May 24, 200619 yr I went to see it night before last - and it's a HUGE disappointment. The book, whilst pretty badly written, was a page-turner... the film's a yawn. Tom Hanks is badly miscast and, even from his first few lines, it's glaringly obvious. He's wholly unbelievable. The French girl, too, is totally wooden and mis-cast. Highlights are the ever-reliable McKellan and Paul Bettany as the monk - both great performances. The main problem is the film was made for people who have read the book - if you haven't, you'll be well out of your depth as the film has no structure or sensible coherence - it's a jumbled mish-mash of the bits of the book Howard decided he could film. The film went down like a lead balloon in the cinema - literally everyone we overheard chating about it afterwards was griping.
May 24, 200619 yr I went to see it night before last - and it's a HUGE disappointment. The book, whilst pretty badly written, was a page-turner... the film's a yawn. Tom Hanks is badly miscast and, even from his first few lines, it's glaringly obvious. He's wholly unbelievable. The French girl, too, is totally wooden and mis-cast. Highlights are the ever-reliable McKellan and Paul Bettany as the monk - both great performances. The main problem is the film was made for people who have read the book - if you haven't, you'll be well out of your depth as the film has no structure or sensible coherence - it's a jumbled mish-mash of the bits of the book Howard decided he could film. The film went down like a lead balloon in the cinema - literally everyone we overheard chating about it afterwards was griping. I'd have to agree with that - Ron Howard was NOT the man to direct this film and Tom Hanks was NOT the actor to star in it. To be fair to Audrey Tatou, she tried her best, she's a good actress overall (I've seen her in several French films), but the script was so badly written (far worse than the book, which aint no great shakes in the literary stakes either....) that she wasn't given a whole hell of a lot to work with; mind you, neither was Hanks, but he's such a lightweight, woefully over-rated actor anyway..... The first 30 minutes were appalling, absolutely preposterous and plodding plotting - the things that didn't seem quite so ridiculous in the book because of the way Dan Brown had written them (such as, how the fukk is a museum curator supposed to get around the museum leaving cryptic clues around after being shot in the gut) just looked utterly ridiculous when put onto the cinema. Having seen "Three Kings" and "Reservoir Dogs" I think we all know damn fine just how gory and horrific a gut-shot actually is, Mr Orange is unable to walk unaided and can hardly string two coherent thoughts together BECAUSE HE IS IN SUCH BLOODY AGONY; and this presposterous film expects us to believe that a septegenarian museum Curator can run around a museum and have all his faculties intact enough to leave lots of little codes around. Bollocks.... Thank god for Sir Ian McKellen! He actually single-handedly saves the film from totally falling on its arse... He has what Hanks does not - authority, gravitas, actual screen presence......Hanks and Tatou may as well not exist while he's on screen... Paul Bettany also gives a highly creditable performance as Silas, the murderous monk, but he is an actor I've always rated highly (he was fantastic in films such as "Gangster No 1" and acted Russell Crowe off the screen in "Master and Commander"). Jean Reno also does well as the dogged French copper Fasche, another great actor with 10 times the presence and acting ability of Hanks. This was a badly conceived film which could have been better had a more able director been given the chair - maybe Michael Mann or David Fincher? Both certainly have far more style and flair than Ron Howard. And a much better screenplay by someone with a bit more savvy would have made matters considerably better as well, perhaps to plug the gaping plot holes which exist in the book.....? All in all, rather half-arsed....
May 24, 200619 yr I went to see it night before last - and it's a HUGE disappointment. The book, whilst pretty badly written, was a page-turner... the film's a yawn. did anyone see that article in the paper which was like 'do anybody actually take any notice of film critics'? the jist is that most of them, well all the ones ive seen in the press have slagged this film off and people still went out in droves. the article was goin on something like "is it because everybody thinks we the critics are aty farty beings (not their words of course) who will send then to some art house piece of finnish miserablism or such like?" can remember what paper it was in, might have been the same one as what is serious music?
May 24, 200619 yr I think we all know damn fine just how gory and horrific a gut-shot actually is, Mr Orange is unable to walk unaided and can hardly string two coherent thoughts together BECAUSE HE IS IN SUCH BLOODY AGONY; now if this was the next orange advert :lol: :lol:
June 7, 200619 yr Author I saw it tonight. I enjoyed it. :cheer: And although I haven't read the book I could follow the story fine. ( But I live not too far away from Rosslyn Chapel and have visited it several times since I was a kid. I already knew all about the Knights Templar, the Grail Legend and Christ's Bloodline. Maybe that gave me a bit of an advantage when it came to following the plot -_- ) After all the negative criticism I wasn't expecting to enjoy the film but I did. ( And the Mad Monk was well scarey :o :puke2: )
June 7, 200619 yr Saw it on Monday ... really cool :D the book's far superior, as they miss loads of details in the movie that are really nice in the book, but overall is a nice production
June 8, 200619 yr Grimly Fiendish and Russt68. Seriously, I applaud you. I'm new on here, but I've read a few of both your posts on various topics and more or less I've agreed with what you've said on those occassions. This is no exception. The book and the film are P-poor. Well to be fair, the book I can see as a light holiday read. When you don't want anything too heavygoing. But it was a success. It's commerical appeal I can see was fueled by bored American housewives who want a peice of Romantic European fantasy in their boring existence and pompous business men who want to look "cultured" by reading it on the train. This, I feel, is also why the film was made the way it was. It appeals to those markets. Those markets that will buy buy buy buy buy! Never mind the people that truely enjoy films. The film was slated at Cannes, and Hanks went home early. Why? Well.. it was utter pants. As a side thought, what's Cannes all about nowadays? Regardless, did you see Sir McKellen's interview at Cannes about the film? He cracks me up. The film was indeed called "plodding" as you so rightly describe Grimly Fiendish. And I quote:: "While I was reading the book I believed it entirely. Clever Dan Brown twisted my mind convincingly. But when I put it down I thought, 'What a load of ... potential codswallop." I love Sir McKellen. I wish he was my grandad.
June 8, 200619 yr Grimly Fiendish and Russt68. Seriously, I applaud you. I'm new on here, but I've read a few of both your posts on various topics and more or less I've agreed with what you've said on those occassions. This is no exception. The book and the film are P-poor. Well to be fair, the book I can see as a light holiday read. When you don't want anything too heavygoing. But it was a success. It's commerical appeal I can see was fueled by bored American housewives who want a peice of Romantic European fantasy in their boring existence and pompous business men who want to look "cultured" by reading it on the train. This, I feel, is also why the film was made the way it was. It appeals to those markets. Those markets that will buy buy buy buy buy! Never mind the people that truely enjoy films. The film was slated at Cannes, and Hanks went home early. Why? Well.. it was utter pants. As a side thought, what's Cannes all about nowadays? Regardless, did you see Sir McKellen's interview at Cannes about the film? He cracks me up. The film was indeed called "plodding" as you so rightly describe Grimly Fiendish. And I quote:: "While I was reading the book I believed it entirely. Clever Dan Brown twisted my mind convincingly. But when I put it down I thought, 'What a load of ... potential codswallop." I love Sir McKellen. I wish he was my grandad. :blush: I thank you for your kind words..... Here's a weird thing yeah, this film had FOUR stars believe it or not, before I voted, gave it one, and then it shrank down to three..... :lol: :lol:
July 20, 200618 yr I dont see Hanks as a tough gangster or a 'bad guy' but definately I see him as a much more credible actor for this role. Actually whilst watching it today i was thinking how i would like to have seen French Stewart in his role... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/64/Frenchstewart.jpg with Leslie Nielsen as Sir Leigh Teabing, and Mr Tourette as the french police http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d8/LeslieNielsenHeadshot.jpg and directed by Zucker, Abrahams and Zucker (I wonder if Scary Movie 5 will do this???) that or being squiched together with the Pink Panther franchize :lol: :lol:
July 20, 200618 yr I saw it this weekend. It was not bad, but I think it could be better ... If it was 90 minutes rather than the 149, it might have been alright. interest started to slag at the end.
Create an account or sign in to comment