I don't know why I was supprised. Everyone always says that when a movie is made out of a novel, it is always dissappointing. I guess it is just the optimist in me...I literally could not 
put the book down (finishing it in only a week), & couldn't wait to see the movie...but alas...I could not have been more dissappointed...Needless to say, I speak of The Da Vinci Code...
Utterly dissappointed in the movie. Which again, shouldn't really surprise me. Hollywood did the exact same thing to me in the film version of my absolute favorite novel, The Count of Monte Cristo. They butchered that one too, much to my dismay...
WARNING...the below contains "spoilers", which may ruin the movie for you, if you continue to read the following rants
The first scene in the movie, which they added, I didn't actually mind. Although it is not detailed in the novel, it is said tht he was the keynote speaker at a lecture. We are introduced to Harvard religious symbologist Robert Langdon, who is at a slide show/book signing in ParisThe slides set up one of the themes of the movie about looking closely at and understanding what you see. He shows a series of image fragments, asks the audience to describe their meaning, then shows the complete image to demonstrate how the eye and the brain can be fooled. The scene in the movie actually set the table nicely for the story. Great way to kick off the movie. However, that is where it stopped.
The movie rushed through the whole Louvre depiction much too quickly (see picture
at right of The Louvre, with it's 2 famous pyramids - the first being more obvious than the second, which is inverted). They skipped over key plot points & made it seem that Langdon recognized the Vitruvian Man immediately, which he did not in the novel. It was actually Sophie that enlightened Langdon on the fact, after he had lamented over it for some time (nor did he discover the backwards writing of Da Vinci , either...another point discovered by the Sophie in the novel). The entire Louvre portion seemed careless, if you ask me.There were also several other scenes which were altered in the film version:
- The film makes it seem that the Bishop of Opus Dei has an evil intent & is in collusion with a "Shadow Council" of the Vatican. It is the exact oposite in the novel. I now see why so many members of Opus Dei are up in arms over their portrayal. In the novel, Opus Dei was merely used as the unknowing pawn of "The Teacher" under the guise of the preservation of their religious sect. If I were a member of Opus Dei, I'd be pissed too...
- The film version comletely makes up Bezu Fache's ulterior motives in the story...
- The film version fabricated the scene where Langdon & Sophie descend to the secret room below Roslyn & fild the Sangreal Documents...never happened in the novel at all...
- The film said that Jacques Saunière was not Sophie's grandfather, but kept the
part about her grandmother, & totally omitted her long lost brother, not to mentioned the way that they met... - The scene where the entire Priory mysteriosly appears at Roslyn never happened in the novel...& for good reason...stupid...
- The film omitted the conversation between Sophie's grandmother & Langdon, where she shows him what the last clue meant (at one time), and explains about Sophie's family & the accident.......not to mention that the film states that Sophie's grandmother told her that Jacques Saunière dies taking the location of the tomb with him....lies, all lies...
- In the film version, they leave out the romance that blossoms between Langdon & Sophie, as well as the the plans they make to see each other in Italy the next month...
- ...and the hole stupid water to wine joke was another film fabrication....crap...
- In the novel, Langdon does not come to realize the true nature of the Holy Grail on his own...the grandmother enlightens him...
I have listed only a few...a few of many. It is just too bad. Although it may seem OK for those who have not read the novel, for those who did & were anxious to see the movie, it was a dissappointment. What makes it hard to accept, is that they did not need to change anythig. The book did an excellent job at telling the story that it's author laid out. It did not hide nay mjeanings, which the movie would have to change around in order to better explain. It was great the way it was written. But the screenplay turned it to crap.
I will say this, however...for those of you who haven't the time to read & will not take up the novel, I highly suggest seeing the film. It is a story of utter fascination for most everyone & can't help to put questions in your head about everything that you grew up believing in...although many historians & critics argue the factual content, you can't help but think "well...why not?"...For myself, I would tend to believe this over what the historians say...what the hell do they know anyway...
Maybe they should have had a Scott write the screenplay...
No comments:
Post a Comment