Da vinci thoughts

[JenJen]

So I saw the Da vinci Code over the weekend. I was just wondering what people thought about it. It was an enjoyable movie because of the focus on the action aspect but i was a little disappointed in the casting. Personally i thought Tom Hanks was a little too fat and old for the role. I pictured his character as a more athletic type. Anybody see it yet?

[sololop]

I havn't read the book or seen the movie, but people say the book was enjoyable and I like Tom Hanks so i'll probrobly like it, so my pre-Da vinci thoughts are leaning positive.

[TinyDancer]

I saw it Saturday morning, and I more or less thought the same thing as you. Tom Hanks wasn't right, neither was Audrey Tautou. He's too...Tom-Hanks-ish, and she doesn't seem quite mature enough. I liked the movie pretty well, I was surprised at how close they kept to the book. They changed a few things, but none of it really made a major difference to the story. I still think the book was better, but what can you do?

Edit: The guy who played Silas though, Paul Bettany ( http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0079273/), was really awesome. He did an incredible job.

[Markpyro]

Yea, Robert Langdon in the book was described as an athlete, a swimmer. Tom Hanks wasnt the right choice from the beginning, and I havent enjoyed many of his recent roles either.
I havent seen the movie yet, but I seem to remember that Sophie in the movie didnt have red hair, which was a trait of hers in the book. Its been a year since I've read it, so correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm going to see it this weekend, at which point I'll post more. I am happy though that Gandalf is in the movie ^_^

[Kingscrab]

In a word, YAWN. :tdown:

It was kinda like National Treasure but with better actors. C-

[Nuts]

In a word, YAWN. :tdown:

It was kinda like National Treasure but with better actors. C-

Nick Cage is da shiznit. Tom Hanks would pale in comparison. :)

I'm going to read the book before I see this movie. I'm way behind though, it may be a while.

[Kingscrab]

Nick Cage is da shiznit. Tom Hanks would pale in comparison. I shall call your weak bet of one Nicholas Cage, and raise you one Ian McKellen! Take THAT! ;)

(Let's not forget the ever-so-insanely-gorgeous Audrey Tautou!)

[GenocideAlive]

Nick Cage is da shiznit. Tom Hanks would pale in comparison.
Are you kidding me? Nick Cage has ruined his life, his mind, and his body on the blow. I used to like him back in 48hrs, but now he's all Gary Busey.

Tom Hanks is a decent actor, but he's no Laurence Fishburne.

[Nuts]

Have you seen Lord of War?

Cage was fantabulous in that movie!
And I don't throw around that adjective lightly.

[EvilEggCracker]

Hah, that damn cripple beats up a priest!

Yeah, it was a good movie. However, the book was better. Oh, and I was kinda drunk when I watched it, so I can't really remember that much :S

[Toucan]

Have you seen Lord of War?

Cage was fantabulous in that movie!
And I don't throw around that adjective lightly.

Seconded, Cage rocked in Lord of War. I enjoyed that movie a lot.

[Kingscrab]

Have you seen Lord of War?

Cage was fantabulous in that movie!
And I don't throw around that adjective lightly. Oh how the mighty have fallen. :cry:

Cage isn't awful, but Lord of War was utter crapola! Poo-Poo i say!

[Nuts]

Oh how the mighty have fallen. :cry:

Cage isn't awful, but Lord of War was utter crapola! Poo-Poo i say!

Henceforth, you shall be known as Opposite Man and everything you say shall be known as the anti-truth.

I agree, Lord of War was an excellent movie!

[Kingscrab]

Henceforth, you shall be known as Opposite Man and everything you say shall be known as the anti-truth.

I agree, Lord of War was an excellent movie! Brraghh! Foiled again!

Beware, Nuts! Global warming will destroy us all! Opposite Man has spoken!
Or has he...? :shiftyl:

[GrassDragon]

I thought the movie was very weak and rather boring. National Treasure may have even been better.

[Neo]

I wasn't planning on seeing the Da Vinci Code anytime soon, and this just confirms it.

Normally I don't like to follow critics (ie: what they say, for instance, almost everyone dissed RV and Robin Williams but I've heard from mutliple people in different "social... groups", whatever, claim that it was hilarious... which is all one expects from Robin Willians =P) but DVC just never seemed worth it.

Although I love that its pissed off a bunch of Christians. I know thats petty... but I can't help it. Heh :)

I'll be going to see X3 over really anything else. Click looks kind of funny, but Sandler pisses me off for some reason. The Sequal to Pirates of the Carribean looks promising.

-Neo

[TheSniper]

Well, I haven't read the book or seen the movie.

I have read about a lot of lies Dan Brown put in the book. He says that everything is true but I've read things that prove him wrong in nearly every case. Besides, Da Vinci painted the Last Supper, what was it? A century after it took place? The painting is far from historically accurate. I plan on seeing the movie, but I go into it knowing the entire thing is a lie.

Many people believe the movie and the book. But they are incorrect. So, please don't trust everything you watch or read...

[BlackHawk]

The book rocked, the movie was "heh." Not only did Tom Hanks not fit the Character at all he had no expression at all, the only time he had any expression in the movie was when he said "Hey" at the end. The other cast was alright, it stay really true to the book, but really, it was not worth the $11.50.

[JenJen]

i really hate the people protesting the movie...Dan Brown doesnt say everything is true. he says it's based on truth and it is all of the orginizations and paintings and such exist he just changes things about them so they fit. The book is FICTION. i'm christian am i am not offended because i know when to take things seriously. The people who are protesting just show how gullible most people are. it's like going to protest over the hedge because the animals look to cuddly and i just dont want my children to be exposed to cuddly street animals...give me a break.

[dunchy]

I just finished reading Deception Point, and although I haven't read Digital Fortress, it's easy to conclude all Dan Brown books are written the same. Angels and Demons is the exact same as Da Vinci Code just with different characters.

Actually it's worse then that, all Dan Brown books are all the same in every respect. They all have the same theme. They all have the same types of characters. They all have the same attributes to each character.

The only reason why Dan Brown has done well for himself is because he's chosen controverisal topics that have piqued peoples interest. The fact alone that there are hunger strikes against The Da Vinci Code movie simply attests to its popularity. There's no such thing as bad PR. It only makes people want to go see it more.

No one heard of Dan Brown when he put out his first two books. Why? Because they weren't controversial, and the writing sucked. But because he chose something that was so controversial that he knew it would cause an uprising, he decided he'd profit from it. He is not a good writer. He is another David Eddings in the making, and it's worse because he claims that "all facts are true" when we can plainly see that they are not.

Think the book was written good? Here's a bit of a list to chew on.

1. Cliffhanger endings to almost every paragraph. ie: "...and then he opened up the vault and was shocked by what he saw.
Meanwhile, in Paris...."

2. Terrible plot structure. The main character ALREADY KNEW EVERYTHING (except for that laughable ending...who the "Holy Grail" was. But seriously, if you couldn't figure that out within the first two minutes of the character being introduced...ouch). Langdon didn't have to go on a quest to discover all these Priory secrets and shit, which would have made for a much better book, but he already knew everything and was told to us in a terrible The Big Reveal (tm).

3. The best for last: "There's a smaller one inside". I nearly stopped reading. That entire hook was simply made to buffer the pages and was infuriatingly stupid.

Now onto the movie...

I think the casting was great for starters. It's nice to see Tom Hanks get out of bad acting roles like in the Ladykillers and back into real characters again. It's hard to see a different lead, maybe Liam Neeson or George Clooney perhaps? Audrey Tatou is the best choice anyone could think for the female lead, bar none. I didn't want to see Monica Bellucci or some other double 'D' chick and only attracts horny teens to the movie.

The major flaw (I'm not going to much on this film because you want to see it and I'm not going to majorly ruin it for you) is the scriptwriting. There's 4 backstories to the book, and to put it easily - it's all done wrong. Lots of explosions, little character developement. Backwards. Everything that spews out of Hanks mouth is sheer garbage. Sad really. I'm too spent to talk more....even though the thread is about the thread is about the movie instead of the book, the mad discussion about Lord of War and Nicolas Cage allows this :P

[badreligion]

To set the record straight the da vinci code and national treasure both sucked

[GrassDragon]

...but really, it was not worth the $11.50.
$11.50? I'm not sure it was worth the 4 bucks I paid to see it...

[DarkLStrike]

Hah, that damn cripple beats up a priest!

Hmm... The albino is not a priest. He looks more like a zealot than a priest. People say you have to read the book before seeing the movie, cuz they think the movie is utter confusing. Well i've read the book and seen the movie, its pretty clear to me.

[EvilEggCracker]

I've read the book as well, it's just a funny thought.

Oh and the crazy monk albino dude kinda looked like a priest (he was wearing monk robes) and I was pissed when I watched it so cut me some slack ;)

[TheGreatBrain]

I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code because it was a fun movie to watch, but some parts were better than others. For example, in the book (which I thought was decent but nothing special), Silas was more well-developed, and I had a lot of sympathy for him. In the movie, I really think his plotline was window-dressing. We didn't get a feel for Silas as a character.

However, other parts were well-done and exciting, especially the last 60 seconds of the film, which I enjoyed more than everything else I saw.

[TinyDancer]

I will agree with you Dunchy, his books are all more or less the same book, in different cities. I read Angels and Demons before I read The Da Vinci Code, Angels and Demons is actually a better book in my opinion, but they're so close that I mix them up all the time. I haven't bothered reading the rest of his books, it seems kind of silly.

[JenJen]

I agree that Angels and Demons is better. Its my favorite book of his. I also agree with TGB that Silas is more developed in the book but he has to be because it just wouldnt fit in the movie. they went with an action packed kind of movie and spent less time on character development. However if you did read the book you could catch and understand Silas' story in the movie because its done by like flashbacks if i remember correctly. not much explaining to them which confuses those who havent read it.

[DarkLStrike]

To set the record straight the da vinci code and national treasure both sucked

I actually liked The Da Vinci Code but hated National Treasure.

[Beef]

I heard that they're making an "Angels and Demons" movie. I don't know when it's coming out but I'm assuming it's going to be a long time.

[Sikawtic]

I second (or like 12th...) the it was boring motion.
/signed

I did enjoy some of the Ian scenes though...

[SilentSimmons]

All I can say is... I'm glad I'm not going to watch it.