I just got back from seeing this movie. There certainly is a great deal of interest in it at our local cinema - the queues were huge.
If you are a purist and are anticipating this movie, I say wait until the DVD - mainly because there is a fair bit of french, and some italian, that has subtitles…in chinese.
I still got the gist of it because I had read the book, but it’s frustrating to miss a good 5-10min of the dialogue.
As for the movie itself? The cinematography was excellent, as was the music. The screen play was fairly much identical as described in the book with some omissions, but I felt the suspense in cracking portions of the code did not develop. They just seemed to come up with answers too easily (like on the first or second try) so it felt a little rushed.
A couple of other things that bothered me was the convenience of some things for the situation:For example, the visit to Lee Teabling’s mansion. He seemed to have a presentation about the Last Supper cued perfectly on the plasma when it was needed.
I don’t read much literature at all, so I am not sure if movie versions usually disappoint, but I must say I found the book more addictive than the film - I guess I felt it could have been better.
Having children would not have made of Jesus a mortal.
If it did make of Jesus a mortal what is such a big deal about being one of his descedants?
If the fact of Jesus having had descedants was such a big deal (despite that fact proving that he was not god) which needed to be shared with the world, why lock it up in a puzzle that only a hero could solve? What was the point of the whole fucking movie?
Why was it that what she beleived was the important thing? Weren’t there other important questions?
If none of these questions mean anything because it was supposed to be “just entertainment” why not just make some entertainment about a less historically, philosophically important issue.
I have been struggling with my wife over just these questions since getting out of the theatre an hour ago and basically I am still fuming. I can’t believe western culture has been reduced to such nonsense.
Quite a few Taiwanese will see that movie and never ask the questions I’ve asked here. That movie will, essentially, be their introduction to christianity. It’s a disgrace.
And why did you just freaking know from about twenty minutes into the thing that either Tom or what’s her name would prove to be "the last living descedants of Christ?
And if the witch hunts of the middle ages were actually some secret societies way of getting rid of Christ’s descendants, what did they do about the male descendants?
All the reviews and comments i’ve heard so far were bad which is kind of a disappointment. Similar to the Nic Cage movie “National Treasure” which was a real stinker. If interested, there is a book on the market called Rule by Secrecy (by jim marrs ~ bought at PageOne) It covers the jesus/mary topic in more detail (plus it goes into the crusades, templars, rothchilds, jpmorgans, rockefellers/standard oil, Council of Foreign Relations, kissinger, Bilderbergs, etc. and all that represents). Actually i thought it is a very interesting read but be warned, you may get label a CT nut if you make any comments about it.
I have the DaVinci code paperback, if anyone wants it, just send me a PM, maybe trade some music or something. I’m reading a book now by Kevin Phillips called American Theocracy.
You can also check out Holy Blood, Holy Grail which is where Dan Brown basically got the idea for his story. I had read this book a long time ago and when I read the Da Vinci Code, I knew exactly what was going to happen and where he was going because I had read Holy Blood Holy Grail.
It didn’t really work as a movie. But then neither should a man stuck in an airport or a man stuck on an island alone talking to a volleyball and lots of people paid to see those ideas as movies. Tom Hanks is terrible in this movie. He seemed to be just reading his lines for the first hour of the movie. He’s shown up by nearly all the other actors who are capable of facial expression. Jean Reno and Ian McKellen were great.
The flashbacks were annoying and could have been cut. The movie was far too long.
Remeber the scene where he and the girl are going to get shot but are saved because because the gunman decides to close the door instead, as per Tom’s plan? Tom and her looked like they were waiting in line for pop corn. I think you can even spot a moment when she sort of shakes herself and thinks “Wake up, this is a movie, I am a well paid actress and in this scene I am about to die. Looked scared, but not too scared, don’t overact…”
Yeah, I read that around 1992-3. Interesting read, although it started a bit slowly. At the time, I didn’t trust at all that the ‘secret dossiers’ purportedly discovered in the library really existed. Perhaps the most interesting thing about the recent documentaries on the DaVinci Code, for me, was that these really exist (even though they’re earlier fakes).
Tom Hanks isn’t a very good actor (like so many Hollywood stars). He really has no range of facial expressions – you’ve hit it right on the mark. Just like Kevin Costner. Horrible. Although he was decent in Gump.
Having children would not have made of Jesus a mortal.
If it did make of Jesus a mortal what is such a big deal about being one of his descedants?
If the fact of Jesus having had descedants was such a big deal (despite that fact proving that he was not god) which needed to be shared with the world, why lock it up in a puzzle that only a hero could solve? What was the point of the whole fucking movie?
Why was it that what she beleived was the important thing? Weren’t there other important questions?
If none of these questions mean anything because it was supposed to be “just entertainment” why not just make some entertainment about a less historically, philosophically important issue.
I have been struggling with my wife over just these questions since getting out of the theatre an hour ago and basically I am still fuming. I can’t believe western culture has been reduced to such nonsense.
Quite a few Taiwanese will see that movie and never ask the questions I’ve asked here. That movie will, essentially, be their introduction to christianity. It’s a disgrace.[/quote]
I haven’t seen the movie yet but that it’s based on a book should explain why you are shown certain things, but it is entertainment and it is fiction, so you have to expect that it is not always historically accurate or that things are twisted in certain ways to make the story more interesting.
As such there is IMO no real point in questioning the movie or book on those issues.
[quote=“Rascal”] I haven’t seen the movie yet but that it’s based on a book should explain why you are shown certain things, but it is entertainment and it is fiction, so you have to expect that it is not always historically accurate or that things are twisted in certain ways to make the story more interesting.
As such there is IMO no real point in questioning the movie or book on those issues.[/quote]
OK so it was a stupid movie based on a stupider book. I can agree with that.
“Suspension of belief” is what most people look for when they see a movie. They want to lose themselves in the reality of the thing. That isn’t possible when you are constantly blindsided by the stupididty of it.
I don’t like it either when important parts of history are twisted to suit someone eles’s agenda. Here they were pandering to the “poor downtrodden women” sentiment and in the process created an absolute horror of a movie, a movie that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and that will likely soak up that much or more at the box office. Movies both reflect and create the society that we live in. They should be criticized from every angle.
I can also get excited about Sci-Fi novels and movies, i.e. lose myself in the “reality” of it even I am fully aware that there isn’t much or anything real about it. The same with the book (Da Vinci Code), I read it for what it is, a fiction novel - and as such I found it highly entertaining.
If the movie can give me the same impression we will see, I realize that a transfer from book to film may not always work so well. In comparision to the book it will probably be a flop (I always thought Tom Hanks was a bad choice but what do I know ).
I dunno if there is any agenda here except to entertain, as such I disagree that it’s necessary to scrutinize each bit of the story that never claims to be a documentary or such. Based on the subject at hand I guess there will be many different opinions of historians that is is impossible to know “the truth”.
In fact that truth may be so boring that the story would not have worked, the book would never have been a success (if it had been written then) and the movie would never have been made …
I think the movie made quite the impression on you. [/quote]
Yes, and my name begins with A, so the penis/chalice comparison is probably valid. [/quote]
I think the movie made quite the impression on you. [/quote]
Yes, and my name begins with A, so the penis/chalice comparison is probably valid. [/quote]
That post alone will probably raise the box office revenue a bit.
That post alone will probably raise the box office revenue a bit.