I'll try and keep it brief to avoid any spoilers...
As much as I loved Audrey Tautou's hair in Amelie, I loved it more in this film. Compare:
Then:
Now:
Hooray!
In term's of the actual movie - ehm, yeah. As I'm sure you'll hear see many bloggers say: myeh
I mean, it was okay... I've read the book four times (twice normal, twice illustrated) and preferred the illustrated version - to be able to see some of the stuff that was being talked about really helped me with a lot of it. Mebbe what I'd gained from the illustrated version took away some of what I could have got from the film?
But on the other hand - I have terrible memory for stories. So a lot of the twists and turns did still grip me, but it still didn't seem like it gripped me enough for me to really enjoy it as much as I felt I should. I think that all the talking up of it, then all the putting down of it has just taken the sparkle off the film - I wanted to go see it because I wanted to see the story, not because I felt I had to find out if it was any good or not.
There were a few small changes (I think, remember: terrible memory) but it wasn't too much of a big deal.
And although I can't think of anyone better to do it, I don't really like Tom Hanks that much.. That said, Robert Langdon isn't supposed to be the likable hero.
So after that poor attempted ramble: all in all, I enjoyed 'V for Vendetta' better, but still glad to have seen it.
Does anyone else who has seen it want to comment?
7 comments:
I saw it last weekend and thought similar to you. It was OK but nothing special. The book was better - as it usually is. Tom Hanks coasted through as Robert Langdon, and Audrey Tautou was good enough but again nothing special.
I'll keep it spoiler free as well so that limits what I can say.
Totally with you on Audrey's hair - loved it (it's similar to mine, btw :P). Tom's performance was so woodden, not that I'm a fan. Minor details irked me, like how they were in the same clothes all the time but still looked fresh, no 5 o'clock shadow, no messy hair etc. The car chase through Paris and the lack of traffic, ahem... never happens! Silas was a copy of a James Bond villain (I forget which movie), and his make up/contact lenses were pretty bad as the movie progressed. Audrey's accent kept changing as well. I loved Jean Reno's performance, and the relationship between the 2 cops was well done. Another thumbs up for me was the French dialogue with good subtitling (I speak French) and the sights of Paris at night. The historical parts were well done, but the suspense wasn't kept right throughout, peaking about 3 times equally. Overall: not as bad as I expected.
LIC - That's about it - it jus sorta coasts thru...
CB - One of the first things I commented about to The Hun on the way out is that they didn't go to the bathroom or shower or sleep even once! How long a time frame does it cover?! I got the two cops mixed up a bit (I'm bad with faces when they have some similar features) and I very highly doubt ANYONE can reverse that fast AND that well. But the gallery stuff was nice - I'd love to go see it all (even before the book and the movie)...
Enny, I left the toilet bit out of my comment, but I thought exactly the same! They could have at least alluded to freshening up in the chateau. And the reverse car chase was also done in a Bond movie but in a Citroen, hardly credible in the mayhem traffic in Paris!
*Sigh* Audrey is a bit of alright...
But on a more intellectual note, having heard/read a variety of reviews, I can safely say I have no idea whether to go see this film or not. :|
Mmmm, Audrey Tatou...
CB - Great minds think alike!
B'b'rry - If I were totally undecided I'd proddly have gone anyway (I LOVE movie popcorn!!!) BUT it's not one that must be seen at the theatre - you can always hire it on video...
Erica - She so pretty....
Post a Comment