Hello All.
Bjorn sets the bar pretty high for film talk, but we should give it a shot too. I haven't been watching many films lately, but did watch The DaVinci Code on Sunday and can manage a few words.
Many of you have probably seen this film and almost certainly read the book so I may be assuming a few things as I speak... I apologize if I leave something out. I did like the book, not loved, but liked. It made a really nice book for the ride to and from Montana. Interesting, suspenseful, and a great conversation starter with my friends who are more devout than I.
Like many of us I did not expect the movie to have even a part of the impact of the book and I suppose that worked in its favor in that the bar was set low for me. Compared to the book, every clue led very quickly and conveniently to the next (and the book was quite convenient), but to fit a 16 hour book into a 2.5 hour movie it makes sense. It did serve to diminish the understanding of the background content and not much time for the viewer to conclude anything on their own. Before one can really guess who did what, you get to see it.
That is my gripe. Not too bad actually. Visually, the film made up a lot of ground. I loved Langdon visualizing his thought process; literally projecting beautiful holograms of archaic puzzles and vast orbiting planets. Dusty holograms that wavered, cast shadow, and were effected by bits of ambient light. Also, when Langdon would look at a sculpture or art piece the part of focus would light up, showing the audience exactly the symbols he was looking for. Really simple, effective ways to make things clear.
I would like to see some of the visuals tied into a different film. Many a imaginative scientists and investigator's audiences would benefit from these clever visual effects.
I would see it if you liked the book and have some time to kill, but it is not a must. I do know that I will be avoiding Angels and Demons when it arrives in theaters... gagged on that book, but that is another rant entirely. Feel free to argue, I don't mind at all. And sorry if this is sorta gibberishy, i'm rusty.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yea! Thanks for posting Jay. Now I can write again!
Also, I want to hear more about your thought on Angels and Demons now... If I remember correctly, that was the book I liked more.
Or maybe it was just the abigrams.
Hmmm... actually I seem to have had this argument about Angels and Demons frequently. Most do seem to love it, except me I guess? Sadly I don't remember exact details of the book and my specific problems with it, so this may seem a bit to general.
I believe that in essence it had the potential to be a more interesting book in that it seemed to be a little more feasible and intellectually Dan Brown is excellent in a easy to understand fashion. My gripe with him is common amongst many other authors of his genre, which I will now name "pseudo-intellectual,myth,mystery, romance, thriller, fiction." Books in this genre have excellent prepositions and vast build up, but their climaxes are horrendous. The intense build up leads often to the least strenuous part of the book. The authors never seem to wish to risk any main character any more than the bare minimum in this moment? I wish I could remember Angels and Demons now, but that was my thought.
My other gripe is his endings. They drone on to what seems no end. I recall beating my head at the end of that one, wanting to finish it... I mean REALLY WANTING IT TO END. I see it as sort of weak if so much time is needed to clarify a story after the fact. Once I know it is essentially over not much really seems to matter since I don't love any of the characters enough to really care what happens.
Sorry for the negative outlook. I wish I had a better argument for my remarks, but I will agree it wasn't too bad of a book before I agree to read it again to make a solid case. Perhaps I'll remember more and finish up my statements though.
Feel free to say I'm a idiot and that perhaps I should just stick to my "archaic, apocolyptic, sword wielding prophet fiction" instead.
I must agree with you on your point in paragraph 5, line 1 "I'm a idiot." Very well said, and I look forward to more of this analytical path.
I also disliked Angels and Demons. For me it was because I ended up sympathizing (sp?) far more with the "bad" guy who eventually died at the end of the book (if I remember correctly). Once it became apparent what his bad deeds were and that he would eventually meet some terrible fate (otherwise it wouldn't be a popular book), that long drawn out ending that Jay was talking about just made it worse for me.
However, I agree that the book as a whole was well written (within its genre)and well researched. The plot just rubbed me the complete wrong way, and I didn't enjoy the book because of it.
Post a Comment