星光熠熠的密码——看“达芬奇密码”了

作者：海岸、小希

    确切的说，是在19号首映的那天就看了，只是一直没想好写些什么。

    原著只是听说但还未看过，电影的感觉，惊悚多于悬疑，因为有些情节所给出的铺垫似乎不够，比如馆长的死和后来的联系，而有些设定在看到一半的时候就已经猜到，比如索菲的身份。
    鉴于是惊悚悬疑不适合透露太多剧情，那么就来谈谈演员吧~

    两个主演Tom Hanks 和 Audrey Tautou 都是我比较喜欢的，但就是怎么看怎么不来电，幸亏导演没有给他俩安排kiss，即使略有说不清的暧昧，到最后依然是友谊地久天长。

    这部片子里的配角也非常有看头，大有夺去主角光芒之势，因为实在是太耀眼了！
    先说说最先出场的让•雷诺吧，现在几乎只要是有法国参与的大片都少不了他的出场，这位老酷哥依旧是个暴力警察，和只不过这回是个对宗教虔诚的绿芥刑警，但是听惯了他说法语时的粗砺嗓音，这次在电影院里冷不丁地换成汉语男中音还真有点不太习惯，不过就配音工作来说，本片做得相当不错，相对于翻译恶劣的盗版字幕，有条件的朋友还是去听正版配音吧。

    说到配音，我不得不扯到本片的另一个狠角儿，就是那个白金发色的宗教极端分子，——哎呀，用了这么政治的词，但是总不能叫他杀手或是像剧中人那样称呼他“天使”吧？

    这个角色的造型很符合惊悚标准，灰色修道士袍的包裹下，一张苍白面孔没有眉毛，空洞直白眼神，看不到任何恐惧，整个人和他的衣服一样就像是中世纪的出土文物，看上去孱弱清癯，但袭击的时候却凶狠准确，毫无迟疑，仿佛是一个没有情感的天生执行者，每次出其不意的出场总能引起电影院内的尖叫，——我喊了两回。原本以为这样的角色应该是有着幽灵般的声音，仿佛是从地域的裂缝中释放出来，在空中游离。不过他一张嘴，立刻就和出土文物划清了界限。没有听过原声，不知道这个演员说话的声音是什么样的，但是中文的配音倒是很符合“天使”这一称谓，以至于听得我都无法讨厌这个BT角色了。

    下面就要说说另一个披袍子的人了，只不过他披袍子的时间比较早，地点在中土。没错，他就是指环王里的智者巫师——甘道夫！
    看指环王的时候我就非常喜欢这个老头子，私以为，指环王中除了精灵王子外最帅的就是他了，这老头在“达芬奇密码”中也是个举足轻重的角色，负责向主角和观众传播相关知识以及搞笑，（啊啊，Ok，我说正经的，）负责剧情推动及——搞笑。影片中许多有趣的细节都是缘于这白发老头呢，不过也不要小看知识型老者的力量哦。

    还有一个配角虽然出场只有短短几分钟，但是却十分出彩，我说的就是那个银行经理（演员长得眼熟，但忘记是谁了），作为一家有百年历史的银行经理，他的言谈举止与身份十分符合，仿佛传统的贵族管家一般，服务细致周到但丝毫让人感觉不到他的谦卑却也挑不出哪里鄙夷，总之是态度不卑不亢。这是一个城府极深的角色，他后来假扮司机的演技与机敏着实令人拍手击案，唯一一次表露真实情感的地方也着实叫人意外。（还是那句话，不便透露过多剧情）

    不过这些精彩的人物退场的处理都有些仓促粗糙，和登场表现时的丰满张力相比，退场的时候实在有些匆忙甚至草草了事的感觉，仿佛急着下去好让下一个故事赶紧登场，甚至包括女主角。不过还好，故事的男主角没有这样匆匆，一直伴随着影片的open ending从容落幕。

    其实这部片子的感觉和去年看的“国家宝藏”很相像，都是利用同样广为人知的著名物件为线索去破解谜团，最后挖掘出事件背后的“惊天秘密”。电影中还有一处亮点就是特技以及文化古迹的利用。当二十一世纪的伦敦街头，随着故事的讲述逐渐出现了如海市蜃楼般的历史再现，远处的游乐场渐渐模糊，文艺复兴时的人物渐渐清楚，主角置身亲中观众也似乎随之穿梭时空。

    总的来说“达芬奇密码”还是一部比较值得去看的影片，大学生优惠卡的最后一个空用在这部电影上也算是物有所值的。

    虽然海报上是蒙娜丽莎，而事实上密码和蒙娜小姐没啥关系，最多只能算是友情客串

novel to the movie

    It's finally out, and for me, I went to see a movie right after its release once finally. I wasn't VERY disappointed, because I didn't have much expectation. Dan Brown's book was too good, so it will certainly be ruined by the movie. As I thought about this, the movie just seemed ok to me. I only read the book once, but it was very intensive -- imagine first time you read a novel in English and finish it in one week, and since then I became quite interested in religious history and the life of Jesus Christ. No matter how many things are fake in the book, one thing I would agree is that Jesus Christ was a man, a great man but not god. I don't mean to offend anyone by saying so, it's just my own thought.

    Ok, back to the movie. First about the actors and actresses. Tom Hanks wouldn't be my #1 choice for Robert Langdon, but at least, he is MUCH better than Russel Crow, thank god he didn't play Langdon. Sophie Marceau would fit Sophie Neveu the most, I wonder whether she had been in Dan Brown's mind when he was writing the book. Gandolf-Teabin is ok, a little too nice being the ultimate bad guy. But Fache is very nicely played by Jean Reno, he is definitely the best choice for the role. And the guy who played Silas did a very good job too. Well anyway, it's not up to us the audience to choose actors, so, live with it. And moreover, the book is not so ruined.

    The story in the movie, was quite faithful to the book, just a little bit simplified. And actually, the huge amount of information stored in the book was quite well conveyed to the audience. The cinematography was well done too. I guess the drawback of the movie was the same -- it is too close to the book. The movie was trying to tell an exact story from the book, so you would have the impression that you were actually viewing some kind of slides presentation on the book, this would also explain why the movie seemed so "clueless", as reviewed by some critics, and not so exciting. I would think the movie is actually made for those who have read the book, for them to find "a visualized novel", and to compare to the image that they already had on their mind.

    The ending was different from the book. I don't really know what to say about this ending, probably not necessary, but in some sense, it gave the whole movie some sort of "soft core", trying to reconcile the main conflict, and it actually worked. And I am kind of expecting more love story between Langdon and Sophie, but there wasn't enough. It's understandable though, because the movie followed the book pretty much exactly, although I think the movie could be more entertaining.

    Finally I'd say something about the box office. Some people think it's amazing that such a not-so-exciting movie can win such good box office record, but I found it natural. Like I said, most of the audience are those who read the book and want to find a visualization of the book.