With Tom Hanks and Ian Mckellan playing lead roles, I had high expectations for this on screen adaption and yet I felt the movie was fairly boring, fragmented in parts and slow pace. Tom Hanks wasn't convincing as Robert Langdon though he does look a lot like the Harvard Professor. Mckellan was brilliant as always, stealing every scene from the rest of the actors and although he didn't have to do much, except participate in kinky rituals with a whip and look tormented and scary at the same time, the actor who portrayed Silas did an excellent job of it. Nice make up to. He should do a Bond film. They also took quite a few liberties with the original story story but I suspect that the appeal of the books comes from the narrative, which was laden with heavy symbology, something the movie couldn't really do without burdening the plot with excessive dialogue and a bad voice over.
2006-10-14 10:53:26 · 12 answers · asked by MrSandman 5 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
I thought it was a provocative adventure movie with strangely compelling, literate dialog. We don't know who the good guys are until the end.
The plot line holds together because of the character of the heroine's stepfather, killed in the first scene of the picture. As the story progresses, we come to understand his charcter better, especially through the similarities in thinking shared with the Tom Hanks character.
The escape in a Renault in heavy traffic driving in reverse, the Land Rover driving through the woods of an estate to get to a private airport, and the private jet landing and pulling into a hangar near London are the best of the action scenes.
The crisp, respectful dialog between the heroine and the Tom Hanks character are unheard of in such an action picture. I give it a B plus as something of a comingling of two books: "Holy Blood Holy Grail" and Thomas Gifford's "The Assasini." It's really an adventure movie for college students and white collar adults.
2006-10-14 11:02:54 · answer #1 · answered by urbancoyote 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Hanks was way to old for the role, supposed to be mid to lat forties and athletic from swimming. The girl was supposed to heve red hair like the painting and she was a brunette. They cared more about having a French girl in that role than reading the book. The movie was choppy because the story was ignored. Brown writes in short chapters in three locations alternating locations in order to keep the reader wondering what next. The movie does not edit its scenes exactly that way. As for the details in the book, all of that can't be done on screen but some of it can be done either through cinematics or through added dialogue. Little of that was done here. Perhaps this should have been serialized.
2006-10-14 11:09:13 · answer #2 · answered by LORD Z 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It was S.h.i.t !!!. I nearly fell asleep and left for home before it ended.. Shame I've always liked Tom Hanks in all his other movies ...
On ya Mate !
2006-10-14 10:58:03 · answer #3 · answered by DaAussie@Australia 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the movie was a very good fiction!
2006-10-14 10:56:57 · answer #4 · answered by M. Nasty 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the movie is never as good as the book
2006-10-14 10:56:14 · answer #5 · answered by Nora G 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no way near as good as the book
2006-10-14 11:02:26 · answer #6 · answered by FLOYD 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the same thing they used to say about cream chipped beef in the army....ask your parents
2006-10-14 11:01:10 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought it was mega boring!
2006-10-14 11:03:50 · answer #8 · answered by turkkizi34 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Long and Boring...
2006-10-14 10:55:20 · answer #9 · answered by lilnell_12 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
as you said"it was slow and boring"
2006-10-14 11:24:23 · answer #10 · answered by Carlo C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋