When it comes to Dan Brown's popular novels, over the last couple of weeks I've managed to watch the film adaptations of his books. I watched the movie adaptations after reading his 'Da Vinci Code' novel - the book that was the first one in the 'Robert Langdon' series.
Indeed, even though there were certain issues in the 'Da Vinci Code' as a novel, I thought that it was still worth reading. The book kept me entertained and was fairly well written, even though historically speaking it wasn't particularly accurate as a novel.
So when it comes to the film versions of these books, it has to be said that - as unfortunate as it is - 'Da Vinci Code' as a movie wasn't particularly well made. Its story (see the last article) suffered from really terrible exposition and pacing issues among other things.
Fortunately, even though Da Vinci Code as a film was a disappointment, having now seen the other two film adaptations, I can say that they were much better. Both 'Angels & Demons' and 'Inferno' managed to be a lot more entertaining and watchable than 'Da Vinci Code' was.
Indeed, when I saw 'Angels and Demons' (2009)(picture above) last week with my friend, I was pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly well made and turned out to be easy to follow - even though I hadn't read the book that it was based on.
In essence, the premise in the film is that Robert Langdon is brought to solve a problem in the Vatican. There's a hostage situation and unless the Illuminati conspirators are stopped, they will blow up The Vatican with their anti-mater bomb (that they stole from Cern).
Story-wise, like in the first one, once Tom Hanks's character is taken to the place, he starts deciphering the clues about the secret society and their habits. He and his partner (a female nuclear scientist) try to figure out where the hostages and the bomb are before it's too late.
Pacing-wise, the movie works so much better than the 'Da Vinci Code' did. There aren't really any bigger exposition issues, even though in certain places it's obvious that a lot more background information was in the book (like when they go to the Vatican archives).
Not surprisingly, this same analysis also applies to 'Inferno's' film adaptation (2016). This movie more or less also has the same basic story elements and the same story beats that we in the audience have already gotten used to.
Premise-wise, the basic idea in the film is that this time we're dealing with a crazy billionaire scientist that has decided to expose the world to a virus that would fix the overpopulation problem. Hanks with his female doctor partner once again needs to prevent it from happening.
Entertainment-wise, what makes the film work is that just like in the second one, there is an imminent threat that needs to be addressed. This fairly straightforward angle (there are some convoluted twists too) is solid and has elements that keep you on the edge of your seat.
Plot-wise, when it comes the film's third act, it has to be mentioned that 'Inferno's' movie version has an ending that is significantly different from the novel. They changed it from a 'downer' ending to a more uplifting one, which honestly didn't make that much sense.
Indeed, once the movie was finished, (I haven't read the book), it was pretty obvious that the original story had a more 'daring' ending. Certain character twists were a bit awkward and were disappointing if we're being honest here (not what the audience wanted).
Still, when it comes to this film as a whole and to 'Angels & Demons', it's pretty clear that these are relatively watchable films ('Angels' is better). Compared to Da Vinci Code, there's a clear difference in favor of these later adaptations in the series.
After all even though both of the later films in the series have their issues, it cannot be overstated how bad 'The Da Vinci Code's' film adaptation was. The exposition and the pacing in the film were completely off and really hurt its quality.
In that sense, in the end, when it comes to these movie, if you haven't seen 'Angels & Demons' or 'Inferno', you should probably give them a try at some point. You should give these movies a chance and see whether you'll be able to enjoy them.
After all, even though neither of these films are masterpieces, that doesn't mean that they're completely worthless. You shouldn't be thinking - like some of the critics do - that Dan Brown can't write or that there's no value in watching 'fictional' stuff like this.
On the contrary, when it all is said and done, these films - despite their flaws - are watchable. They're worth watching and even though they could have been better (like the 'National Treasure' films), there's more than enough good stuff here to keep you entertained.
No comments:
Post a Comment