The Da Vinci Code
This movie version of the Dan Brown classic is one of the most controversial and intriguing, and I doubt there is someone else out there who will question it.
Before we do anything else, let’s first determine that the Da Vinci Code is not a direct attack on the Catholic religion conservatives, and it is also not an entertainment exclusive to those who have their Dan Brown (Langdon) series or their Holy Grail collections have not been completed. The good thing about this movie is that everyone can see and understand it (of course, there are virtually no restrictions when it comes to the cinema committee entry). Oh no, there is nothing cryptic with this Ron Howard masterpiece.
Some brown followers and mystery aficionados can sit and spend a full two and a half hours and consider the movie to be too juicy or too anti-climax. Let’s be clear: “The Da Vinci Code” is an adjustment, so the screen version to the book does not make much sense. Yes, expect the movie to be like the Harry Potter books, where there are also sections that are not included in the picture.
As much as I do not mind books that change in movies, I ask to disagree with the argument that the Da Vinci Code is not true to the novel. If I believe something, it’s only appropriate and appropriate, especially for those who did not hear the writer’s name. The plot begins basically in one of the Louvre’s rooms, where a curator is killed and has left several mysterious messages about the museum’s interiors for his granddaughter, Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) and symbolic Robert Langdon. In the attempt to discover the guilty, the pair are led to a maze of clues and deviant and evasive figures. Eventually they are attended by Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), which seems to be the nemesis (or more appropriate, as it is not such a kind of picked-up tension – the antagonist).
As I mentioned, it’s not really comparable to those high-flying adventure or sci-fi hits, with all the explosions and amazing stunts, so expect such. However, you can expect a few motor yachts in the streets of France and in the forest. But it’s all in the novel anyway, and I doubt that Howard will disappoint the viewers with a fully-fledged picture. I think it’s quite logical to believe in this sense that the film does not have creatively driven climax or high momentum. Yes, these shortcomings all come to the forefront of the base of the whole movie – the best seller book.
What really makes the picture worthwhile is the spiritual stimulation you get to absorb all the data and information in one meeting. Surprisingly, the clarity and simplicity with which the information and other historical accounts are explained are commendable. Worried about all that religious controversy? I assure you, you do not have to be coincidental or uncomfortable, no matter what faith (or lack thereof) you belong to. Akiva Goldsman, the screenwriter of the film, did a fair job to make sure that the audience is kept on track and not lost with seemingly unknown labels like Priory of Zion, Opus Dei or The Knights Templar no.
Another area where the “Da Vinci Code” exceeds other films in its genre is the special effects. I do not speak of action-driven, selfish snazzy effects. Only the inclusion of digital graphics during Langdon’s brainstorming moments is remarkable. The crew also deserves a thumb when it comes to the wonderful set and background. I know it’s hard to recreate a church’s interior, especially if you’re not allowed to shoot in one (the original place, that’s). Not to mention it, you also start with one of the most anticipated films of the past two years (since the release of the book).
On the other hand, the details can also be easily or clearly explained, in such a way that it is the whole point of the film. Well, the details are of the essence, but as repeated, the producers could have gone a bit further, say a insertion of some intrusive music or a few stage-increasing elements, to decrease the monotony or tone of the nerdy quality of the movie. Some scenes can also do without the excess drama or intellect, as you want, the one where they have to pick up the trustee’s safe and enter a specific code (so they can never get access to the multifaceted cryptex). Then again it is the direct effort to put a spice (or action) into the mystery hunt.
When it comes to castings, the Da Vinci code brings an international role, all of which are fitting and brilliant in their roles. Pressure from the novel’s reputation can play a role, but the actors are generally convincing as they can be and the movie treats all characters on an equal footing. Of course, I can not do that without commenting on Audrey Tatou’s efforts in English or the tiring haircut that Tom Hanks had in the movie, but the truth of the matter is that all shine in the parts they shine. Heck, I even forgot to throw my previous dislike of Tom Hanks as Langdon when I see how other actors are perfect for their respective roles. Take, for example, Ian McKellen. I really feel his relaxed, but enthusiastic approach not only for the role of the Count’s obsessive collector, but also for playing the role in a summer movie.
In general, the Da Vinci Code deserves an appealing not only for its relatively loyal compliance with the bestseller, but also for the compilation of an ensemble performance and story that has significantly realized the popularity and scope of the project.