Good books are generally hard to make into good films. The best film version of a good book I ever saw was "To Kill A Mockingbird". The director translated the book to film exceedingly well. His choice to make in black and white was brillant.
I agree completely, "To Kill A Mockingbird" was the best ever & nothing else is even close. Loved the book, saw the movie and was so impressed I went back and read the book again.
As for the book The Da Vince Code, I didn't find it anything special. And there were these annoying sections where the author lectured to the readers, even included a plug for a film.
The great screenwriter, Robert McKee, maintains that the best books for movies are good but not masterpieces. Since it is almost impossible to improve on a masterpiece such efforts are difficult to carry off. But a not-so-well written book with a great story can be improved upon as a movie.
There are some exceptions: All the Kings Men, Lord of the Rings, etc.
What does that have to do with "DaVinci Code?"
Don't change the subject.
The Shining.
OMG! That RACISTS book and movie??? How dare you!!! /sarcasm still on. ;-)
"Gone With The Wind?"
I totally agree about To Kill a Mockingbird.
And there are many cases where the movie was better.
Stephen King's books often make better movies. The Shawshank Redemption comes to mind.
Jaws, the book, was kind of a potboiler but the movie was great.
Anyway, I plodded through The Da Vinci book and found it to be second rate.
As far as the religious aspect, who cares? There have been a lot of worse books written about the Bible, some by Episcopalian Bishops (can you say Spong?)
That's very true. And bad books often make good movies. Which makes it surprising - Duh Code is an exceptionally bad book (if you recall, book reviewers weren't as generous with it as the movie reviewers.)
You're off topic.
That's often the case, however I would have thought that this particular story would have lent itself well to film.
It has a lot of visual imagery that could be portrayed well on film, and seemed to have less content that was crucial to the story that would be difficult to portray on film than many other good books I've read.
I did read the book, and did think that it was a well written work of fiction.
I did find the plot needlessly offensive to core Christian beliefs, including my own, but I did think it was well written.
I have two guesses on why it may have been receive badly at Cannes.
The film sufferers from poor acting and/or direction that was so bad that the Audience at Cannes didn't overlook it to support it's Christianity bashing.
Or what I feel is more likely. It's a story that has been told at least in part so many times that it just wasn't original enough, and the story has to lose a level of intrigue and mystery when some of the places mentioned are places they have seen in person.
I would add "One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest", "Lord of the Rings" and "Godfather" as well, but your point about the paucity of good books becoming good ovies is valid.
Then what's the excuse for this movie? The book wasn't very good.
A better book touching upon a similar mileau is "A Cry of Absence" by Madison Jones.