Da Vinci Code

PhilNYC · « **on:** 3 Jun 2006, 01:00 pm »

Saw this last night. I have not read the book, and as such, I found the premise to be very interesting...the type of premise that inspires debate and discussion. Unfortunately, as a whole the movie fell way short of what it could have been, and instead of inspiring discussion about religion and history, I found myself having to think more about "why isn't that a hole in the story?" In addition, the acting was pretty stiff, the pacing of the film was choppy, and the musical score was completely inappropriate. I expected way more from Ron Howard....

kfr01 · « **Reply #1 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 01:23 pm »

I don't even remember the musical score... What was it like?

I liked the movie overall, but perhaps my memory of the book served as a forgiving gap-filler.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #2 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 01:26 pm »

Quote from: kfr01

I don't even remember the musical score... What was it like?

It was orchestral...and not very appropriate. If the movie itself had a grander/more-epic feel to it, it might have worked better. But the movie came across like a small story, and the orchestral score seemed really out of place IMHO

woodsyi · « **Reply #3 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 02:37 pm »

I saw it last weekend. After reading and hearing critics panning the movie, I expected the worst. I was pleasantly surprised by the movie. I thought the screenplay really followed the book faithfully. I do think you almost have to have read the book to fill in the gaps. The movie just couldn't cover all the details of Dan Brown's rendition of church history and grail mythology. I enjoyed it but it's definitely not an action thriller.

zybar · « **Reply #4 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 02:39 pm »

Phil,

I think you hit the nail on the head.

I just read the book on my flight to Australia and saw the movie a few hours ago (less than 24 hrs removed from the book). Like most movies that are adapted from a book, the movie fell quite short of the novel.

I didn't think Hanks as the lead was the right choice and the actress who played Sophie left me cold.

I had fairly high expectations after the pretty good reviews, but the movie never really grabbed me and made me want to watch it. Instead I just went along for a ride (at the cost of $15.50 Australian dollars for a ticket - $10 bucks doesn't look so bad now).

George

Folsom · « **Reply #5 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 06:51 pm »

I watched the History channel where they explained how it was all fiction, a bit of a spoiler!

Marbles · « **Reply #6 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 06:58 pm »

Quote from: Destroyer of Smiles.

I watched the History channel where they explained how it was all fiction, a bit of a spoiler!

Hard to know who to beleive and what spin they are putting on it.

I think that "Debunking the DaVinci Code" was very well done Catholic Church propaganda.

I'm not saying that DB's book didn't embellish history in lots of ways, but the Catholic Church rewrote lots of history...and if you didn't beleive them, they'd kill you....

I too saw the movie last night and agree with woodsyi's take.

ted_b · « **Reply #7 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 07:13 pm »

Fiction????

I thought I married The great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-
great-great-great-great-great-grand daughter!!! Sh$t!

BTW, I agree that the movie was an unremarkable, plodding, self-righteous (the score was awfully pretentious) movie; a surprisngly dull and disjointed effort by Ron Howard.

Marbles · « **Reply #8 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 07:57 pm »

Was anyone else just a little puzzled by Tom Hanks' charector at the end???

A hug and a peck on the cheek!!! I would have tried to nail that, if just to have said I got with History...

jakepunk · « **Reply #9 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 08:03 pm »

I have not read the book and thought the movie was OK. However, explain this to me: when the bank vault is opened, the bank officer says, "I've been waiting a long time for someone to open that box." Yet at the end of the movie when the location the box points to is revealed, that location was constructed in 1989.

zybar · « **Reply #10 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 09:28 pm »

Quote from: Marbles

Was anyone else just a little puzzled by Tom Hanks' charector at the end???

A hug and a peck on the cheek!!! I would have tried to nail that, if just to have said I got with History...

Read the book for a little different twist...

George

Marbles · « **Reply #11 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 09:33 pm »

Quote from: zybar

Quote from: Marbles
Was anyone else just a little puzzled by Tom Hanks' charector at the end???

A hug and a peck on the cheek!!! I would have tried to nail that, if just to have said I got with History...

Read the book for a little different twist...

George

I read it 2.5 years ago...guess I have to reread the ending again to refresh....

PhilNYC · « **Reply #12 on:** 3 Jun 2006, 10:36 pm »

Quote from: jakepunk

I have not read the book and thought the movie was OK. However, explain this to me: when the bank vault is opened, the bank officer says, "I've been waiting a long time for someone to open that box." Yet at the end of the movie when the location the box points to is revealed, that location was constructed in 1989.

I thought the Rosslyn Chapel was built in the 1500's?

jakepunk · « **Reply #13 on:** 4 Jun 2006, 02:44 pm »

I was talking about the very very end. The pyramid was built in 1989.

ekovalsky · « **Reply #14 on:** 4 Jun 2006, 09:47 pm »

I saw the movie last week before our flight back from Hawaii. Overall I was impressed. Of course it was not as great as the novel, as expected given the movie is just over 2 hours and the book takes most people 12 or more hours to read. Lots of details have to be omitted from the movie to make it fit.

Personally I would not have casted Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon; someone like Pierce Brosnan would have been better. I had never seen the French actress before. By the end of the movie I thought she was pretty hot, Robert should definitely have tried to advance Jesus' blood line

Anyway read the book! And also Angels & Demons which was even better, in my opinion.

rave959 · « **Reply #15 on:** 4 Jun 2006, 10:08 pm »

ekovalsky,

"Anyway read the book! And also Angels & Demons which was even better, in my opinion."

I would have to agree with you on this one.

The sequel Da Vinci Code was not too bad, even the movie was close enough.

Cheers,
Christian

gitarretyp · « **Reply #16 on:** 4 Jun 2006, 10:50 pm »

Quote from: ekovalsky

I saw the movie last week before our flight back from Hawaii. Overall I was impressed. Of course it was not as great as the novel, as expected given the movie is just over 2 hours and the book takes most people 12 or more hours to read. Lots of details have to be omitted from the movie to make it fit.

Personally I would not have casted Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon; someone like Pierce Brosnan would have been better. I had never seen the French actress before. By the end of the movie I thought she wa ...

The french actress is Audrey Tautou. She's done some excellent films you might want to check out, such as Amilie and Dirty Pretty Things.

Adz523 · « **Reply #17 on:** 4 Jun 2006, 11:41 pm »

Both the Beginning and End were different. The End was completely different in fact. I hated the movie and couldn't wait for it to end. The book was just so much better - probably should not have read it so close to the opening.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #18 on:** 5 Jun 2006, 12:47 am »

Quote from: jakepunk

I was talking about the very very end. The pyramid was built in 1989.

SPOILER*********

I thought the note pointed them to the chapel where they discovered all that stuff in the basement, and that the "grail" was missing from there. And that the grail had been moved to under the pyramid you are talking about later (probably in 1989)...