DaVinci Code

I saw this film last night. I can't remember the last time a cinema was so packed :eek: It's a pretty good flick. Can't say I really understood some of the more detailed plot lines (ain't read the books, Bible and am generally fairly ignorant to religion :p) but apart from that a pretty good film. It reminded me in some ways of that one last year, National Treasure, with Nic' Cage and Sean Bean.

Only criticism is that it could have done with a little more humour (the audience only laughed once in the entire movie at the old man's joke "shoot him instead") and maybe a bit faster pace.
 
nothing on the book, but when a film tries to follow a book it never is so that was no surprise. i could tell why it got bad reviews etc...because it had a bestseller to live up to and it didn't quite cut it.
if you can't be bothered to read the book, go watch it cos it is still pretty good, but if you have time on your hands then read the book as its sooooo much better :eek:
 
Went to see it last night - certainly not as bad as the critics made it out to be. Luckily it was a while since I read it so while I knew the overall story and ending, I'd forgotten a lot of the little twists and turns along the way...

It was ever so slightly long, and there were some scenes which were overly melodramatic, what with rousing music in the background and repeating the same thing over and over with meaningful expressions on faces. Something like:

(deep strings in background)
"She was here"
"Yes, she was really here"
"Mary Magdalene"
"The Sacred Feminine"
"The Holy Grail herself"
"She was here"
"Yes she was"
"She isn't now"
"No, she isn't"
"I wonder where she is"
"Indeed"
(more deep strings and meaningful looks)

Otherwise good entertainment :)
 
I concurr with the opinions of most on here in saying that its gotten a very unfair mauling off the critics went and saw it on Friday and though its no classic its certainly not a steaming dump like some reviewers have made it out to be!

It sticks to the book pretty faithfully and covers all the main plot points, has got some decient actors playing the roles pretty well and does what it says on the tin.

My faults with it were that they didnt make enough of the action bits there were in the book (escaping in Teabings plane & escaping the Louvre) and so it became a bit talky and also it rattled through explaining some stuff a bit quick and I think it could have been hard to fathom for people who didnt already know the plot.
 
sara said:
(deep strings in background)
"She was here"
"Yes, she was really here"
"Mary Magdalene"
"The Sacred Feminine"
"The Holy Grail herself"
"She was here"
"Yes she was"
"She isn't now"
"No, she isn't"
"I wonder where she is"
"Indeed"
(more deep strings and meaningful looks)

Otherwise good entertainment :)
Click to expand...

LOL. That reminds of of the scene from Red Dwarf

LISTER: Where is everybody, Hol?

LISTER sticks his finger in one of the piles of white powder and tastes
it.

HOLLY: They're dead, Dave.
LISTER: Who is?
HOLLY: Everybody, Dave.
LISTER: What, Captain Hollister?
HOLLY: Everybody's dead, Dave.
LISTER: What, Todhunter?
HOLLY: Everybody's dead, Dave.
LISTER: What, Selby?
HOLLY: They're all dead. Everybody's dead, Dave.

12 Int. Corridor.

LISTER is still trying to understand what HOLLY is saying.

LISTER: Petersen isn't, is he?
HOLLY: Everybody is *dead*, Dave.
LISTER: Not Chen?
HOLLY: Gordon Bennett! Yes! Chen, everybody. Everybody's dead, Dave.
LISTER: Rimmer?
HOLLY: He's dead, Dave. Everybody's dead. Everybody is dead, Dave!
LISTER: Wait. Are you trying to tell me everybody's dead?
HOLLY: I wish I'd never let him out in the first place.
Click to expand...


It's good to hear that the average man on the street is disagreeing with the criticts on this one. I get the feeling that they had their review written before even seeing the film TBH.

Might be worth a trip to the cinema after all.
 
Minor Spoiler.......................

I noticed that rather than going to the library and using the library seach facilities (as happens in the book), the film instead decided to use a mobile phone and internet search engine instead. I'm sure the producers will insist this was essential to keep the plot moving but all I could think of was 'product placement'. I can't remember the mobile phone manufacturer and the name of the seach engine, but i'm sure they paid a lot of money to be in the film!

Those Orange adverts that are on before most films sprang to mind....I wonder to what degree the plot was purposely changed to provide a revenue opportunity.

Edit: A bit of digging later reveals that Sony Ericsson struck a deal to have their phone included in the film, which also explains why their phones currently have a big Da Vinci code breaking promotion on at the moment.
 
Last edited:
Plebo said:
I can't remember the mobile phone manufacturer and the name of the seach engine, but i'm sure they paid a lot of money to be in the film!
Click to expand...

Didn't recognise the model but the phone had a Walkman symbol on it!... but it definatly wasn't a W800i or even a W500... :confused:

Probly some mocked up SE Walkman styleee phone just to get 'WALKMAN' product placement!.
 
atpbx said:
The only auther out of that lot i can even begin to read is Tom Clancy.
Even then, only Rainbow 6 and Debt of Honour.
Click to expand...

Try red storm rising, not a bad book at all, would make one hell of a film, would cost an absolute bomb though, completely far fetched like al of Clancys books, but a decent read none the less. Also enjoyed the hunt for Red october.

His writing style is not the greatest, but i's still perfectly acceptable compared to brown who takes what could be a very good story and makes it a bit cack. If yo want incredibly well written books that are both easy to read and stunningly well written you can't go far wrong with most of Iain M Banks books, for me on of the best writers around at the moment, and the est sci-fi writer around at the moment.
 
i just got back, i found myself quite bored throughout, but that might be because i'd read the book..
i really wished they had made it feel more europey, it felt like i was in hollywood in paris, they really should have tried to avoid it, paris being such a brilliant city, especially on film!
a shame really, the only thing that kept me watching was the absolutely insanely howt audrey T. god bless her, wow
 
Went to see this over the weekend, i found it quite boring and a little tedious at times.

Never mind, ill go see Xmen3 this weekend, hopefully that might be better :D
 
I saw it on Saturday and found it to be a fairly good film. I would disagree with some of the critics saying that there isn't enough action in the film, I would say that if there was more then it would disrupt the 'hunt' for the the bloodline. I went in there expecting a film which would be very talkative and less focused on action.
I did find though that the plot twisted, turned and corkscrew flipped too much for my liking for a 2 and a half hour film.

Simian said:
I like films that turn standard religious dogma on its head!...
Click to expand...

Watch a couple of Luis Bunuels films ;)
 
Last edited:
I took my Dad to see it on Sunday. We both enjoyed it and were relieved to see that it stayed faithful, unlike most book-to-film adaptations.
 
Just got back from the film, what a bore, to be quite honest.

The film may well have been a recording of somebody reading the book aloud.

Was a little disapointed they headed to "Chelsea Library" rather than King's College Library... but then they were running down Fleet Street, which is of course just a couple of hundred yards from our real library. :o
 
Simian said:
Didn't recognise the model but the phone had a Walkman symbol on it!... but it definatly wasn't a W800i or even a W500... :confused:

Probly some mocked up SE Walkman styleee phone just to get 'WALKMAN' product placement!.
Click to expand...

davinciphone.jpg
 
Well I watched the Da Vinci Code in Cannes the other day (but the original version, with French subtitles) and I thought it was a good film - definately not a film worthy of a slating. I've never read the book so I don't know how religiously it follows the book. (see what I did there?)
 
I thought it was poor. It didn't explain the leaps of logic very well, so it was like it was just taking you round, not explaining much.

The book is far, far better. It was always going to be.

They should've really taken time to explain the really important things and less time on the things sara pointed out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom