It cannot be said to be completely disappointed. After all, the film has the advantage of the film, that is, the charm of the image. The film concretizes and materializes many scenes that cannot be fully described by words, such as the Louvre, Saint-Sulpice Cathedral, Rosewood Church, Newton’s tomb, the Church of the Knights of the Holy Sword...These places have a very important position in the book. The film shooting in these places allows us to see the real scenes, so many people can’t go to the Louvre, the Rosewood Church to experience in person. When people see these places as they are, they feel their unique charm, which allows readers to understand the description in the book more vividly. However, that's all.
Most of the plot is loyal to the original, but there are several changes made, and it can be said to be fatal. First of all, it is the setting of the cryptex. I believe most viewers are satisfied with the restoration of the image of the cryptex designed by Da Vinci. This is indeed consistent with what we imagined the cryptex should look like. However, in the original work There are two layers of cipher cylinders, a large cipher cylinder is also nested in a smaller cipher cylinder, and the real riddle is hidden in it. However, the design of the outer cryptex is omitted in the movie, and there is only one cryptex. After opening it, you immediately get the last secret hidden by the curator Saunière. Such changes are consistent with the minor changes throughout the film, which is to completely simplify the decryption process. Originally, the biggest highlight of this story, and also the most fascinating place, is that Professor Langdon and Officer Soffe step by step to solve the various mysteries left by the curator Saunière after his death, step by step to solve the mystery of the Holy Grail, and finally The process of approaching the truth. From these continuous deciphering processes, we can see the author Dan Brown’s rich semiotic, religious and historical knowledge. We will be impressed by these intricate designs, and will gradually reveal these interlocking links. The process is endless. But the movie played down the decryption process (like turning two cryptex into one), which made me feel that the pace was going very fast. After a while they arrived at the bank, and after a while they arrived at Sir Teabing’s manor. I boarded the plane again and flew to the UK. I only saw them escape continuously along the way, but the decryption process did not show up at all. It seemed that they knew all the answers all at once, but they just did it step by step. Like the scene on the plane, there would have been a lot of plot development and changes here. They also studied the inverted text behind the rose for a long time before discovering that it was actually written in English, but in the film they found the inverted text directly ( I don't know where it came from) Take out a mirror and read it right away. This makes me think that the whole movie is more like a one-step escape movie than a decrypted movie, which also makes it completely lose the unique charm of the original.
Secondly, it is the handling of Silas's ending, or further speaking, the handling of the endings and personalities of Bishop Aringarosa and Silas. In the original work, Silas did not immediately die on the spot, nor did he ridiculously say "I am a ghost!" before he died. . In fact, Silas’s character is quite interesting in the original book. He is not a murderer who is born with no knowledge of anything. He also has his own tragic experience. Until he met Bishop Aringarosa, he Only then rekindled hope for life. He is loyal to the bishop, and he also has his own pious beliefs. After killing someone, he will continue to confess, because in his opinion, killing one person is for the happiness of more people, and killing someone is compelling. There is an article that describes Silas very well. I think it is better than me, so I quote it directly. I am a little lazy. He is the son of the night, but he blooms with stunning youthful colors. Unhealthy white skin, black clothes tightly wrapped upright body, eyes more pious than all bishops and monks, but they are more melancholic, that is innate, and every time a person is killed, it will increase by a point. On the one hand, he is as agile and brutal as a leopard, committing crimes in search of the secret of the Holy Grail; on the other, he is as meek and cowardly as a sheep. Every time he commits a serious crime, he flogs himself under the cross, and the interlaced scars on his back reflect the tragedy. The history of the mind. Can he complete the salvation he hoped for? At the moment of death, he seemed extremely desperate. Silas was both fearful and religious. Shestov’s famous saying is just right for him: “Because of fear, so believe.” In the original book, he shot and missed the bishop. He was extremely panicked and annoyed. Although he was seriously injured, he still exhausted all his strength to fight. The bishop took him into the hospital and vowed to find the person who deceived the bishop to avenge him. Because the bishop is like a father in his mind, loving and majestic, worthy of his own life to follow. However, the bishop told him to give up his revenge, and he did obey unconditionally. So, the next morning, in Kensington Gardens, an albino patient prayed for the last time in his life in the mist, praying for forgiveness and prayer. Bishop Aringarosa was able to continue to live. After that, he quietly closed his eyes because he believed that "my lord is a kind and benevolent God." Bishop Aringarosa in the movie seems to be a big demon. For the benefit of his sect, he will not hesitate to direct the killer to mutilate the members of the Priory of Sion, and even want to destroy the Holy Grail, although he was deceived by the "mentor". But his evil nature is still undeniable. Such a role is a must in Hollywood movies. Good people are always fighting against such a heinous villain. In the end, this villain will definitely be defeated and will not end well. However, the character of the bishop in the original book is far from simple. He is not the incarnation of all evil. He is just to protect the faith on which he lives. In fact, from a general moral point of view, he is a very good person and he saves him. In desperate situation Silas, the Lost Lamb, cared for him like a father. He participated in charitable causes and even warned Silas not to take revenge after being shot: "Remember, forgiveness is the best gift God has given us." Bishop Aringarosa's advice to Silas has always been that he must not kill as a last resort. Finally, the bishop entrusted Fache to use the money he asked from the Holy See to comfort the families of the people killed by Silas. Whether it is true or false, he has no doubt about his belief in God, so he is destined not to be a villain in the full sense of the word. I think it should be more of the helplessness he had to make when he was in his position, and it was precisely because he was really desperate that he was easily deceived by the "mentor" dressed as Sir Teabing. The original Bishop Aringarosa is complicated, but the movie casts him into a flat character with a single character, a fierce and stupid villain. At the end, there is still a dog's tail, and Professor Langdon must be arranged to say a series of seemingly profound words: "At that time, I only did one thing in the well, which is to pray non-stop... Whether it's a man or a god Well, it just depends on what you believe in..." It seems that I want to reconcile the contradiction between Catholicism and the worship of pagan goddess, and dissolve the huge impact of the fact that Jesus is a man and not a god, but in the end the statue of Maria Magdalene is not a god. It was so clearly expressed that the goddess statue hidden in the small pyramid under the inverted pyramid of the Louvre gradually grew larger and eventually occupied the entire movie screen. Langdon knelt down on the icon, so obvious. The worship symbol of the pagan goddess has eliminated the previous efforts to reconcile the contradictions between the two. I just want to say that the original book neither asks Langdon to say anything to reconcile the contradiction, nor reveals the pagan goddess so clearly at the end. Everything is only very obscure and vague, but this is the best ending. , Readers are required to guess, understand, and recall. The movie obviously went over the head, saying everything clearly, as if there must be a definite result in the end, so as to draw a satisfactory end to the story, the movie is too real and loses the space for thinking. He is a villain in the full sense of the word. I think it should be more of the helplessness he had to make when he was in his position, and it was precisely because he was really desperate that he was easily deceived by the "mentor" dressed as Sir Teabing. The original Bishop Aringarosa is complicated, but the movie casts him into a flat character with a single character, a fierce and stupid villain. At the end, there is still a dog’s tail, and Professor Langdon must be arranged to say a series of seemingly profound words: "At that time, I only did one thing in the well, which was to pray non-stop... Whether it was a man or a god. Well, it just depends on what you believe in..." It seems that I want to reconcile the contradiction between Catholicism and pagan goddess worship, and dispel the huge impact of the fact that Jesus is a man and not a god, but in the end the statue of Maria Magdalene is not a god. It was so clearly expressed that the goddess statue hidden in the small pyramid under the inverted pyramid of the Louvre gradually grew larger and eventually occupied the entire movie screen. Langdon knelt down on the icon, so obvious. The worship symbol of the pagan goddess has eliminated the previous efforts to reconcile the contradictions between the two. I just want to say that the original book neither asks Langdon to say anything to reconcile the contradiction, nor reveals the pagan goddess so clearly at the end. Everything is only very obscure and vague, but this is the best ending. , Readers are required to guess, understand, and recall. The movie obviously went over the head, saying everything clearly, as if there must be a definite result in the end, so as to draw a satisfactory end to the story, the movie is too real and loses the space for thinking. He is a villain in the full sense of the word. I think it should be more of the helplessness he had to make when he was in his position, and it was precisely because he was really desperate that he was easily deceived by the "mentor" dressed as Sir Teabing. The original Bishop Aringarosa is complicated, but the movie casts him into a flat character with a single character, a fierce and stupid villain. At the end, there is still a dog’s tail, and Professor Langdon must be arranged to say a series of seemingly profound words: "At that time, I only did one thing in the well, which was to pray non-stop... Whether it was a man or a god. Well, it just depends on what you believe in..." It seems that I want to reconcile the contradiction between Catholicism and the worship of pagan goddess, and dissolve the huge impact of the fact that Jesus is a man and not a god, but in the end the statue of Maria Magdalene is not a god. It was so clearly expressed that the goddess statue hidden in the small pyramid under the inverted pyramid of the Louvre gradually grew larger and eventually occupied the entire movie screen. Langdon knelt down on the icon, so obvious. The worship symbol of the pagan goddess has eliminated the previous efforts to reconcile the contradictions between the two. I just want to say that the original book neither asks Langdon to say anything to reconcile the contradiction, nor reveals the pagan goddess so clearly at the end. Everything is only very obscure and vague, but this is the best ending. , Readers are required to guess, understand, and recall. The movie obviously went over the head, saying everything clearly, as if there must be a definite result in the end, so as to draw a satisfactory end to the story, the movie is too real and loses the space for thinking. Worship symbols have eliminated previous efforts to reconcile the contradictions between the two. I just want to say that the original book neither asks Langdon to say anything to reconcile the contradiction, nor reveals the pagan goddess so clearly at the end. Everything is only very obscure and vague, but this is the best ending. , Readers are required to guess, understand, and recall. The movie has obviously gone too far, saying everything clearly, as if there must be a definite result in the end, so as to draw a satisfactory end to the story, the movie is too real and loses the space for thinking. Worship symbols have eliminated previous efforts to reconcile the contradictions between the two. I just want to say that the original book neither asked Langdon to say anything to reconcile the contradiction, nor did it reveal the pagan goddess so clearly at the end. Everything is only very obscure and vague, but this is the best ending. , Readers are required to guess, understand, and recall. The movie obviously went over the head, saying everything clearly, as if there must be a definite result in the end, so as to draw a satisfactory end to the story, the movie is too real and loses the space for thinking.
Let’s talk about the actors. I have no words for Professor Langdon, played by Uncle Tom. I only saw a bald uncle with gray hair, slightly convex abdomen, and big ears, dangling around in the film, without the slightest trace of Langdon in the original work. The professor's wisdom and demeanor may be said, maybe I can only say that Tom Hanks is old after all. But Audrey Tatu is calm but not glamorous. The too quiet performance makes people feel a little dull, and there is still a certain gap compared with the intelligence and beauty of Princess Sophie in the original book. Most of the other old actors are lackluster, and the actor of Officer Fache, Jean Reynolds, is even more tired. The only highlight of the film, the only thing that surprises the audience is Paul Bettany, the actor of Silas. Fortunately, he is still here. Silas, who is an angel, killer, and ghost, is the most brilliant character in the film. Only with his "The Da Vinci Code" is there a hint of anger. He never concealed his weakness, his empty and sad eyes, and even doubts. Paul Bettany’s performance was just right, leaving the audience with a very deep impression on Silas, as if he was afraid of being hurt. His eyes can touch the soul of every audience. If there must be an actor's performance for this film to win an award, then I think it can only be-Paul Bettany.
View more about The Da Vinci Code reviews
