logo Sign In

The Da Vinci Code Movie — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
okay so tonight we were suppose to see MI3 (which i soo didn't wanna see) but then there were tickets for the 10:30 show left for the DaVinci Code, so my mum and bro were like yeah lets just go to it. so i went.
i'm super tired, so i'll talk more about it tomorrow, but it met my expectations. a few things could have been better. but paul bettey did a great job as silas and tom wasn't so bad himself. ian was cast well, he did a good playing playing villian once again. funny how both his movies this summer he is a 'bad guy'. anyways off to bed today was long!

~* you know you love me... xoxo *~

Author
Time
Post link
Would it be wrong to see the film when you are not officially affiliated with any of the major religions?
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
No. You'll just get some interesting background and cool theories about histories most established religion that would very much change history if it could be proven true. So basically, it'll be cool to watch in that regard. It won't make you more religious for sure, and if you get the point of the movie, it shouldn't make you less religious if you are.

Hey look, a bear!

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Nanner Split
Well, considering I thought National Treasure was crappy too, I guess I hold them on pretty much the same level.

Oddly enough, both movies involved the Knights Templar. Is it some kind of unwritten rule that all movies involving the Knights Templar have to suck or something?
Last Crusade didn't suck.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Neither did The Godfather, even though it was an awful book.

4

Author
Time
Post link
I just saw the Da Vinci Code and I liked it. It was quite hard for me to actually watch as a movie because I have read the book and knew all the twists and turns (it was as if somebody was reminding me of a the book I have already read - 'remember this bit?' 'Oh yeah') but all in all I think it was good. One thing I must say is that all the locations (not just the real ones like the Louvre, but for example the interior of Teabring's home) were exactly as I imagined while reading, which I suppose is a compliment to both Brown as a writer and Howard as a director. It was also very cool to see London again (I was at temple church just over 2 weeks ago and the finale of the movie where teabring is arrested was filmed on the street I worked on).

And, despite the naysayers (myself included) Hanks was good as Langdon. He may not look the way I imagined him, but he played him well.

The only thing I wonder is would I feel differently about the movie if I hadn't read the book? Lots of things were merely skimmed over, which didn't bother me because I have already read the 'extended version', but I'm not sure you get the whole story buy just watching the film. Plus, the feeling of code breaking and mystery solving, the role of symbology in the historical world we live in, and Langdon's symbology background wasn't explored as much in the movie as is was in the book, and neither was the importance of Da Vinci - apart from a brief appearence by some of his paintings, he was hardly mentioned (according to the book he was a one time grand master of the priory of sion and a key player in the history of the world with regard to the grail). Of course, cuts need to be made when adapting a book to the screen, but for me these were the things that made the book such a good read.

Overall though, thumbs up from YIYF.

Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
Neither did The Godfather, even though it was an awful book.
The Godfather isn't about the Knights Templar.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I've listened to The Godfather on Audio CD, it did not suck. It was very simular to movie. I highly recommend it. But what does The Godfather have to do with the Knights Templar?
Author
Time
Post link
Nothing, just pointint out that just because a book sucks doesn't mean the movie will. \

Though YIYF is the only intelligent person I know who has said the Da Vinci Code movie was good.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Thanks for the compliment, but I do believe that my viewing experience was affected by the fact that I have read the book and knew what to expect. My positive rating of the movie is more to do with comparing it to the source material than actually rating it as a film (which is something that I feel would be impossible for me to do - once you have read or seen something it is impossible to forget that and watch the film on it's own merits). Was it a good movie rather than a good adaptation? I don't know. However, I do wonder what the people slating this movie were actually expecting - is it that the movie is bad, or is it that it wasn't what they thought it was going to be. After all, here's an awful lot of hype around the Da Vinci Code.

Also, if people didn't enjoy the movie because of the plot, that is not the fault of the filmmakers or actors, who were only trying to follow the Brown's book.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I saw the film last night with the missus. and she's read the book and I haven't. We both came to the same conclusion though. We both thoght it was just ...'meh'
Nothing great (I was expecting alot more, especialy after all the hoohaa with the book) but not shit either.
It was just alright. i wasn't bored watching it, I was jusr expecting more.

As for National treasure, I thought that as a little, poo. But that was a very 'American' film. I'm not too hot on my american history, so didn't really give a rats arse.

But I am looking forward to Superman. I think that'll be the surprise hit (meaning that it'll be a good film, better than we all think right now) of this year.

http://www.facebook.com/DirtyWookie

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: HotRod
I'm not too hot on my american history, so didn't really give a rats arse.


those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it

*hits HotRod on the head with a big highschool American History book, does it repeatedly, and beats up HotRod*

start reading
Author
Time
Post link
There's more to history than American history. I find that Americans know a lot about their own history and next to nothing about the rest of the world, or how their history impacted on other countries. I also find they know lots of names and dates but not much about the actual importance or consequences of those events. IMO it is more imporatnt to know what happened and why and what came as a result rather than when.

Of course, I am not talking about all Americans, so no offense to anyone.

I personally am very into history, but I thought National treasure was lame. It was made by Americans for Americans, and screw the rest of us. Which is fair enough I guess, but don't expect me to enjoy it

Anyway, you can't even compare National Treasure to the Da Vinci code - they are totally different and unrelated.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I seen this upnortH pretty good got a miniposter too.
Author
Time
Post link
I saw the movie today. I'd give it a 6.5/10. Of course it wasn't as good as the book (though the changes in the film were minimal), and I thought the actress playing Sophie was kind of weak for the part. Tom hanks did a decent job, and the film moved at a pretty fast pace; and it didn't go into all the detail the book did (for obvious reasons). Also, the locations in the movie were exactly as I'd imagined them while reading the book.

On thing that I absolutely LOVED about the movie was Ian McKellen's performance as Leigh Teabing. I enjoyed his Teabing better than the book's in fact. I often had to remind myself that he was the villian; he completely had me. His balance between humour and obsession is just amazing. My favorite scene had to be where the police were draggin Teabing away and he's raving and screaming at Langdon and you just know that he's gone insane. Anyway he was great.

Not sure if I'd recommend it though, I'd more readily recommend the book over the movie.
Don't forget: with Lacuna, you can forget.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
There's more to history than American history.


I totally agree with you. World is very important to learn and I agree that too many Americans know alot about American history but nothing about world history. I also agree that the whats and the whys are atleast as important as the whens.


*hits Hotrod over the head with a world history book* now you have two books to read
Author
Time
Post link
I saw the film last night. Here be spoilers. Read at your own risk.












I liked the book. I liked the film. I found the film to be rather faithful to the book. A time-compressed telling of a detailed page-turner that actually works.

My one beef: There was absolutely, positively no good reason for them to have changed Sauniere being Sophie's real grandfather. This actually did the story a great disservice. In both the book and the film, Sophie was emotionally scarred from having witnessed her grandfather in the middle of a sex rite. But in the book, this is germane to the plot, as either her grandfather or grandmother (we don't know which) was part of the actual bloodline of Christ. Therefore, their coupling around the time of the equinoxes would have been celebrated. In the film, these flashbacks were never expounded on and therefore, without the explanation AND by changing Sophie's grandfather to being an adoptive grandfather, Akiva Goldsman really screwed the story up.

Also, I would have added in a single line when Teabing first defends the honor of Mary Magdelene. When Sophie repeats the long-held misconception that she was a prostitute, Teabing simply said "She was no such thing" without backing up his assertion. While the book expounds on this for a couple of pages, including the fact that even the Vatican reversed the edict in the 1960s, the film doesn't touch it. A simple line could have distilled all of this down to a few words: "Re-read the story ... Mary Magdelene doesn't show up until several verses after the prostitute's story." It would have probably even sent neophytes to the story to their bibles to see it for themselves. (Personally I've known about this misconception far longer than Dan Brown wrote about it so I wish more time had been spent on it in the screenplay.)

Other than that, I had no beef with what was added in and what was taken out. The subplot of Langdon falling into the well when he was a kid was great from a theological perspective. The notion of immersion in water, praying to Jesus, and ultimately being saved was not overt, but I got it. Also, I particularly liked how Langdon was a little more skeptical of the Magdelene/Sangreal theory, as he played the part of the masses, who are given no real voice in the book. He either brought up or answered many of the legitimate factual criticisms about the book, making the script that much more airtight. For example:

1) Constantine did not pick the books of the bible, the Council of Nicea did.
2) Jesus' divinity was not a "new idea" brought forth by the Constantine or the Council. Many held Jesus to be divine. Many did not. The Council merely codified the notion. But it was certainly believed since the time of the Resurrection, not just the council.
3) Opus Dei is not a villain; Aringarosa merely uses his Opus Dei to carry out his dirty work. The people of Opus Dei are strong believers in what they are doing. But I'm glad they pulled no punches showing the kinds of corporal mortification and blind adherance to the will of the clergy that Opus Dei are willing to commit.
4) They even handled the admitted hoax of the Priory of Sion very well. In typical conspiracy theory fashion, the film addresses the "hoax" as exactly what "they" want you to believe. Simple, but genius. It gives the skeptic nowhere to go other than faith.

On the whole, it's a very enjoyable film. Not earth-shattering (at least, not to me, because I've studied these plot points and lost gospels academically for far longer than Dan Brown has been writing), but certainly not worthy of the bile the press has spewed its way. Casting was excellent, Direction was sharp, and the writing was above-par for Akiva, whose dreck I usually cannot stand in the least. No Oscar material here, but worth the price of a ticket nonetheless.
I am fluent in over six million forms of procrastination.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
I particularly liked how Langdon was a little more skeptical of the Magdelene/Sangreal theory, as he played the part of the masses, who are given no real voice in the book. He either brought up or answered many of the legitimate factual criticisms about the book, making the script that much more airtight. Yes, I thought that was very good too.

Originally posted by: ADigitalMan
On the whole, it's a very enjoyable film. Not earth-shattering (at least, not to me, because I've studied these plot points and lost gospels academically for far longer than Dan Brown has been writing), but certainly not worthy of the bile the press has spewed its way. Casting was excellent, Direction was sharp, and the writing was above-par for Akiva, whose dreck I usually cannot stand in the least. No Oscar material here, but worth the price of a ticket nonetheless.
Exactly.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
I've just come home from seeing the film. I totally agree with ADigitalMan's comment that it is not oscar material, but worth the price a ticket. I was kept thoroughly entertained for two hours. However, I do not believe for one second that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and that they had a child. It was a good movie nonetheless.


FYI, I have not yet read the bood.
Author
Time
Post link
I haven't read the book (it is on my list of to read) but I loved the movie. I hate that people are portesting it. It is jsut fiction, move on with your life.
Author
Time
Post link
Problem is, the makers of the movie refused to put on a disclaimer stating that it is fiction. A lot of people are taking the book/movie as nonfiction/gospel truth. They are reading the book and watching the movie and come away actually believing that Jesus was married to Mary Magdelene and that they had a child. Can you imagine that they would make a simular story about Mohammed? No, because they wouldn't dare make somthing that would risk offending the Muslins like that. But, somehow it is ok to risk offending the Christians. That is why some Christians and churches are offended by this movie/book.
Author
Time
Post link
yes i know. hey you guys can correct me if i am wrong this is jsut my take on the whole contriversy.

at the begining of the book dan brown has a little forward that says all historical documentation in this book is fact. People hate this cause they beleive that brown is claiming that the story of mary mandeline is fact. however my take on it is that brown took a bunch of FACTS from history, lots of things that didnt really have much to do with eachother and fit them together to create a fictious story. i know that he did this in angels and demons with the 4 monuments and what not, but did he do it in the da vinci code as well. i.e. are alot of the tib bit facts actually facts, like the pengan symbolism and the council and what not.
Author
Time
Post link
I think that jesus was a fictional character and I liked it.
Author
Time
Post link
yes i thought the movie was good. and there were only a few things that bothered me that you guys have already brought up. one being how her grandfather wasn't really her blood relative (didn't understand the logic in making him some random that brought her up) and then of course how she didn't meet her brother in the end. but i guess they had to change the movie slightly as most of the time movies do that when based on books.

~* you know you love me... xoxo *~