Is Da Vinci da Bomb? ****SPOILERS WITHIN****- Page 3

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 5/21/06 at 1:34pm

Mc Kellen was one of the best things about it

Laurie would have taken them all on head on & would have been great but I guess the suits wanted a proven quantity. Hanks was good but Laurie would have been dynamite

[MistressoftheHouse]

Posted: 5/21/06 at 11:23pm

I saw the movie last night and really liked it, and it seemed the rest of the audience did too. I was surprised to hear some people scream during some really suspenseful scenes when things popped out...the screams actually scared me more than what was on the screen.

It could be that I enjoyed the movie so much because I liked the book, I don't know. I actually wondered how much people who have not read the book would like it because I thought some important details weren't explained in the movie.

Also, re: casting of Silas, my mom said she pictured some albino guy from The Firm, but I don't know.

[suzycat]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 12:10am

I went to an advanced screening on Thursday night for booksellers that was sponsored by Random House (the book's publisher). It was quite a treat - it was on a huge screen and they gave us free popcorn and soda in DaVinci Code cups & bags. I really enjoyed the movie. It definitely focuses more on the intellectual and less on the action and chase scenes, but I liked that about it. It moved at a decent pace... the book had a ton of factual information and it's hard to cram all of it into a feature film.

I think that most of the reviewers who didn't like it wanted it to be something that it was not: an intense action movie with an easy-to-follow plot. I liked that the film made you think.

[Luscious]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 12:42am

Saw it and liked it a lot. Much more than I thought I would. It's definitely the best thing Ron Howard has turned out. (I'm not an Apollo 13 fan.) Didn't read the book, so I can't compare. Actually, I can see how those who have read the book might enjoy it less than those who haven't. In any event, I say ignore the critics. If you're interested, see it and decide for yourself.

Updated On: 5/22/06 at 12:42 AM

[Peter]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 2:27am

Saw it this afternoon at 4pm and it was sold out...as was the show before it. IMO, McKellan is the only good thing about the film. However, there was surprisingly a scattering of applause at the end.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 3:03am

I posted this one one of the other threads, as well:

I saw it today. I love the book, and the book is way, way better. The movie is VERY long. Too long, really. Even in its length, it jumps to and from portions of the story too quickly; the ending epiphany about Sophie's lineage just comes out of nowhere. It's good, but disappointing.

Paul Bettany is fantastic. I loved him before this, and he's so, so good. Ian McKellan (I can never spell that right... dunno why, it's not hard) is also wonderful; the sense of betrayal you should feel when you find out Teabing isn't who you think he is is totally there. Whoever plays Sophie (I don't care to look it up) is okay, I guess. Tom Hanks is horribly miscast (what's with his hair?). Between Sophie and Robert, where's the charm? Where are the sparks? Nothing. He's good, I guess, but he's often unengaging and just kind of there. I don't understand why there was the need to cast such a huge star in the part, anyway, since the book is so famous; it would've been find just riding on its title.

The direction is good, and I guess it was nice to see everything 'come to life,' but visually it's not really anything terribly special, or special enough to make it a must-see. I think a significant amount was changed and left out, and they totally cheaped out on the penultimate scene, with Sophie and Langdon at the church with Sophie's family. It was cheesy and overly sentimental.

If you read and liked the book, stick there and leave it at that. If you haven't read the book, read it, don't bother with the movie, and certainly don't see the movie instead.

Random aside: I saw it in Times Square, and people were lined up outside, protesting the movie.

Updated On: 5/22/06 at 03:03 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 11:47am

I saw it on Friday and bought my tickets online around noon for the 10:45 PM showing - everything earlier than that was already sold out.

I absolutely adored the book - I devoured it in a matter of days, I was so enthralled. I loved the movie as well. Sure, the suspense is gone and the twists aren't surprising to people who have read the book, but to blame that on Howard is foolish - OBVIOUSLY if you read the book you're going to be less surprised than if you were experiencing the story for the first time.

I loved Audrey, McKellan, and Bettany - and I definitely liked Hanks. I didn't hate him, I didn't love him, but I thought he did an admirable job.

I didn't feel like the movie was too long at all - it needs to be that long. Had an excessive amount of material been cut, it would have been horrible.

I'm not sure why some reviews are so bad - I don't think there's anything bad about this film. Definitely go see it.

[vbplayer]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 12:31pm

I agree Munk, It wasn't the greatest film ever, but it was very good. True to the book. I read the book twice and still enjoyed the film. I did think Hanks was miscast, but that's just me. He did do an decent job, but I never really connected with him as I did in the book. All in all, I would give it 3 out of 5 stars.

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:00pm

I just felt like Sophie and Langdon were just being dragged from place to place. There was no passion or energy between or around them. That being said, I enjoyed the movie on the whole.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:02pm

A lot of explanation was missing, aside from passion and energy being lacking; like when they go to the place where the cryptex is deposited, they just sort of go, without explanation for why or where it is, which if I recall correctly, is in the book.

[theatahguy]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:14pm

best thing about the film was Paul Bettany's ass.

...and his performance :)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:17pm

During that scene, I was sort of like "wow, Paul Bettany gets naked on film a lot."

[theatahguy]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:31pm

oo--which other movies? i gotta know!! :)

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:33pm

A Knight's Tale. He has a gambling problem, and loses everything he has on him, including his clothes, so he ends up just strolling around naked.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:40pm

I thought the same thing about the safe-box place. In the book, it tells you how and when they figure out that the key is for that. In the movie, they just appear.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:42pm

That's what I mean about the scene with the scrolls, too. He's just suddenly like "OH! It was a cover up, this is your name and this is who you are!" The processes in the book are just gone, which is a shame because a lot of it is really interesting, and it feeds the suspense.

[junglered]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 1:49pm

I saw The Da Vinci Code yesterday and enjoyed it. (I am a fan of the Dan Brown book). The highlight for me was Sir Ian McKellan. He turns in a terrific performance as Sir Leigh Tebing.

[peach]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 2:34pm

I saw it and I enjoyed it. I loved the book - half the fun of the book though, was trying to figure out the clues on your own, and all the historical symbloic references. In the movie they sort of "hand it to you" (which is inevitable) so a lot of the fun was gone. Plus I already knew the story and the turns, so the element of suspense wasn't quite there. That's what happens when you read the book first, I guess.

At the same time, the movie kept me thoroughly entertained. I actually thought it moved a bit fast and glossed over some of the "good stuff" but all in all, I rather enjoyed it. Ian McKellan and Paul Bettany were the best ones in the film. Tom Hanks didn't bother me in the least - he was fine. But I still think hugh Laurie would have made the best Robert Langdon.

All in all, a fun movie to watch, I thought. I wasn't bored once in the etire three hours. And there were some nice beauty shots of Paris and the churches.
Updated On: 5/22/06 at 02:34 PM

[ckeaton]

Posted: 5/22/06 at 5:01pm

It's an unfortunate irony that, in a movie about a 2,000-year conspiracy to repress the power of the 'sacred feminine,' the female lead is there merely to be acted upon, never to act.

This quote from the Pajiba review of "The Code" better expresses something that I was trying to get across to someone today at work.

http://www.pajiba.com/da-vinci-code-the.htm

[Renthead#1]

Posted: 5/24/06 at 8:10pm

I give that movie two thumbs down.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 5/26/06 at 11:19pm

I actually didn't thing it was bad at all. It did seem odd that Audrey didn't get as much acting in as should be emphasized, and it wasn't as climatically exciting as it should have been but I found it really good. I was happily surprised about how well it stuck to the book. A couple of little things might have been changed - but it could have been a lot worse.

And Paul Bettany....I will never get over how good he was. I love him. Excellent performance. Broke my heart.


And this may be because I'm weirdly biased having a very French mother but Tom Hanks was so very American compared to Audrey Tautou. I don't mean that in a bad way, but it was amusing almost comparing the accents.

P.s. This isn't me being creepy or anything, but Audrey's voice weirdly soothes me..

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 5/27/06 at 9:26am

I think that's the point, Sally. In the book, she's this intriguing French girl, and he's this dorky American professor. They didn't really fully achieve the chemistry Langdon and Sophie are supposed to have, but I think the difference is *supposed* to be so stark that it's kind of amusing.

I agree about Paul Bettany. I think I forgot how much I loved him. And now I love him even more. He deserves more love in general, really.

[DramaDork925]

Posted: 5/27/06 at 10:17pm

I liked it for what it was... My one weird OCD-esque thing was that I would've sworn that half of the Westminster Abbey was underconstruction when they walked in but not when they walked out... so clearly I was not that into the movie if I noticed that.

[SallyBrown]

Posted: 5/27/06 at 11:11pm

Emcee- I TOTALLY agree. I did forget how much I love him, and you're so right he needs more appreciation.