The Da Vinci Code

Two things about it that were good.

1. Jean Reno's hotness (not his acting, as he was an autopilot all the way through).
2. The scenery/locations.

Two things that weren't so good.

1. It stuck rigidly to the book, with one or two exceptions of artistic license. Because of this, I knew exactly what was going to happen at almost any given moment.
2. The flashbacks sucked.

I remember reading this ages ago, and thinking that while the writing wasn't great, it might adapt well to a screenplay. The constant cliffhangers in the book didn't transfer well to the screen, though, and the character development was pretty ropey, to say the least. All in all, I'd be inclined to blame the source material and just leave it at that. Tom Hanks wasn't as miscast as some would have you believe, and Audrey Tatou was as valid a choice as anyone. As I'd said before, the lifting of the lid on the history of Catholicism was interesting in the book, and would have been interesting to see on film if you had not come across it before.

One thing I've noticed about this phenomenon is that more and more people are coming out of the woodwork and criticising it, and recent coverage of the Cannes film festival featured a selection of critics turning their noses up at the whole thing. If ever there an example was needed of a frustrated bridesmaid, it has to be a film critic, and it does nothing except increase my resolve to see the film even more. Have a go at making your own films boys, and try not to speak out on others. The sound of jealousy getting caught in your throat can be heard by all.

Incidentally, Sofia Ford Coppola's new film, Marie Antoinette, is coming out next year, and she's done the same with it as she's done with The Virgin Suicides and Lost in Translation in terms of the soundtrack. This time, it's the New Romantics that are spicing up the background a bit. Should be interesting. Incidentally, a selection of critics showed their appreciation for that one by booing. Very mature, ye of little consequence.