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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment