Hi everyone!
I know we're supposed to be reading Angels and Demons and blogging about that, but I'd like to first discuss the Da Vinci Code movie. We didn't really have time after watching it to discuss. I think, through our constant commentary during the movie, we all agreed that it was NOT as good as the book. Personally, I loved the book, and absolutely hated the movie... but nevertheless, we should talk about it.
So...
1. Do you think the actors portrayed each of their characters appropriately? (I know the actress who played Sophie was annoying, but even so, did she do a good job?)
2. The movie obviously deviated from the book at certain times. Which changes affected your interpretation positively, and which affected it negatively?
3. Why do you believe certain changes were made? Do the changes help or hurt an audience that hadn't read the book? If you hadn't had read the book, would you see the movie in a more positive light?
4. Were the visuals of the movie similar to what you interpreted as you read the book?
Happy New Year! See you in 2011! :)
-Ally Wang
I think the change about the cryptex really hurt the audience. I think the whole idea of having a cryptex within a cryptex showed how creative and how brilliant Saunier was to go to such great lengths to protect the Priory. I also thought that when Sophie and Langdon figured out the the code to open the first cryptex was Sofia was an important part of the story because it showed Sophie that her grandfather cared enough to include her name as part of the secret. The people who only saw the movie and did not read the book would not see any of this which would take away from the whole experience of reading the book/watching the movie. I believe the change was made because it would make the movie shorter because the movie was definitely long enough as it was. If I hadn't read the book prior to watching the movie I would have been really confused. I was confused about the cryptex while watching the movie and I had read the book. So I just didn't like this change at all because it was such a big part of the book.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Olivia. The character connection between Sauniere and Sophie wasnt there in the movie. In the book, although they hadnt spoken with each other for years, Sauniere still incorporated her in the finding of the holy grail. In the movie, it seemed like they didnt like each other.
ReplyDeleteAnother little thing i'd like to point out was when they were in the bank vault, Vernet left them when they plugged in the pin number without mentioning anything about the police. Then, he comes back in saying "the police arrived more quickly than i expected" or something along those lines. In the book, it mentions the whole thought-process and the actions describing how Vernet was trying to save them. In the movie, they bypassed that, and to somebody who had not read the book, the movie would make no sense there.
Silas played his part well in the movie (except for the supposedly "muffled" breaking of the tile in the Saint-Sulpice Church or whatever). Throughout the book, one could feel the emotion and loyalty and the actor played that very well. Sophie was obnoxious. Tom Hanks is good in every movie. Fache looked out of place. He was serious throughout the book, but in the movie he looked too serious and it just looked fake, but all in all the actors did well, though the plot was messed up.
Tom Hanks wasn't anything like what I thought Langdon was like. His voice was way lower and he just seemed too.. subdued to me. But now that I've seen Tom Hanks play Langdon, I'm having trouble remembering what my Langdon was like. Interestingly, though, I can still remember what my Sophie was like. I think I had a clear image of what Sophie looked like in my head, and since I didn't like the actress who played Sophie, I'm not having a problem remembering my Sophie. I kind of accepted Tom Hanks as Langdon, though, even though I didn't necessarily like him as Langdon. I thought the guy who played Silas was wonderful. Even though he wasn't technically albino, I don't think there are many albino actors who could have pulled off the amazing performance that he did. I thought he was amazing. And I actually liked Fache. I think he seemed real. Collet bothered me though. And although I didn't like the actor who played Teabing at first, I ended up really liking him.
ReplyDeleteThe whole plot being different than that of the book thing confused me. I found myself thinking back to the book too much and thinking about how they could have changed the movie instead of actually just letting myself enjoy the movie. It would be interesting to talk to somebody who had never read the book and see how they liked the movie.
I feel like in the movie, Hanks played a better Langdon than what the book made it sound like to me. He sounded overanxious to show off his immense knowledge of whatever he knew haha, but in the movie, he was more like 'yeah, i know a lot, but why show off?' and he was really chill and laid back, which made him better in my opinion. I liked that "subdued" characterization of him. I agree with you, Kalie, in that I can't remeber what my Langdon was like haha.
ReplyDelete