Monday, May 29, 2006

The Da Vinci Code

Well…I finally saw it. While my kids were watching Over the Hedge with their grandparents, I went to see The Da Vinci Code with my husband. I am a HUGE fan of the book. I don’t agree with any of the book’s critics. I think it was well-conceived, well-researched, and well-written. I thought the short chapters and clean prose worked perfectly for this book. And again, despite what the critics had to say…I thought the movie quite well done. It’s been a little while since I read the book, so I’d forgotten some of the details, and I had to think back over whether certain parts had happened in the book. But all in all, I thought it was very enjoyable. Tom Hanks was an odd choice. Certainly he’s a great actor, but from the description in the book and the picture I had of Robert Langdon in my mind, Tom Hanks just seemed too old, too unattractive, and too greasy. That had to have been the worst I have ever seen Tom Hanks look in a movie! Robert Langdon was supposed to be sexy in a scholarly way—the only thing Tom Hanks had going for him was the tweed blazer. A slightly younger Harrison Ford would have been perfect: think Dr. Jones. Dermot Mulroney would have been cute, or Ewan MacGregor, or Viggo Mortensen. I think there is a dearth of hot property mid-thiry to mid-forty actors in Hollywood so they go high or low to fill the parts. My husband thinks Nicolas Cage would have been a good pick. I concur. I do think the actress they chose to play opposite Hanks, Audrey Tautou, was perfect and a good match.

1 comment:

Lucy said...

From what I remember hearing, Tom Hanks really wanted this role and the look was deliberate. I agree that it's a less than attractive look for Tom but from what I gather, it was the look they wanted.

This coming from someone who has neither read the book or seen the movie. ;)