Sunday, December 05, 2004

A Masterpiece

In his review of National Treasure, Roger Ebert points out the similarity of the movie's plot to the book The Da Vinci Code. As a side note, he describes what he thought of the book:

It is inelegant, pedestrian writing in service of a plot that sets up cliff-hangers like clockwork, resolves them with improbable escapes and leads us breathlessly to a disappointing anticlimax. I should read a potboiler like The Da Vinci Code every once in a while, just to remind myself that life is too short to read books like The Da Vinci Code.

I only read about a page and a half of The Da Vinci Code, but that was pretty much the impression I'd formed. It pleased me to see it summed up so succinctly. It's also a sharper, more biting review than you usually see Ebert dish out to most movies, made harsher by its dismissive brevity.

6 comments:

Tommaso Sciortino said...

Thanks for saving me. I thought to pick it up some time in the future to figure out what the common folk were reading but now I know better.

matt said...

i enjoyed reading the Da Vinci Code, but only because i knew what i was getting into. i think meli pretty much summed it up by saying that the Da Vinci Code is one of those rare instances where the movie will probably be better than the book.

though she has since retracted that statement due to her hatred of tom hanks, i still think she's right.

Kenny said...

What's with all the hatred of golden boy Tom Hanks? There was an MSN article full of people complaining about his casting in that movie. Sure, he's had some turkeys lately and I was certainly no champion of Ladykillers or Polar Express, but come on. What has he done to deserve such ire?

matt said...

i don't mind tom hanks. i don't love him but i'm not necessarily anti. but i do think he's a bad choice for robert langdon.

meli's big beef with him is that he always plays tom hanks. robert langdon isn't the deepest character you'll find, but an actor with a little versatility would have been better. langdon is also rather understated (the other characters in the book are more caricatured and interesting), and if there's one thing tom hanks ain't, it's understated. (meli: "i could even handle kevin spacey in that role.")

Kenny said...

That's why Ladykillers looked so cool in the trailer, because he was so un-Hanks like.

But hey, Forrest Gump? C'mon. He had an accent and was all stupid and everything.

matt said...

tom hanks seems to either play "tom hanks" or "wacky tom hanks." his over the top characters are entertaining but not believable. it's kind of like jim carrey, who has played a bunch of different characters but usually comes across as a wacky version of himself.