though there are some flaws with it too that need to be mentioned.

So when it comes to those good aspects about 'Da Vinci Code', the very first thing that I have to mention here is that the novel is genuinely entertaining. Unlike so many others books that I've read lately, this one was actually a real page turner from start to finish. 

By that I mean is that in this book in which we follow our protagonists Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu in their plight, you can't help but to be interested in their story. Their struggle to get out of trouble and to find the truth about the Da Vince Code (holy grail) is simply riveting.

Indeed, the minute you get introduced to Langdon as a scholar and as a suspect in a murder in Louvre (joined soon by Neveu), you feel like you're part of the story. There's a murder mystery going on and also a larger conspiracy that involves all kinds of powerful people.

Later on, once our duo escapes the place with their 'clue' to their next destination, the stakes keep getting higher. There's constantly a bigger puzzle to be solved and the antagonists keep getting closer and closer to catching them (eventually our heroes do manage to save the day).

Story- and structure-wise, when it comes to the quality of the book, the reason that the story (mostly) works so well is that the author (Brown) knows how to plot a story. There are a lot of twists, turns, obstacles, revelations and a even huge MacGuffin that is used well.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the Hitchcockian MacGuffin, this plot device (our duo trying to break the code and find the 'holy grail') is what keeps things going. You want to know what happens next and are willing to overlook some things that don't always make sense.

At the same time, even though the book and the story mostly works really well, that doesn't mean that there aren't problems. There are flaws and issues with the book that range from its historical inaccuracies to its storytelling aspects in certain moments. 

For example, historically speaking, there's no question the book is simply fiction (mostly based on a discredited book 'The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail'). This is something that might turn you off, especially if you bought into Brown's claim that the book is 99% factual.

Story-wise, I couldn't help but to notice that there were some clear 'point of view' problems in the book's first half. The story changing from the protagonists to antagonists for quick, short exposition interrupted the flow (Silas & co.) rather abruptly and noticeably.

Furthermore, there's no question that in parts the story gets a bit too contrived. Especially when it comes to Fache changing his mind and the villain's reveal (well hidden but a bit convoluted), there's a bit too much stuff and explanation going on exposition-wise.

Still, when you put it all together, even though there are certain issues here, there's no denying that the story managed to keep me entertained. It kept me thrilled surprisingly well and even made me want to know more about the topics that the book covers.

After all, once I finished reading the novel, I immediately had to go visit wikipedia to check stuff that ranged from Da Vinci to Mary Magdalene and from Gnosticism to Merovingians. I was interested to find out more about its various aspects that included real life locations too. 

In that sense, in the end, if you're someone who's interested in mystery books and conspiracies that have to do with history, I think it's pretty clear that 'Da Vinci Code' might be a book for you. You should give it a chance and not be too discouraged by some of its detractors.

After all, even though the novel isn't historically speaking true and even though the 'holy grail' might not be what you thought at first, that's not a reason not to give it a shot. You shouldn't be thinking that just because the story is fiction you shouldn't read the novel.

On the contrary, when it all is said and done, 'Da Vinci Code', despite its flaws manages to entertain. It manages to entertain and holds your attention, even though it could have been better and even though most of its 'claims' aren't supported by data or accepted historical facts.

Movies that I've managed to see lately.

So when it comes to my recent movie watching habits, over the last month or so, I haven't really been able to watch that many (if any) films. I haven't had a chance to watch the latest movies that have been released on dvd.

Nevertheless, last week I had some free time for myself and finally got back to watching some of the stuff that I had postponed watching for so long. I managed to watch some of these new movies that mostly managed to be fairly entertaining.

In any case, this time I have seen three recently released films that I get to review. These films are Guy Ritchie's 'The Gentlemen', Harrison Ford's 'Call of The Wild and Will Ferrell's vehicle 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga'.

So when it comes to the first film, 'The Gentlemen' is a mobster drama/comedy starring Hugh Grant and Matthew McConaughey. The film revolves around a marijuana kingpin (McConaughey) in London who is trying to sell his cannabis business.

Not surprisingly, in the story it will not take long before things spiral out of control. Once McConaughey's character starts shopping his underground business, all kinds of entities appear to make offers and this leads to extortion, blackmail, violence and sabotage.

When it comes to the quality of the film, this is as expected a 'Guy Ritchie' movie. You have the usual weird characters, stylish dialogue, 'English' banter, violent action scenes and other things that you have learned to expect from him.

Acting-wise, pretty much every actor in the ensemble gives really good performances. McConaughey is solid, Colin Farrell is out there in a good way and Hugh Grant does a really memorable role as a slimy blackmailing reporter.

The only real problem with the film is that the story in 'The Gentlemen' is a bit all over the place. There doesn't seem to be clear purpose and point of view to the film, which leads to the story lacking a clear meaning, if we're being honest here.

Indeed, especially when it comes to the ending, I don't really understand why it happened that way (no spoilers). The arc of the story pointed to another direction and the 'winners' really didn't do anything to deserve it (deus ex machina).

Still, if you have enjoyed other 'Guy Ritchie' films, this is probably a movie that you're going to enjoy. You're probably going to be entertained by it, even though in my opinion the movie could have had a much stronger and much more 'relevant' story than it had. 

The second film that I watched is 'Call of The Wild', a movie based on classic Jack London novel. The film is about the adventures of a big St.Bernard/Scotch Collie dog called 'Buck' and the dog finding its way in the world & the nature.

When it comes to the film, the biggest reason that the movie got so much publicity (or let's say heat) is that the 'star' of the film, 'Buck' is completely computer-generated. The dog and some of the backgrounds are totally fake, which not surprisingly pissed off some people.

Nevertheless, since the film had gotten relatively decent reviews (61% fresh critics & 89% fresh audience at Rottentomatoes.com, it was an easy decision to give it a shot. Clearly the film had some redeeming qualities that would keep me entertained.

So having now finally seen 'Call of The Wild', I have to say that the movie as a whole was worth watching and worth my time. It was worth watching, even though there are some issues with the story that have to be addressed.

Indeed, one of the biggest challenges with the story is that the dog is the actual main 'character' in the movie. Since it can't talk and express its 'thoughts' in any meaningful way, it turned out to be tricky to make it the focus of the story.

In practice, over the course of the movie, this is the reason that the story feels episodic and jumps from one place to another. Even though all the actors that Buck is surrounded with do a good job (special mention to Omar Sy), there are problems that cannot be ignored.

At the same time, just because there are problems in the film and the  'evolution' of Buck from a food hungry dog to a leader of the pack in Alaska is a bit contrived, that's not reason not to watch it. The relaxed tone and the nature aspects are what make the movie.

After all, even though a lot of the landscape in 'Alaska' felt a bit manufactured, I absolutely loved the atmosphere. As someone who likes to walk, run or otherwise exercise in the nature every single day, those aspects meant a lot to me.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the film yet, you should probably watch it. You should watch it, because even though the movie has its flaws, it still has tons of redeeming qualities (like Harrison Ford in a role that he seemed to enjoy) that help to put you on a good mood.

The third movie that I saw is Will Ferrell's vehicle 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga'. This is a Netflix movie about an Icelandic couple Lars & Sigrit (Ferrell & Rachel McAdams) trying to fulfil their dream of taking part and winning the Eurovision Song Contest.

So when it comes to the expectations of the movie, a lot of people weren't initially excited about watching the film. Based on the trailer, it seemed that the movie simply wasn't going to be that good since the trailer just didn't have that many funny moments.

However, once the film premiered on Netflix and the general audience started posting reviews, it became obvious that there was something special going on in here. It looked like the movie was well made and that I should give it a shot.

Having now seen the film a couple of days ago, I have to say that the movie does work surprisingly well. 'Eurovision Song Contest: The Story of Fire Saga' manages to deliver the goods, even though there are some tiny issues with the film that need to be addressed.

So when it comes to those good qualities, one of the reasons that the movie works is that Lars & Sigrit's journey to the song contest is handled in a respectful way towards everyone. This respect includes Iceland, its culture, the rest of the characters and their problems.

Indeed, even though the movie is about Lars & Sigrit's underdog story, it's not just about them. A lot of attention is also paid to the supporting characters and making them relatable - especially the 'ja ja ding dong' guy and the Russian antagonist (Dan Stevens).

Another major reason that the film works - perhaps even surprisingly - well has to do with its music. Every single song that was composed for the film is absolutely fantastic and you can't help but to admire the quality of them (even better songs than in the 'real' contest).

Story-wise, it has to be said that there are some moments in the film that could have been better written. Especially when it comes to the inciting incident (bomb goes off) and the reaction of the duo, it was a bit over the top for my tastes.

Still, when it comes to the film as a whole, these problems aren't that big and serious. Despite these minor flaws the movie manages to be watchable, thanks to the overall good nature of the film and the fact that there aren't really that many 'bad' guys in it.

In that sense, if you haven't seen the film yet, I'd suggest that you give it a shot. You should give it a shot because even though the premise is silly, the movie nevertheless works and manages to put you on a good mood (81% fresh by the audience at Rottentomatoes.com).