It seems that the degree of disappointment in the movie is not as great as imagined, probably because it has been psychologically prepared before. Although I couldn't equate Tom Hanks and Langdon before, it seems that the film is spread out, and I don't think Hanks and Langdon are incompatible. The most dissimilar person seems to be Remy, the butler of the Teabing family. I feel that the British-style butler should be meticulous, serious, not tall, and a little bit of a vent. (Hehe, this is what I imagined, ) As a result, this housekeeper is not only tall, but also feels a little gloomy from the moment he appears on the stage, it seems like a domestic investigation film I watched when I was a child, and the bad guys are all with pictures.
Compared with the novel, which gives people a sense of horror from the text, the movie can only create horror from the screen, but unfortunately the director seems to have not grasped enough in this regard, such as Langdon entering the Louvre, the mystery of the Louvre in the novel. , The effect created by the dim light and shadow left a deep impression on me, but in the movie the Louvre was bright, and it felt a lot worse all of a sudden. In terms of plot, a two-and-a-half-hour movie is definitely not enough to inject so many religious elements into the novel. The plot design is fairly smooth, but it still makes people feel disconnected in the middle. And the props in the novel are a bit unsatisfactory. I used to be full of imagination about the box carved with roses, but the roses in the movie are bland and have no refined feeling at all. I suggest that the director should learn from the wood carvings in Chinese culture: )
In any case, this is a movie specially made for fans of The Da Vinci Code, and they have to be super fans, and every detail that cannot be connected can be found in the already well-known novels. If you haven't read the novel, I think you will still be confused after reading it.
View more about The Da Vinci Code reviews
