The Imagination of Fantasy

THE DA VINCI CODE - THOUGHTS UPON VIEWING (NO TRUE SPOILERS, BUT SOME PLOT POINTS ARE DISCUSSED)

Ok, if you don't want to know anything about the movie (or the book), don't read this...

Since the group has determined, more or less, that the Da Vinci Code is fantasy in at least some aspects, I thought it best to discuss the film here.  I've seen the movie last night in my uberexcitement.  The verdict? 

Read the book.  It's way better.

I saw some early reviews, which sort of panned the movie, calling it kind of slow, mired in its own intracacies, with wooden acting from everyone except Ian McKellen (who plays Teabing).  I think that that's actually a fair assessment.  The trouble is, in order to make the book fit into a palatable running time, they had to cut some details out, which may have been worthwhile to the viewer who hasn't read the book.  Also, they took some poetic license with the chronology of the story and tended to gloss over some details, particularly discussions of the female archetype of the divine and Sophie Neveu's backstory (which is essential to the plot).  The excitement of the book was diluted by the fact that I did not feel the urgency from the actors, including Tom Hanks, who played the main character Robert Langdon.  There is supposed to be a real sense of urgency; Langdon, a symbologist, is excited over finding the various clues to the legend of the Priory of Sion and Knights Templar, while Sophie is bent on finding the why and who behind the murder of her grandfather.  Neither Mr. Hanks or Audrey Tautou, who played Sophie, portrayed any of those emotions to any tangible degree.  I mean, they seemed...concerned.  But that's about it.  In addition to already knowing the punchline behind this story, it just made feel a little bored. 

I was still entertained by the various elements and the discovery of the secrets though.  The concept behind the novel is still a worthwhile one, an intelligently woven story, even if one regards it as some sort of blasphemy or mode to attack the foundation of Christian faith.  I don't think that it is, but I will reserve my comments on that for now.  Ultimately, it's the idea of the quest; the search for the Holy Grail, whatever that may be.  It really captures the imagination.  Making the little discoveries with the main characters...it all makes me want to go read my art books that I picked up in Florence.  Study the Mona Lisa, and Madonna on the Rocks, and the Last Supper.

And Ian McKellen was quite witty and entertaining.  The New York Times suggested that he breathed life into the picture with his apperance.  That reviewer may have been right.  He's kind of a hoot, and the plot is propelled forward by his almost campy zeal to explain the true nature behind the DaVinci Code.

Anyone else seen it who wants to comment?

Re: THE DA VINCI CODE - THOUGHTS UPON VIEWING (NO TRUE SPOILERS, BUT SOME PLOT POINTS ARE DISCUSSED)

                     **read only if you know how it ends**

I actually really enjoyed the film.  I heard all the mixed reviews and was expecting the worst - had expected Tom's hair to be completely disgusting, which it wasn't, thankfully.  I WAS hoping for more of a hottie to play Langdon as I liked the undercurrent -but not focus- of their romance in the book.  I agree that they left out some plot explanations that would have made Hank's final "ah-ha" reveal to Sophie more believable.  I was dissapointed in that final speech as I didn't think the build up to Langdon's knowledge was adequate for him to draw that confident conclusion.

Unbelievable was the one on one Sophie has with the monk in the plane.  I thought for sure Paul Bettany (which I really enjoyed in many scenes, though prefer him in sexier with less make-up roles) was going to try and bite her nose off.  I thought this scene somewhat odd as no one in the plane tried to pull her away, or at least came to her side in case the monk worked himself loose.

I'd label this one a rental..  The movie did have a nice pace to it, albeit the characters did somewhat seem like they were on holiday.  Definitly read the book as is suggested above, don't take it seriously, and enjoy mulling over the theory! 

Re: THE DA VINCI CODE - THOUGHTS UPON VIEWING (NO TRUE SPOILERS, BUT SOME PLOT POINTS ARE DISCUSSED)

i didnt enjoy the movie all that much.

having read the book, i knew the answers to all of the "mysteries" of the grail, the painting, the betrayer, etc...

and i didnt like that there really wasnt any chemistry between langdon and the girl.  in the book, that was a key element to the story line.

Re: THE DA VINCI CODE - THOUGHTS UPON VIEWING (NO TRUE SPOILERS, BUT SOME PLOT POINTS ARE DISCUSSED)

Yeah, the general feeling I'm getting is that if you read the book first, you were disappointed by the movie, but if you hadn't read the book first and went to see the movie (why do people do that??), you liked it because you finally understood what all the fuss was about.

Anyone want to disprove this new stereotype I created?

Re: THE DA VINCI CODE - THOUGHTS UPON VIEWING (NO TRUE SPOILERS, BUT SOME PLOT POINTS ARE DISCUSSED)

Late response.

It almost seems as if with this movie there is a new and growing genre which really hasn't been named yet.  Although it's based in literature, the name "Faction" keeps coming to mind.  It's the interweaving of fact and fiction which creates the controversy and seems to be a good foundation for movies.  I compare it to National Treasure, same concept.  Take a bunch of factual based content and tweak it a bit with fiction and you have a plot.  This was a well done movie if you accept it for it's entertainment value and attempt to leave your political and religious views at the door.