Sunday, May 21, 2006

Decoded!

Today was a day I have been looking forward to for a long, long time.
Today was the day we went to see the Da Vinci Code :-)

I have avoided almost all of the reviews - cos I'm like that, preferring to make up my own mind.

Starting with the cast; I was thrilled when I heard Tom Hanks was to play Robert Langdon, I thought he would be perfect. Audrey Tatou was a delightful Sophie, Paul Bettany made a fair stab at the much-maligned and abused Silas, Jean Reno was an excellently stubborn French detective, Al Molina portrayed Bishop Aringarosa, and Ian McKellen continued to bolster his retirement fund with a cracking 'Leigh Teabing', or Teabag as I call him.

And to the story. Let's ignore the current war between Brown, Howard and the Church for a bit.
If you've read the book, the plot twists and turns might make more sense, but if you haven't you may find yourself floundering in all the information thrown at you.
In my honest opinion, the film is a credible dramatisation of a very complicated story. When I first read it, I had to keep going back and checking stuff in the earlier chapters.
But if they were to dramatise the book 'as is' the film would be about 6 hours long. So they tricked a few turns and almagamated some of the story.
What Ron Howard produced was a film that reflected the book, and with the aid of double-scening, showing two scenes at once (used a lot for 'thought' etc and in this case 'historical' storylines), managed to cram most of the background story into the film.

Kudos to Howard and Hanks. I loved the book (actually, I loved all of them!) and I liked the film. I would whisper periodically to cyberkitten 'There's Silas', 'Aringarosa is good', 'Look, do you see that.....' 'Wow, they fit this in!'.....

And finally, was Sarah the daughter of Jesus? Was Mary Magdalene one of the disciples and Jesus' wife (companion)? Did Sarah produce a family that married into the Merovingian kings?
The answer to all these questions and more set in the book lie in your own beliefs.

cq

7 comments:

CyberKitten said...

A very creditable adaptation I thought. Obviously they left loads of detail out (which was a bit disapointing) but I was impressed that Ron managed to fit so much in.

I was more than a little worried that Hanks wouldn't fit the part - but he did OK. As to Ms Tatou, well..... What can I say...? [swoon].

Now to re-read the book.. at some point.

Fizzy said...

I am not a film fanatic and read loads. BUT this is one film that I am looking forward to.

The other films I like though (esp the potter books) are so crammed with detail that are missed out in the films and I feel a bit let down. I really really hope that I do not feel like about the Da VInci Code.

Anonymous said...

I'm looking forward to seeing this movie. I read the book and loved it. I too have ignored all the controversy over it. It's a movie! fiction! that's all.
Thanks for this review.

OldLady Of The Hills said...

Haven't read the book and will no doubt have to wait for the DVD in about a year!! (lol)...
I'm glad you liked it, CQ...cause I trust what you say and what you said would encourage me to see this film! Thanks, my dear...

FRIDAY'S CHILD said...

I have been encountering this Da Vinci Code wherever I go. Almost all blog sites I visit have been mentioning this.
I don't think it's being shown here yet.

YellowRose said...

I saw it too over the weekend....I will probably blog about it, but I was alittle disappointed in it that there was alot from the book that was deleted. But the movie was good. Hanks did a great job. Bettany freaked me out! Tatou was gorgeous. Reno taught me how to swear in French!! hee hee McKellen had some of the best lines in the whole movie!!

WendyWings said...

I have yet to see this. I am still annoyed that Ralph Fiennes didn't get to be Langdon even though Tom is one of my favourite actors.