posted by
fallon_ash at 07:54pm on 01/06/2006 under movie
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, first off, I suppose it should be mentioned that I haven't read the book. I tried to, about a year ago or so, and got 59 pages into it before I simply couldn't bear it any longer. I felt patronized and insulted, didn't much like the style of writing, and does Dan Brown assume his entire audience is comprised of idiots? However, people who had read it told me that it might make a good mystery film. So M&G and I went to see it, all of us, for various reasons, with extremely low expectations.
It didn't start out terribly well. That line about how Fache worked for 'a kind of French FBI' left both me and G seething. In retrospect it would probably have been more beneficial to the movie viewing had we interpreted it as M did; Fache mocking the American Langdon by assuming he would have no idea what the hell he was talking about otherwise. However, G and I both took it as a personal insult from the screenwriter(s?), assuming that the audience would be stupid enough not to understand. (Which is exactly the problem I had with the book.)
So some 10 minutes into the movie it quickly hit rock bottom at some -15 out of 0-10.
After that, though, it got better. It took a while for it to dig itself out of its own hole, but I can't remember any other such blatant moments of feeling that someone, somewhere, obviously thought I was a moron.
One thing that I wasn't expecting, and that I was a bit put off by, was the speed. Having not read the book, but heard many many people talk about it I had this image of some guy puttering around the Louvre, looking at cryptic symbols and messages, going back to his hotel room, and sort of in all comfortable slowness on scraps of paper and by talking to some people, working out what the hell it all meant. The fact that it's a bloody action piece, and it's all done under tremendous time pressure while being chased by insane killers and large cars is something that people don't see fit to mention at all when talking about the book. And of course, being a person who isn't overly fond of excess excitement, be they in movies or books, it wasn't exactly a pleasant surprise.
Love Ian McKellen, no surprise there. And rather liked his missive as well. Maybe not the smartest way to go about it, but the end of persecution is a pretty neat thing, no? Was pleasantly amused by his ridiculous questions at the gate, and then the whole is-he-or-isn't-he? thing kept me on my toes for a bit. Gandalf is da Man. And there was some nice slashy stuff with his butler, too. Until he killed him... (Only thing, I kept being disappointed the butler wasn't played by Jude Law. I mean, he totally looked like him, and then the camera would get closer and I'd realize it wasn't actually Jude Law. Nothing wrong with the actor they had, but there was this automatic assumption I made every time he had a scene, and then it'd turn out to be wrong, which was just generally annoying.)
What's all this talk about the bad and stereotypical portrayal of women? I mean, granted, Audrey Tautou wasn't the strongest and most inspirational of women characters on film, but I couldn't see how it was any worse than any general action/thriller/mystery movie with a male hero. He didn't even get her at the end.
I did think, however, that it's relatively easy to make a case for movie-Langdon being gay. I was told of how the book ended with him and Audrey making love under the stars, or something else equally gross, and I was so, so grateful that he only kissed her forehead when he left. However, the utter reluctance with which he eyed her, and her rather more obvious lust for him to kiss her, made me wonder if they wanted us to read anything more into that.
There was some stuff that verged on cheesy, some montages that I'd rather not have had, but the music mostly made up for that. I really liked the music. Almost so that I'd consider buying the soundtrack.
Audrey Tautou is pretty, and all. Still, I prefer Juliette Binoche.
In conclusion; a decent enough action/thriller flick, with a high entertainment value, well made, with good music, good actors, good filming, and so on. Nothing spectacular. I'd watch it again, if I had a friend who hadn't seen it, or was a part of a group where the majority wanted to see it. Wouldn't watch it again for my own sake. Definitely won't read the book.
It didn't start out terribly well. That line about how Fache worked for 'a kind of French FBI' left both me and G seething. In retrospect it would probably have been more beneficial to the movie viewing had we interpreted it as M did; Fache mocking the American Langdon by assuming he would have no idea what the hell he was talking about otherwise. However, G and I both took it as a personal insult from the screenwriter(s?), assuming that the audience would be stupid enough not to understand. (Which is exactly the problem I had with the book.)
So some 10 minutes into the movie it quickly hit rock bottom at some -15 out of 0-10.
After that, though, it got better. It took a while for it to dig itself out of its own hole, but I can't remember any other such blatant moments of feeling that someone, somewhere, obviously thought I was a moron.
One thing that I wasn't expecting, and that I was a bit put off by, was the speed. Having not read the book, but heard many many people talk about it I had this image of some guy puttering around the Louvre, looking at cryptic symbols and messages, going back to his hotel room, and sort of in all comfortable slowness on scraps of paper and by talking to some people, working out what the hell it all meant. The fact that it's a bloody action piece, and it's all done under tremendous time pressure while being chased by insane killers and large cars is something that people don't see fit to mention at all when talking about the book. And of course, being a person who isn't overly fond of excess excitement, be they in movies or books, it wasn't exactly a pleasant surprise.
Love Ian McKellen, no surprise there. And rather liked his missive as well. Maybe not the smartest way to go about it, but the end of persecution is a pretty neat thing, no? Was pleasantly amused by his ridiculous questions at the gate, and then the whole is-he-or-isn't-he? thing kept me on my toes for a bit. Gandalf is da Man. And there was some nice slashy stuff with his butler, too. Until he killed him... (Only thing, I kept being disappointed the butler wasn't played by Jude Law. I mean, he totally looked like him, and then the camera would get closer and I'd realize it wasn't actually Jude Law. Nothing wrong with the actor they had, but there was this automatic assumption I made every time he had a scene, and then it'd turn out to be wrong, which was just generally annoying.)
What's all this talk about the bad and stereotypical portrayal of women? I mean, granted, Audrey Tautou wasn't the strongest and most inspirational of women characters on film, but I couldn't see how it was any worse than any general action/thriller/mystery movie with a male hero. He didn't even get her at the end.
I did think, however, that it's relatively easy to make a case for movie-Langdon being gay. I was told of how the book ended with him and Audrey making love under the stars, or something else equally gross, and I was so, so grateful that he only kissed her forehead when he left. However, the utter reluctance with which he eyed her, and her rather more obvious lust for him to kiss her, made me wonder if they wanted us to read anything more into that.
There was some stuff that verged on cheesy, some montages that I'd rather not have had, but the music mostly made up for that. I really liked the music. Almost so that I'd consider buying the soundtrack.
Audrey Tautou is pretty, and all. Still, I prefer Juliette Binoche.
In conclusion; a decent enough action/thriller flick, with a high entertainment value, well made, with good music, good actors, good filming, and so on. Nothing spectacular. I'd watch it again, if I had a friend who hadn't seen it, or was a part of a group where the majority wanted to see it. Wouldn't watch it again for my own sake. Definitely won't read the book.
nothing to see here
However, after you have read The Art of Detection, you might try Brown's Angels and Demons...it was way better than DC
btw....good flick review!!!
nothing to see here
nothing to see here
First, I spoke with a friend, Stephanie, about the book. We didn't go into plot or anything like that, just the writing style. I've never even cracked open the book and from what she told me about the style, I don't want to. She tells me that it was written with narrative and then every few pages (I am giving Dan Brown the benefit of the doubt because Stephanie said it was easily every page or every other page), a journal-entry style writing was used. I don't much like books written in journal style (the only reason I hated the book Dracula by Bram Stoker was for this) and if it's true that even parts of The Davinci Code are written like this, I am not going to like it at all.
The second opinion I have is from my own wife. See now Michelle has a friend who is a minister and they discuss religion (despite neither Michelle nor I having specific religious beliefs). When the hype for the movie really started buzzing, Michelle and her friend started having more discussions and she decided to read the book. And she loved it!
Her point of view is quite different though. Rather than taking the point of view that Dan Brown's writing style made her feel like a moron, she took the view that the writing and the "clues" were so easy that it made her feel "like a friggin' genius". She read the book (to date the only book she has actually finished reading cover-to-cover every single word of) in less than three days. She loved it. Really loved it. And now she wants to see the movie and buy the video game.
In all, I still don't think I'll read the book or see the movie. It sounds to me like the writing (of both) is so dumbed-down as to assume the audience has no education above the 5th grade. (With all apologies to my wife, may she never know I said that. :) I just don't like things that assume I'm stupid to start with. Give me a little credit please.
nothing to see here
However, I, too, know actually a fair number of sane, intelligent people, who absolutely adore the book. I think of a professor I had a few years ago, I sat in the back and wrote fanfic on every single one of his classes, because every time he opened his mouth I would feel this incredible rage well up inside me, I felt like he managed to insult my intelligence, my ability to grasp the subject at hand, as well as pointing out how much more intelligent and educated he himself was, and we should be grateful he took time out of his important days to impart some of his wisdom onto us. AGH! Coincidentally, many of my classmates adored him and claimed to learn more in his classes than in the rest of them combined. And they were all sane and (mostly) intelligent people. I don't know why it is that we react so differently to certain things. It can't be that it's obviously one way or the other, because then (one would hope) most people would be of a similar opinion. Don't know what it is that rubs some of us the wrong way.
However, you could let Michelle take you to the movie, should she want to. It's really not bad, for a thriller/action kinda thing (of course, by now you're thoroughly spoiled), as long as one takes it with a grain of salt, and ignores that bloody comment about 'the French FBI'. Bah.
nothing to see here
I liked the book. I was surprised by that. I mean, I don't even like Harry Fucking Potter because the writing is such crap. I think with the DVC, it just moved so fast that I had no time to worry over the pathetic excuse that was the writing - I just wanted to know more about the whole Jesus thing. I finished it in under 36 hours. Which also means I didn't absorb most of the story. I got the "historical" stuff tho, because after reading the book, I had to go read Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Plus Tori Amos is all about Mary Mag. & Jesus hooking up and reproducing, so now I can understand her songs a tad bit more, which is nice.
Anyway, that's all I really have to say. I've sat through worse movies *cough*Underworld*cough*, but I think I'll be ok never seeing this one again.
And I continue to stand by Audrey.
nothing to see here
I quite liked Harry Potter when I read them. However, this was at the same time that I wrote the literary wonder that is my fanfic about Scully's dog, so my appreciation of finer linguistic points wasn't quite the same as it is today. I haven't felt any desire to read the later ones, but I know Ria has them and keeps wanting me to read them...
I don't care one way or another about the whole Jesus/Mary Magdalene thing, really... My faith is so much more about living in the present, and the treatment and interaction with fellow life around you, than the details of what, exactly, happened 2000 years ago. (I found myself annoyingly enough agreeing some with that speech of Langdon's at the end, much as I disliked it...) However, it made for some interesting arguments, and for a cool thriller storyline.
Oooh, I liked Underworld... of course, I was much too distracted by Kate Beckinsale to pay much attention to the plotlines. (Tho originally I refused to see it, as the poster was a TOTAL rip-off of a BoP promo picture of Helena...)
nothing to see here
From Sept 7, 2003:
Speaking of wasting money, I went to see Underworld today. The previews made it seem bearable, and the poster closely mimicked the Birds of Prey logo thingee, so I figured I'd go see it and just try and pretend the chick was Ashley Scott and instead of vampires and werewolves, they were fighting humans and metas. But the badness of it all! I felt sick to my stomach. I wanted to leave within the first two minutes, but I stubbornly stayed put, optimistic that it would redeem itself. But if anything, it only got worse. Too many completely absurd shooting scenes, you know, the kind where the good guy stands tall in front of the bad guys who are in the majority, yet remains untouched by their bullets while they all go down. Major eye roller. There was lots of snickering from the crowd. Plus there was some kind of love line woven into the plot (I use that word lightly) but it didn't make any sense. Just more illogic. The two characters hadn't even spoken to each other outside of the girl interogating the guy and the guy asking what the fuck was going on, and while it seems like these two things might have gone together, ie - she might have gotten info out of him and he might have gotten answers, nothing happened. There was just lots of silence, which I suppose was meant to create tension or something, but just made me want to scream "Just answer the fucking question!" There was much more badness, the horror that was the script, tissue thin characters, a plot that hardly lives up to being called such, one of the most disgusting and ridiculous death scenes I've ever seen, and acting that rivals that of most junior high theatre students. It was bad, bad, bad, left me feeling ill and stupid, and I cannot tell you all enough to keep a great distance from it. Please, for the love of god, do NOT go see that movie.
nothing to see here
In my defense, we rented it for $1.50 and split it over three people so the amount of money wasted was rather bearable. I don't really remember a whole lot, but Kate Beckinsale (of course, I'm biased to anyone named Kate) was pretty, and there were big old castles and lots of stupidity to laugh at. IMHO, many laughably crappy movies (see: TROY) are still worth watching... don't they say a good laugh makes your life longer? And yes, I realize you didn't exactly laugh your ass off at Underworld, but, and I don't remember this for certain, as I don't have such a pretty entry to show that I did indeed see it, I might very well have spent the time I wasn't gushing over Kate laughing at it.