 |
 |
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Friday, May 26, 2006
Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code
(3 out of 5 stars)
It isn’t always easy to adapt a novel for a feature film, but Ron Howard had been pretty successful for his previous adaptations, especially A Beautiful Mind, the novel that dwells into the psychologically splitting world of John Nash. Looking at his previous films, we are able to see that Howard is good at capturing a character’s soul in depth and allowing the movie to flow smoothly by centring on a main character.
In The Da Vinci Code, he did not manage to produce a fluid film as the movie moves back and forth between characters. The material itself clearly isn’t what Howard is familiar with. The original plot (in the novel) moves very frequently among the supporting characters whose plotlines run parallel with the main storyline of the main characters Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sophie Noveu (Audrey Toutou).
Ten minutes into the movie, we already see Howard struggling with the portraying the prologue where Silas murders Jacques Sauniere and the first chapter of the book where Langdon is giving a presentation about symbols. It was not clear which was the main plot (although fans of the book would know) and somehow, the use of shaky camera movement did not clearly portray the first impression of Langdon well. It almost felt like Langdon sent Silas to murder Sauniere, or is this what Howard wants in the first place?
The movie continues with this unsteady movement of plots between the characters. This may have worked well in the novel, but it made the film felt very incoherent. Choppy, is what an impolite reviewer may say.
The movie also doesn’t go in depth with the explanations of the background of the story, leaving them to made-up historical footages which look lame and fake, and even at times, cheapskate. Readers of the book will find that the movie felt shallow compared to the book, and those who have yet to read it will find the plot confusing and not easily understandable.
Still, there are still nice moments in the film. Howard is master at portraying thought processes of a character, and by making Langdon have a good memory of things and able to crack codes on the spot, Howard is able to make use of what he did in A Beautiful Mind. Yes, it kind of reminds me of that film, not a bad thing though. In a sequence where Langdon was trying to crack the code of the keystone, the moving visual images that appear before him were quite beautifully done.
Sir Ian McKellen is at his best, portraying initially a friendly ally and later creating a totally different side of Leigh Teabing at the plot twist, yet remain quite homogeneous in his character. One may argue Sir Ian McKellen may be too thin for Teabing (that’s me originally), but now, I can only say I enjoy his moments in the film the most, especially the scenes in his study where he is explaining the parts about the Priory of Sion.
As with other film adaptations like the Harry Potter series, filmmakers here are facing with a lot of difficulties with what to put into the film and what not to, hence the pace of the movie turned out to be quite erratic. Howard should really stick to movies which are more character central.
It isn’t always easy to adapt a novel for a feature film, but Ron Howard had been pretty successful for his previous adaptations, especially A Beautiful Mind, the novel that dwells into the psychologically splitting world of John Nash. Looking at his previous films, we are able to see that Howard is good at capturing a character’s soul in depth and allowing the movie to flow smoothly by centring on a main character.
In The Da Vinci Code, he did not manage to produce a fluid film as the movie moves back and forth between characters. The material itself clearly isn’t what Howard is familiar with. The original plot (in the novel) moves very frequently among the supporting characters whose plotlines run parallel with the main storyline of the main characters Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) and Sophie Noveu (Audrey Toutou).
Ten minutes into the movie, we already see Howard struggling with the portraying the prologue where Silas murders Jacques Sauniere and the first chapter of the book where Langdon is giving a presentation about symbols. It was not clear which was the main plot (although fans of the book would know) and somehow, the use of shaky camera movement did not clearly portray the first impression of Langdon well. It almost felt like Langdon sent Silas to murder Sauniere, or is this what Howard wants in the first place?
The movie continues with this unsteady movement of plots between the characters. This may have worked well in the novel, but it made the film felt very incoherent. Choppy, is what an impolite reviewer may say.
The movie also doesn’t go in depth with the explanations of the background of the story, leaving them to made-up historical footages which look lame and fake, and even at times, cheapskate. Readers of the book will find that the movie felt shallow compared to the book, and those who have yet to read it will find the plot confusing and not easily understandable.
Still, there are still nice moments in the film. Howard is master at portraying thought processes of a character, and by making Langdon have a good memory of things and able to crack codes on the spot, Howard is able to make use of what he did in A Beautiful Mind. Yes, it kind of reminds me of that film, not a bad thing though. In a sequence where Langdon was trying to crack the code of the keystone, the moving visual images that appear before him were quite beautifully done.
Sir Ian McKellen is at his best, portraying initially a friendly ally and later creating a totally different side of Leigh Teabing at the plot twist, yet remain quite homogeneous in his character. One may argue Sir Ian McKellen may be too thin for Teabing (that’s me originally), but now, I can only say I enjoy his moments in the film the most, especially the scenes in his study where he is explaining the parts about the Priory of Sion.
As with other film adaptations like the Harry Potter series, filmmakers here are facing with a lot of difficulties with what to put into the film and what not to, hence the pace of the movie turned out to be quite erratic. Howard should really stick to movies which are more character central.
