OK...You know what this film is about, and you've heard all the buzz about it. So, let's focus instead on a few of my initial worries about this movie.
The Hair: Tom Hanks' hair was the butt of a lot of jokes prior to the opening of the movie, and even I thought it looked goofy. (I say "even I" because...Well, you would understand if you saw my hair.) But, the hair works in the movie. It seems a little shorter than the neck-length style shown here, and was styled in a way to make Hanks look academic-yet-adventurous. (OK. Maybe that was a little over the top.)
How They Gonna Do All The Stuff From The Book In A 2 Hour Movie: I was a great fan of the book, and enjoyed how it laid out the plot in intricate detail. I couldn't understand how the film would incorporate all the necessary detail. But, it did, and in an interesting way. The film used real-time flashbacks (you'll understand it when you see it) to flesh in the detail. Brilliant.
Continuity With The Book: I thought the flick stayed pretty true to the book. The liberties it did take, though, seemed important and true to the characters. The few differences I did notice were fairly minor.
The acting was stiff: Reviewers crucified (pun intended) Hanks for what they described as stiff, or "wooden" acting. I didn't see that...What I did see was his portrayal staying true to the literary Langdon character. Langdon is reacting in much of the film, a step behind the mystery and the other characters. Hanks (as Langdon) looks stunned and confused because, well, he is.
The Da Vinci film was as good as the book. Terrific secular mystery, Fine acting. Good plot pacing and one hell of a story. Highly recommended. ***
2 comments:
I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. The bad publicity had told me to avoid the flick, but you've convinced me that it's worth watching.
Post a Comment