Post by Ritsu on May 28, 2006 11:00:38 GMT -5
I saw it two days after it opened over here. As you might remember, I refused to read the book since I'm kind of against any big commotion. And the whole scandal and conspiracy theories that emerged after the book was released and the publication of books about the code and everything really started to make me feel itchy. I did try to read the first three chapters and I admit I was enjoying it, but for some reason that had nothing to do with what I wrote above I stopped it. So basically I went with no expectations at all, just wishing to be entertained and amused by the movie, I mean, like I wish everytime I go to the theatre. I did end up feeling quite surprised, which was good. At least I got to understand the whole frenzy around the main theory. If it was really true, then yes, it would be quite the scandal. I already knew about the whole Constantin+Christianism theory (I'm currently studying Paleo-Christian Art, so they mention the fact that he was the one who officialized it every once in a while, and the truth being what Dan Brown suggests doesn't surprise me at all), but it's one of the things I like most about the whole theory. Christianism is based on something people misunderstand. One man, one mortal man just like any other who was a prophet like any other. Which reminds me of Jesus Christ Superstar and his claims for normality and un-godliness. Moving on. I just didn't like one thing: the anagrams part. I remember reading that bit in the book and it was much slower and it actually made the reader think for his/herself a bit, too. In the movie, that doesn't happen. It's way too fast and we don't get a clue about what's going on. Oh, and the story doesn't evolve naturally. It's only Sophie's constant askings of "What's going on" or "I don't understand" that introduced explanations that lasted too long. They could've been introduced in small bits during the whole thing. But well, I didn't read the book to begin with so maybe I don't really know what I'm talking about here.
Best thing: Sir Ian. Absolutely. Paul Bettany was brilliant as Silas (as he usually is ^^) but the whole martyr/tragedy characteristic constantly present in his story could've been a little more explored, don't you think? And that classy look tottaly fits Audrey. But I really wish she sticks with French cinema. It's too weird seeing her in the blockbuster market. Tom Hanks wasn't really there. Wasn't himself. Excellent part, as usual, but I'm used to see him act with much more soul.
I rest my case
Best thing: Sir Ian. Absolutely. Paul Bettany was brilliant as Silas (as he usually is ^^) but the whole martyr/tragedy characteristic constantly present in his story could've been a little more explored, don't you think? And that classy look tottaly fits Audrey. But I really wish she sticks with French cinema. It's too weird seeing her in the blockbuster market. Tom Hanks wasn't really there. Wasn't himself. Excellent part, as usual, but I'm used to see him act with much more soul.
I rest my case