So what reason would anyone have to believe you? If they did find this tomb, and proved that they’re in possession of 2.000 year old bones, why would anyone care? They’d likely briefly acknowledge your finding, then go about their day as usual, like they do with most historical findings. You have no way of proving they actually belonged to the person you claim. At best, what you have is bones you could realistically prove are 2.000 years old. If we start with the first issue, proving the bones belonged to Mary Magdalena. Granted, the Vatican has worked hard to quell rumors in the past, but this one seems too inconsequential, so I don’t think they would’ve bothered. It doesn’t make sense that the characters believe this sort of revelation would be all that life-changing, or that the Vatican would bend over backwards trying to hide this secret. So my issues with this film simply have to do with the film’s rationale. I suppose I should add that I am not religious in the slightest. With these things in mind, it gets annoying when the film’s characters pretend like this revelation would alter Christianity as we know it. First, even if you found the bones there’s A) no way to prove they belonged to Mary Magdalena, B) no way to prove that the person potentially related to the bones being a descendant of Jesus. This is where the film lost me, and I’ll tell you why. Before she died, Mary allegedly had a baby with Jesus Christ, so if they can find her bones they can perform a DNA test to find the living relative of Jesus on earth. If you’re still with me, the film’s twist is that there’s a secret tomb that holds the bones of Mary Magdalena. If you haven’t seen the film, or read the book, I’d urge you to stop reading. At this stage, I’m going to spoil the film’s twist. Rather, what ruins the film for me is the implication of the film’s secret. It doesn’t ruin the entire film, but it sets up way more questions than I think the film is aware of. Did he have the riddles in mind beforehand, or did he come up with them then and there? Did he write them in that order, so that he potentially risked dying before finishing his clue? Or did he write them the other way around, so he risked them never finding it in the first place? More importantly, if he had the time to do all this, why didn’t he try to call for help? As I said, this is more of a nitpick for me. My problem with this set-up is that it brings to mind a lot of questions. Behind this painting they find a key, as well as a riddle that set’s the rest of the film in motion. This riddle leads our heroes to the Mona Lisa, where they find a new riddle that leads them to a different painting. One by his body, where he also displayed himself as the Vitruvian Man. We later learn that before he died, Jacques wrote three riddles.
We as the viewer see Sauniere get shot by Silas (played by Paul Bettany). It is the event that starts the film, the domino that falls to begin the internal motion of the story. So, first, let’s talk about the murder of Jacques Sauniere (played by Jean-Pierre Marielle). The other two sort of ruin the entire set-up for me. One is a slight nitpick, but I feel inclined to mention it nonetheless. However, there are three things that do not make any sense within the film. As the film evolves, you learn more about the motivations of the killer, and what secrets they’re attempting to hide.
The film, much like the book, is a murder mystery where professor Robert Langdon (played by Hanks in the film) needs to find the killer. So if any of my issues with the film’s internal logic is addressed in the original source material, you’ll have to forgive me.
THE DA VINCI CODE MOVIES MOVIE
Before I continue, let me add that I have not read the book this movie is based on. With that said, I need to talk about the internal logic of this film, and I can’t do that without approaching it in a subjective way. To me, a writer’s individual opinion is meaningless in most cases. I think articles should attempt to be as objective as possible, regardless of whether you’re writing a review, a news story, or whatever else it may be. Generally I do not like to write in a first person perspective. Now, at this stage, I would like to show my cards. There is only one problem with the film: it doesn’t make any sense.
The film was a huge success, pulling in over 750 million dollars worldwide on a 125 million dollar budget. In 2006, director Ron Howard joined forces with his long-time collaborator Tom Hanks to bring the film to the big screen. It became an international phenomenon, selling over 80 million copies by the end of the decade. In 2003, Dan Brown released a book called The Da Vinci Code.
0 kommentar(er)
