The Da Vinci Code

When I read The Da Vinci Code I was immediately gripped by how fantastic it was. The book was absolutely impossible to put down and so I was naturally a bit sceptical about whether the film could live up to the success of the book. I don’t think it does, but it is a very faithful adaptation which I feel was made to capitalise on the success of the book rather than anything else.

For those of you who haven’t read the book and don’t know the story, firstly you really should. Secondly, the film is about a professor called Robert Langdon who is accused of murdering the curator of the Musee du Louvre. He becomes embroiled in a quest to find the Holy Grail with a woman called Sophie Neveu which takes a fair few twists and turns on the way. It is a thrilling story from beginning to end, but as with many films that build on the success of a novel, it doesn’t even come close to being as entertaining as Dan Brown’s book. As a film it is fairly average, but because it is building on something so successful it seems to be much better.

It stars Tom Hanks who is, as ever, wonderful to watch. He has such a fantastic on-screen presence and a tremendous ability to ‘become’ every character that he plays. For me, now that I have seen the film, I cannot picture anyone else as Langdon, and when I read The Lost Symbol relatively recently, it was Hanks who I was visualising in my mind. However, his acting performance isn’t incredible. It is not a particularly taxing role I shouldn’t imagine, and beyond reading the book a couple of times there is not much that is required beforehand with regard to dedication to the role. I really like Tom Hanks, but this isn’t one of his better roles. That doesn’t mean that it is one of his worst though.

In my opinion, the star of the show was Paul Brittany who played the monk Silas. In the book he is a very scary character and poses quite an intimidating threat throughout. It was always going to be difficult to translate this on to the screen. I have recently seen a fair few films with Paul Bettany in and so I was quite surprised to learn that it was he who played Silas in The Da Vinci Code. I just completely didn’t recognise him and he played his character very well. While he wasn’t as imposing as in the book, there are very few genuinely haunting performances. Silas is, I feel, intended as a haunting character and this is difficult enough to convey in words let alone on screen.

There are a number of other stars in supporting roles. Ian McKellen is perfect in the role of the English gentleman Leigh Teabing and provides a good voice to convey much of the grail legend to Langdon, Neveu and the audience. The actress who plays Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou – better known for her role in Amelie) doesn’t particularly stand out, but like I said, it is quite difficult to excel in such an adapted role. Alfred Molina does very well as the leader of Opus Dei, but he too suffers from the same hangover from the book as most of the other cast. Ultimately, this film only serves to provide a visualisation of the book in my opinion. There is nothing about it which makes it stand out from any other film.

I did like the way that the symbolism was portrayed in the film as it makes up such a major part of the book. All four of Dan Brown’s Robert Langdon books feature the symbolism in popular culture as a major theme and this contributes to the astounding success of the series. As a result, there must have been a lot of pressure on the film to deliver this in a convincing and realistic way. Director Ron Howard does this very well and stays true to the vast majority of the meaning in the book.

Ultimately, this is a very hard film to make because of the obvious comparisons to the book. Personally, I don’t think it is a bad film at all, but it does suffer from the inevitable comparisons to the book. The casting is (mostly) spot on, and the presentation of the story is brilliant, but because of how incredible the book was, the film tends to suffer. If you wanted to watch the film then I cannot advise you strongly enough to read the book first. I guarantee it will keep you entertained for so long, but if you watch the film first then a lot of the twists and turns of the novel will be lost because of how well they are written. 

Other films starring Tom Hanks:

Saving Private Ryan - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/saving-private-ryan.html

Forrest Gump - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/forest-gump.html

Another film starring Paul Bettany:
A Beautiful Mind - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-beautiful-mind.html

Other films starring Ian McKellen:

The Lord of the Rings (Part 1) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-1.html

(Part 2) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-2.html

(Part 3) - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/lord-of-rings-part-3.html

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - http://mattsthoughtsonmovies.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

I was quite excited to see this film. I loved the Lord of the Rings films, and always thought that they should make a film of the Hobbit too. On a recent trip to Alnwick I decided that re-familiarising myself with the book would be a good idea, and I remembered how much I loved that too. So I was expecting quite a lot from the movie.

I wasn’t disappointed. The first instalment of the Hobbit series was entertaining, exciting, fast-paced and enjoyable. I was a bit sceptical at first about splitting it into three parts, but having seen the first part, I think it could work. It was a faithful translation of the book, with some bits added from Tolkien’s other works. The first part of the film tells of how Bilbo got involved with the Dwarf plans, and the first part of their journey, up to the point where the eagles save them from the goblin attacks.

There are several appearances from other Lord of the Rings characters. Ian Holm makes a welcome appearance as the old Bilbo, with Elijah Wood popping up as Frodo. Obviously, Gandalf and Elrond are involved in the story and so must re-appear, but both Galadriel and Saruman show in the movie. I really liked the way that the beginning of The Fellowship of the Ring ties in with the storytelling nature of The Hobbit, and was very pleased to see Frodo appear again. However, when I first saw Saruman and Galadriel I was convinced that they were there to boost the cast a bit. However, after watching the scenes involving Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, and Saruman I thought they had the potential to be really useful in providing a bit more background to the Lord of the Rings films.

Martin Freeman plays Bilbo Baggins in this film, and I loved him in this role. I thought he was brilliant, and perfectly managed to portray Bilbo’s lack of enthusiasm for the adventure. I especially liked the scene where the dwarves take over his house. His bustling captured Bilbo’s homeliness delightfully in my opinion. I am very much looking forward to seeing more of Martin Freeman as the films progress. I think it’s quite clear that Peter Jackson has an eye for casting, as Freeman is excellent in this role, and in an interview with NME magazine (http://www.nme.com/filmandtv/news/peter-jackson-martin-freeman-was-the-only-person/292825) Peter Jackson says that “Martin was the only person that we wanted for that role...before we met Martin”. I think he made a good choice.

In my blogs on Lord of the Rings (The Return of the King I think), I talk about how Andy Serkis surpassed himself in playing Gollum. Just when I thought he couldn’t get any better in the role The Hobbit comes out and just blows me away. Here we see a Gollum who is not driven to madness at having lost the Ring, but is happy and content knowing he is the only one who knows about it. Andy Serkis is supreme at conveying a more sociable Gollum, and once again, excels at performing the conflicts between his two personalities.

The way that the dwarves come across in The Hobbit is exactly how I pictured them as well. Richard Armitage is majestic as Thorin Oakenshield, and I predict big things for him in the future. He is able to convey passion, ferocity, drive and emotion with seeming ease. It was also good to see the dwarves Gloin and Balin, who are mentioned in the Lord of the Rings films. Gloin is the father of Gimli, and I liked the strong resemblance that they bear to each other. Balin is the dwarf who is buried in Moria, and it is easy to see from this film (and the book) why he is given such a special burial. His character is wonderfully played by Ken Stott, and I look forward to seeing more of him in the next films. A tip of the hat must also go to James Nesbitt, who pops up as Bofur.

Now before The Hobbit was released there was a lot of talk about the way Peter Jackson had filmed it. It used a higher frame rate than other films have used, and this was meant to affect the way it was perceived. I’m not sure whether it was because I saw the film in 3D but there were aspects of it that seemed really graphically poor. Fire, for example, always seemed really contrived, and there were parts of the motion sequences that seemed unnaturally sped up or like they were lifted from a PlayStation game (thanks to Tom Newbold for that little analogy).

Overall, The Hobbit is a good film. It has nothing on the Lord of the Rings movies, but it is still an enjoyable film. However, whereas the Lord of the Rings films can be seen by everyone, I’d say that The Hobbit should probably be watched by people who liked the original movies or books, because otherwise a lot of the intricacies of the plot might pass you by.

Lord of the Rings: Part 3

With the magnificent scale of the first two films there was a lot of excitement for the third film, and it delivered on to an unprecedented degree. It is the only one of the three films to win the Academy Award for Best Picture in its year, and it’s not hard to see why. The stunning conclusion to the trilogy is a marvellous piece of film making, tying up every loose end perfectly, and completing one of the most successful film trilogies in cinema history.

The plot carries on from the end of The Two Towers with Gollum leading Frodo and Sam to Mordor, but planning to kill them on the way. Also, the armies of Mordor are gathering strength and are ready to battle for the future of Middle Earth. We are introduced to Gondor, and the future of Middle Earth is ultimately decided. The scale of this movie is phenomenal, and the audience is never allowed to drift into boredom because there is always something happening.

Now, I am critical of this film in two main ways. Firstly, Frodo’s confrontation with the giant spider, Shelob, doesn’t happen in the Return of the King, but is in the end of The Two Towers book. I guess without the inclusion of this scene in the film there wouldn’t be much to do with Frodo and Sam in this film. Cinematic license once again defeats my criticism, and it’s a welcome addition to the film. My second gripe is another issue with the adaptation from the book. With the other two film adaptations, the bits left out of the book are understandable by their relative insignificance, however, at the end of the Return of the King, the Hobbits return to the Shire and find it is in the grasp of Saruman. I would quite liked to have seen this in the film, but I guess it doesn’t bring anything to the film, and so could be easily excluded.

The Hobbits themselves are the crucial characters in the whole series. The idea that beings so small are capable of destroying the greatest evil in their world, where Men and Wizards cannot is brilliant. As the main character, Frodo is seen to change massively throughout the series. If you look at Frodo at the beginning of the series, and then just before the end of the quest it can be seen how different he is. The credit here has to go to Elijah Wood who manages to make this a gradual development, rather than a sudden snap. Frodo’s friendship with Sam is another central theme of the movies, and Sean Astin conveys Sam’s devotion to Frodo perfectly. The touch of comedy that is added by Merry and Pippin lightens the tone of the films, but they too play a pivotal role in the films, and I especially like the scene in The Return of the King when, just before the eruption of Mount Doom, they are screaming Frodo’s name on the battlefield, and then the emotion they show when the mountain erupts.

Now Gollum is a tricky one. His character must have been difficult to cast, and Andy Serkis is pure perfection. He is such a fantastic and under-rated actor. While Gollum is obviously a computer-generated, I believe that the motion was actually provided by Serkis, and his dedication to the role goes above and beyond any other actor in the films. Also, the voice of Gollum (also Serkis) is exactly how I imagine him speaking. Andy Serkis surpasses himself in the trilogy, managing to play the two different sides of Gollum magnificently, and in relatively quick succession too. For me, the finest thing about the Lord of the Rings is not the location scouting, or the story, or the scale of the films, it is Gollum. People notice the character, but in my opinion, not enough credit is given to the actor.

In The Return of the King we are introduced to the Kingdom of Gondor. While it’s not our first contact with Gondor, it is the first time we see Minas Tirith, the capital. We are introduced to Boromir in The Fellowship of the Ring, obviously, but in The Two Towers we see Faramir. Faramir does what his brother could not, and lets the Ring go, and while he’s not in The Return of the King much, due to his being injured for a lot of the film, the scene where his father thinks he is dead and tries to cremate the both of them sticks in my mind. Faramir is a strong character who steps out of the shadow of his brother’s legacy and shows incredible bravery to ride out in an attempt to defend his city. His father, Denethor, is thoroughly unlikeable. A combination of his weakness as a ruler, his lack of defence of Gondor, his denial of Aragorn’s ascent to the throne, or his attempts to burn Faramir add up to leave the audience slightly glad that he decides to burn himself to death. It also means that some resistance to Sauron can be mustered. Gondor is talked of as a great power in the Lord of the Rings, and we don’t really see this until the last half of the last film, but when it does come to pass, a spectacular battle commences and this strength is finally seen.

The whole Lord of the Rings series is unforgettable as a series, and is unrivalled in terms of the production of nearly every aspect of the films. The special effects are something special, and tourism to New Zealand can only have increased as a result of the spectacular scenery seen in the films. The actors are incredible, and the story is told so perfectly that it is difficult to say bad things about the films. All three films have to be must see films, and they are all modern classic masterpieces.

Lord of the Rings: Part 2

As the second installment in the Lord of the Rings series, The Two Towers has quite a high standard to live up to. It doesn't disappoint either, with some epic scenes, battles and characters.

Once again, the adaptation from the book is excellent, and the combination of the spectacular locations, fantastic action scenes and marvelous special effects result in an epic film which continues where The Fellowship of the Ring left off in more ways than one. The battle of Helm’s Deep is directed and produced much better than any of the fight scenes in The Fellowship of the Ring, and it’s one of the only cinematic battles that I’ve cared about and passionately wanted the bad guys to be defeated.

For me, this film rightfully focuses on Aragorn, Gimli and Legolas, and the relationship between the three is the foundation for this film. The competitive spirit between Gimli and Legolas, Gimli agreeing to be tossed by Aragorn, and the understanding between Legolas and Aragorn all reflect how three characters of different kinds come together to form one of the strongest friendships in the film. Gimli is a raw example of fierce loyalty to his friends, thirst to kill orcs and his character is actually quite witty. Aragorn is the kind of character that everyone loves, and this is easy to see why. If you haven’t read the books, I’d imagine you’d be rooting for him all the way through the series, and when he eventually comes to the throne of Gondor it shows how far he has come since stalking the Hobbits in Bree. Legolas adds a bit more quirk to the trio, and is more graceful (as an Elf) than the other two, but is, if anything, much more successful in battle than the other two. As an archer he kills more orcs than the others, continually outscoring Gimli. The three characters, and the three actors, really complete the films for me. Obviously there’s the central story of the quest to destroy the Ring, but the story around Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli is no less enjoyable.

When Gandalf is added into the mix there is a dry sense of humour added, as well as an increased sense of power and success to their mission. At the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, the three agree to find Merry and Pippin who have been captured by Uruk-Hai, and the story around them in this film revolves around them trying to trace them. This leads them to both Gandalf and the kingdom of Rohan. Throughout the series, Gandalf is a fantastic character who is loved by the Lord of the Rings fans. Ian McKellen portrays the wizard masterfully. I don’t really think there’s much more to say about him. Both the character and the actor are phenomenal.

The Two Towers introduces Rohan and its people. Rohan is under the grip of Saruman, and as a result, Theoden starts off The Two Towers as a weak old man. However, throughout the series he becomes a much more powerful leader and eventually leads his people in the Battle for Middle-Earth. I find myself warming more and more to Theoden throughout the films, but not as much as his niece. Eowyn is the classic example of a woman whose society demands that she cannot do something (go to war with the men), but who steps out against this and does it anyway, even encouraging a Hobbit to come with her. Her misplaced love for Aragorn is heart-wrenching for the audience, and when she eventually finds happiness with Faramir I was very pleased for her. I can’t work out what I think of her brother though. Eomer is sent away by Saruman’s puppet, Grima Wormtongue, at the beginning of The Two Towers but he doesn’t try very hard to fight this, riding away with some loyal soldiers. When Rohan is attacked he has to be summoned to come back and eventually win the Battle of Helm’s Deep. This doesn't seem very likely to me, and surely Eomer would have tried a bit harder to remove Wormtongue’s influence from Rohan. Nevertheless he is a strong influence in the final battle. Overall, Rohan is portrayed initially as a very weak kingdom, but grows in strength as the King gets more powerful.

Sauron is the overall villain in the series, and while being completely digital for the significant majority of the films, he is wonderful. The adaptation of Tolkien’s description of him is magnificently done, and the eye is quite imposing. Throughout the film’s Sauron’s tower gets more and more exposure, and the eye receives more and more work, with it moving around in the third movie. However, his second-in-command and his cohorts, the Witch-King of Angmar and the Ringwraiths, are terrifying. In The Fellowship of the Ring the black riders are very intimidating, and the Nazgul are very scary in the second and third installments  While Sauron is not one of the greatest cinematic villains, not in the same league as Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader etc, the way he is portrayed in the Lord of the Rings definitely increases his standing as a villain.

The Two Towers is another fantastic film, and after the epic Fellowship of the Ring it might have struggled, but there is no such difficulty. It is a marvelous adaptation from the book and has the most awesome battle of the whole series in it. It sets up the third film beautifully and definitely belongs firmly in the halls of epic films.

Lord of the Rings: Part 1

Now, I could review the Lord of the Rings films as a series, but that would be a very long blog and it seems that the done thing these days is to split something that could easily be finished in one into three separate installments  such as a movie adaptation of a popular book, so as to make more money. So this is what I’m going to do.

Obviously the place to start is with the Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion this is the best of the three films because it’s most true to the book. Also, it’s the one I enjoy watching the most. The Fellowship of the Ring tracks the discovery of the One Ring and the start of the journey to destroy it. Frodo takes it to the Elves at Rivendell and then carries it with eight companions to between Lorien and Fanghorn Forest before their party is split up.

As an adaptation from the book, Fellowship is fantastic. When I first saw it, the characters were pretty much true to how I’d imagined them and the story was lovely and easy to follow. The initial trip to Rivendell is full of haste and panic, and the stalking of the party by the Black Riders was very tense. Beyond Rivendell, the journey of the fellowship was perfectly told in my opinion. For me, the highlight of the whole film is the scenes in Moria. These are dark, gloomy and delivered with perfection by Peter Jackson. As the first film in a trilogy which had so much expectation behind it, The Fellowship of the Ring did not disappoint even slightly.

There are too many characters in the trilogy for me to deal with on a film-by-film basis, and I’d be repeating myself a bit too much, so I shall deal with them bit by bit, but considering the whole series, starting with the Elves. True to the books, the Elves are graceful, peaceful and elegant, and the beauty with which they are all blessed with makes them a joy to watch in the series. Elrond is wonderfully played by Hugo Weaving and comes across as stern, loving, fierce, gentle and majestic throughout the film. He is undoubtedly wise and is generally motivated by two desires: to see the Ring destroyed, and to protect his daughter. Moving on to Arwen, Liv Tyler manages the same array of emotions as Elrond, with grace, beauty and fierceness all present. Her choice to live as a mortal just so she can be with Aragorn is possible the greatest expression of her love and Liv Tyler portrays Arwen wonderfully. Similarly, Cate Blanchett is masterful as Galadriel and makes a fitting narrator to the story.

Boromir is another wonderful character as well. His death is one of the saddest bits of cinema in modern times. He epitomises the way that Men are portrayed in the films, as both strong and weak, and easily tempted by the power of the Ring. Sean Bean is a fitting actor to play Boromir, and throws himself in to the part, so much so that the audience goes from dislike to like very quickly at different points in the story.

When I read the books I wasn’t clear as to what the Uruk-Hai actually were, and how they differed from the Orcs etc. The Fellowship of the Ring made this so much clearer. The Uruks that are created are hideously sinister, and are fearsome villains throughout the series. I particularly enjoy seeing the Uruks being ‘born’. Saruman is a fitting commander as well, and comes across as deviously treacherous, obviously what was intended. As Sauron’s puppet he instructs much of the early rise of Sauron’s strength, and his head-to-head with Gandalf represents the clash of two magnificent powers. His eventual comeuppance is extremely satisfying to the audience.

The soundtrack to the three films is utter perfection as well. It’s one of the few soundtracks that is a lovely piece of music when it’s not accompanied by the film. In my opinion it’s a cinematic masterpiece and definitely makes the films what they are as much as the cast or the special effects.

The Fellowship of the Ring is a fitting opening to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It sets the standard for the films to follow and remains wonderfully true to the book while producing a piece of cinematic gold.