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

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.

---

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

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

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.

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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.

---

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

I give that movie two thumbs down.

---

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.

---

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

---