Full Version: The Da Vinci Code Movie
whoa! da vinci's code is getting so big now..... I hope they do the book justice.
I'm looking forward into see this movie. In class me and my other classmates watched the trailer. It looks interesting from the trailer.
cant wait to see it the book was awesome they shouldve cast sean connery or pierce brosnan [sp?] as langdon
beckensale would be good, but I don't think they have to do much to make this an amazing movie
it was an incredible book all by itself, I hope they don't change anything or leave anything out (even though they'll have to for time constraints)
but I'll definitely go see it the weekend it comes out next year
it was an incredible book all by itself, I hope they don't change anything or leave anything out (even though they'll have to for time constraints)
but I'll definitely go see it the weekend it comes out next year
I loved the book, but I do hope the movie does it justice. As this was my second favorite book of all time, I'm going to be pretty angry if the movie is all screwed up and if they change a lot of stuff in the movie that's not supposed to be there.
QUOTE(ichigofan @ Jul 12 2005, 12:03 AM)
cant wait to see it the book was awesome they shouldve cast sean connery or pierce brosnan [sp?] as langdon
Sean Connery would have been WAY too old for the part. Even Tom Hanks is stretching it.
oo i wanna watch this movie... i kind of liked the book so mayb ill like the movie better 
I think I'd enjoy the movie. Other than Tom Hanks, I think they did a perfect job casting the others.
Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing
Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa
Jean Reno as Bezu Fache
Paul Bettany as Silas
If you want to watch the teaser trailer, go here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/
Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing
Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa
Jean Reno as Bezu Fache
Paul Bettany as Silas
If you want to watch the teaser trailer, go here: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/
Never read the book, but heard the book was really good. Can't wait for the movie.
I'm still waiting for my dad to give me the book, so I haven't read it yet. 
BUT. I'm going today to watch "The Da Vinci Code".
BUT. I'm going today to watch "The Da Vinci Code".
I loved the book, but the movie was BORING.
QUOTE(Rampage @ May 19 2006, 5:30 PM)
I loved the book, but the movie was BORING.
It's gotten a lot of bad reviews... especially from the critics at Cannes... and it's rating on Rotten Tomatoes isn't so good.
But, I've been waiting almost 2 years and bad reviews aren't going to stop me from seeing this! Hahaha. :)
^True that.
Ron Howard, eh. This just looks plain old lame.
Not interested in the least.
Not interested in the least.
friend saw it, she said it was average.
which was to be expected. really.
which was to be expected. really.
I wanted to see it this morning but the earliest showing was at like, 11:45 at a theater half an hour away and my bf goes to work at like, 2... :( And he gets out at like, 11:30 and latest showing is at 11:45. BOOOO. So I'm going to have to wait until tomorrow night to see it. :(
It doesn't interest me. And the fact that Tom Hanks played the main role...I just don't know =/
Eh, I kinda liked it. Some of it was too long, but overall I felt it was a good movie. Not what I was expecting, but not too bad either.
i heard that it sucked so much that people were actually LAUGHING at tom hanks...and walked out of the theater.
i've never read the book, but i heard the movie sucked.
It got a lot of bad reviews, but I actually enjoyed it. I enjoyed the movie, but Tom Hanks sucks. really. I miss the old Tom Hanks.
There were protesters and all sorts of excitement!
There were protesters and all sorts of excitement!
I liked it but if you read the book you can tell all the parts they changed and added on to. I thought it was alright. But tom hanks should not have played in the movie. Personally I think he didn't "fit".
i havent seen it yet, probably see it tomorrow,
but what the hell did Tom Hanks do wrong? i wonder.
personally i think he is a better and definately more seasoned actor than "Hugh Grant or Pierce Brosnan" and definatley brought more credibility to the movie with his name on it.
but we shall see.
but what the hell did Tom Hanks do wrong? i wonder.
personally i think he is a better and definately more seasoned actor than "Hugh Grant or Pierce Brosnan" and definatley brought more credibility to the movie with his name on it.
but we shall see.
Just got back a little while ago from seeing it.
My dad read the book, and he said he prefers that rather than the movie, because Ron Howard isn't much of an action movie director.
But IMO, I think it was more intended to be a mystery type of film, rather than action. Although, those two things do usually coincide with one another.
I loved it though. I found it suspenseful and there were quite a few parts that made me jump.
Very mind-stimulating, I think. 
My dad read the book, and he said he prefers that rather than the movie, because Ron Howard isn't much of an action movie director.
But IMO, I think it was more intended to be a mystery type of film, rather than action. Although, those two things do usually coincide with one another.
I loved it though. I found it suspenseful and there were quite a few parts that made me jump.
Very mind-stimulating, I think.
Just got back from a late showing...
It was pretty good. I half-slept through the violent parts (I felt people jump near me)...
And... the beginning sequence scared the crap out of me.
It was pretty good. I half-slept through the violent parts (I felt people jump near me)...
And... the beginning sequence scared the crap out of me.
Yeah I'm seeing it tomorrow...I know the book is better since thats how it usually is, but I'm curious to see how the movie turns out...but yeah, I'm not a fan of Tom Hanks either...
I thought it was brilliant. Im really into things like that, so i was hella caught up in the movie. Never a dull moment, always on the move, always new things to listen to and learn and absorb. I had to go potty so bad, but i didn't dare leave for a second cos if you do, you miss something crucial.
I thought it was real good.
I thought it was real good.
I've seen in the newspapers that most of the movie critics said it was boring.
i saw this movie yesterday.
what a perfect movie.
not suck at all.
i want to buy this book to recollect the pleasant flavor
what a perfect movie.
not suck at all.
i want to buy this book to recollect the pleasant flavor
i saw the movie last night and think its overated...
its not THAT good.. honestly... i think i prefer National Treasurer more
maybe my minds just isnt mature enough to watch complicated codes and what not LOL
its not THAT good.. honestly... i think i prefer National Treasurer more
maybe my minds just isnt mature enough to watch complicated codes and what not LOL
QUOTE
Four words - wrong star, wrong director.
Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.
What is conspicuously absent from either man's resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.
The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of "what ifs" and "oh my god" moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.
What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard's film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.
Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany's evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.
Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would've made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag "Years Most-Anticipated", its a boring dud.
Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.
What is conspicuously absent from either man's resume is a European-set, religious-themed mystery thriller. Having sat through their arduous, laborious adaptation of Dan Brown's novel, I can now see why.
The plot is total bunkum - a hodgepodge of "what ifs" and "oh my god" moments spun on the ludicrous premise that Leonardo Da Vinci had some sort of insight into the life of Christ - but loopy story lines have not stopped many films from being enjoyable.
What makes The Da Vinci Code so deathly dull is the heavy-handed, oh-so-serious approach Howard applies to the material. Combining with his cinematographer to give the film a sleepy nocturnal feel (not so clever given the 150min running time), Howard's film is just a constant flow of expository clues that fail to create any tension or engender his leads with any human qualities. Even for those that haven't read the book, a couple of obligatory 'big twists' in the story are very obvious from early-on.
Hanks (looking more like Jim Belushi than ever) and McKellen blather on and on and on about knights and saints and symbols and God as if they were giving a lecture at some Ivy-league school for the supernatural; Audrey Tautou is lovely but has little to do in a role that is plot- not character-driven. Jean Reno ambles thru another of his token French cop parts (he was better in the Pink Panther); Paul Bettany's evil albino Silas at least got some audience reaction, though giggles and guffaws were probably not what he was hoping for.
Whatever sense of fun and excitement the book provided is fully-drained from this adaptation. Come credit time, I had the realisation that all this hokey, airport-novel religious hooey and B-movie plotting would've made for a great X-files episode in that series heyday. As the end-product of a publishing phenomenon and carrying the tag "Years Most-Anticipated", its a boring dud.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0382625/
I watched one of the early shows, and the cinema was already packed. The first few parts of the movie was pretty intense. Although, I thought it was a bit dragged on; an hour into the movie and Sophie & Langdon were still in the Louvre.
I thought it wasn't... mysterious enough. Everything went too step-by-step. Except when they were trying to solve the anagrams. But I thought that wasn't the most difficult puzzle in the story. In the book when they solved the first cryptex and found another within it was really exciting for me. I was disappointed they didn't do the same in the movie.
I also really enjoyed reading the some-what related facts in the book. Like about the Mona Lisa. The book is inevitably more in depth. Too bad.
I love both Kate Beckinsale and Audrey Tautou. I wouldn't mind the both of them. I looked up for the movie release before I read the book so I always imagined the characters the ones they chose. Tom Hank's movies are good but I don't think he was the perfect Langdon either, but that's not really the point.
I was more concerned with the plot they'd present in the movie.
In comparison with the book, the book is better. More exciting. But I think the movie was worth watching. The plot they altered wasn't that disappointing as I expected.
I do think Angels & Demons would make a better movie. There's more action in the story as I remember and less contemplating?
This is the first movie I ever heard critisized for being so much like the book that it was boring. For all that I'd rather read the novel at my home than sit in a crowded theatre with a bunch of people talking through the movie.
AHHHH i cant wait to watch it i think that going to be the most contreversial movie ever!
QUOTE
Hanks and Howards best work, both together or separately, have been when they embrace intrinsically American values in their films. All their most memorable movies have involved individuals overcoming hardship through an unshakable belief in love and courage, usually set against an outwardly US-centric interpretation of events. Think Apollo 13, Forrest Gump, Cinderella Man, Saving Private Ryan - all fine films, all centred on an American hero rising above their circumstance.
well, The green Mile was a tom hanks starring movie. and that was a beautiful film.
and it wasnt about him being a hero at all. one can say he and society was the bad guy.
beautiful mind wasnt about some american Hero also.
I'm seeing it this thursday. People say it's boring, but whatever. I can't wait!!
I'm seeing it today with some friends.
I hope it doesn't butcher the book.
I hope it doesn't butcher the book.
QUOTE
Never a dull moment, always on the move, always new things to listen to and learn and absorb.
I KNOW. I saw it last night. I honestly thought it wasn't dull at all. Even though they had to talk and explain a lot, I thought it was necessary and interesting. My friend, who had never read the book (I have), liked it as well. Gah. Stupid critics. I enjoyed it.
i saw it last night.
it was really good, minus a few flaws.
but then again, the movie is never as good as the book
but both were still awesome =)
it was really good, minus a few flaws.
but then again, the movie is never as good as the book
but both were still awesome =)
Well, good to know it's not going to be a complete waste of time and money.
I wrote this on my Xanga:
So basically, if you already read the book, be prepared to be disappointed. But if you're just watching it as a movie, you'll enjoy it. It's definitely not a waste of money, just not as good as I thought it would be.
QUOTE
I'd like to say that The Da Vinci Code was a freaking awesome movie, but I can't. As a movie, I felt like it dove straight into the race to find the Holy Grail. It was a bit sudden. When compared to the book, it was lacking in many areas. I swear, when I read the book, Langdon and Neveu cracked through WAY MORE STEPS to find out the eventual secret. The movie felt like it was shortened. And, I thought it lacked in showing us more art pieces and history stuff, because that had to be the coolest part of the book.
The movie did have its good parts. Silas was portrayed perfectly and he was scary - the theatre gasped a few times. It was a good thriller - fast paced. Just the fact that it stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou is reason enough to check out this movie. But I'd still take the book over the movie version of The Da Vinci Code any day. There's nothing like sitting at a table and reading for 8 straight hours. =)
The movie did have its good parts. Silas was portrayed perfectly and he was scary - the theatre gasped a few times. It was a good thriller - fast paced. Just the fact that it stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou is reason enough to check out this movie. But I'd still take the book over the movie version of The Da Vinci Code any day. There's nothing like sitting at a table and reading for 8 straight hours. =)
So basically, if you already read the book, be prepared to be disappointed. But if you're just watching it as a movie, you'll enjoy it. It's definitely not a waste of money, just not as good as I thought it would be.
I heard the book was really good. I want to watch it, because I think Tom Hanks ia a really good actor, but I'll have to read the book first. It's HUGE!
QUOTE(GetMiNE_GetY0URS @ May 20 2006, 5:56 PM)
I heard the book was really good. I want to watch it, because I think Tom Hanks ia a really good actor, but I'll have to read the book first. It's HUGE!
If you really want to enjoy the movie, I suggest you NOT read the book first. Because then the movie will not live up to your expectations.
i saw the movie today, and it was great in my opinion. dont get me wrong, it WAS a little boring at the beginning, but it picked up by the time they got in the armored car. and from then on the movie was great.
i was begining to be worried about what people said in the earlier posts.
but it wasnt boring besides the begining. and people just went crazy that Tom Hanks "didnt fit the part" but give me a break, like he, Tom Hanks, is going to ruin a movie. plus he didnt do a bad job either i dont nitpick at stupid little details like that.
i was begining to be worried about what people said in the earlier posts.
but it wasnt boring besides the begining. and people just went crazy that Tom Hanks "didnt fit the part" but give me a break, like he, Tom Hanks, is going to ruin a movie. plus he didnt do a bad job either
i dont nitpick at stupid little details like that.
Wasn't bad. Wasn't amazing, wasn't horrid either. I just saw it. I noticed all the parts not in it from the book obviously, and the slight changes but ah well. It was okay.
I just saw it today. wasn't one of those "OMG WOW HOLY CRAP THAT'S AWESOME" movies, but it was pretty good in my opinion. there were a few parts I wasn't happy about.. but doesn't that happen with most movies?
Did you honestly expect them to include EVERY SINGLTE detail from the book? That would make one hell of a long movie and then people would complain about the length.
you know,
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?
QUOTE(NERDface™ @ May 21 2006, 9:41 PM)
you know,
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?
I never did undestand this whole "da vinci" code thing.
what is it?
or would it take too long to explain?
It's actually not about Da Vinci. It's more about the Holy Grail. The reason the book is called The Da Vinci Code is because there are clues in Da Vinci paintings that lead to the finding of the Holy Grail.
Anyways, I saw it on Saturday and having read the book, I was a bit disappointed. Because IMO, I don't think they should have changed certain things... (written in white so highlight to read)
Like, why did they need to change the fact that Sophie isn't Sauniere's true granddaughter? How much harder would it have been to keep the grandmother/brother storyline in the movie? Because they brought her real grandmother in at the end anyways. And um, having Fache be a member of Opus Dei? And having that secret group (that Aringarosa went to meet with) that is out to destroy any trace of Christs' bloodline? Why?
But for my boyfriend who didn't read the book, it was quite entertaining and he liked it.
I'm not a religious person in the least bit, to be honest, and so I don't know a whole lot about that kind of stuff, but it was a good movie, despite that. I wouldn't imagine Tom Hanks being cast for that role, but he did an alright job, anyway. I liked it.
I LOVED THE MOVIE SOO MUCH.
i love philosophy and most of all...religious type of movie. and mystery is one of my favorite genre in movies =)
i watched it with my brother, he slept for like 5minutes cause he wasnt interested in philosophy and such.
BUT I ENJOYED IT.
and omg TOM HANKS WAS SUCHA GREAT ACTOR THERE, MADE ME LOVE HIM MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and and and im glad the director choose him for that role. HE FIT FOR IT FOR REALS!
i love philosophy and most of all...religious type of movie. and mystery is one of my favorite genre in movies =)
i watched it with my brother, he slept for like 5minutes cause he wasnt interested in philosophy and such.
BUT I ENJOYED IT.
and omg TOM HANKS WAS SUCHA GREAT ACTOR THERE, MADE ME LOVE HIM MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and and and im glad the director choose him for that role. HE FIT FOR IT FOR REALS!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.