*** Offficial THE DA VINCI CODE Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Allen Hirsch]

Best parts of Ebert's review, IMO:

"The conspiracy involves members of Opus Dei, a society of Catholics who in real life (I learn from a recent issue of the Spectator) are rather conventionally devout and prayerful. Although the movie describes their practices as "maso-chastity," not all of them are chaste and hardly any practice self-flagellation. In the months ahead, I would advise Opus Dei to carefully scrutinize membership applications.

Opus Dei works within but not with the church, which also harbors a secret cell of cardinals who are in on the conspiracy (the pope and most other Catholics apparently don't have backstage passes).

These men keep a secret that, if known, could destroy the church. That's why they keep it. If I were their adviser, I would point out that by preserving the secret, they preserve the threat to the church, and the wisest strategy would have been to destroy the secret, say, 1,000 years ago."

 

[Lord Dalek]

I was shocked initially that Roger gave it a possitive review. Then I realized it was only possitive in a "so bad it's good" manner.

 

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "The Da Vinci Code" please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "The Da Vinci Code" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Atkins]

I'm going to see this movie no matter the reviews. Ebert's review does give me slight hope, but he and I parted ways a few years ago. Up until, say, 2002, I usually agreed with Ebert's reviews. Now, I rarely do.

 

[Keith Paynter]

I have not read the book, and since this film is being cross promoted on everything short of a McDonald's Happy Meal (including several books claiming to de-mystify the DaVinci Code, Norton Software and a cross-platform Videogame), the end result is too much hype for my taste, and it appears to be backfiring if early reviews are any indication. This film is the biggest anticipated book-to-movie since Gone With The Wind (although that's where the comparison ends, because critics are definitely not in love with this film).

I agree that fans of the book will still want to see it and give it a strong opening, but I'm not sure this film will have legs. I don't plan forking over any money on it (and I'm not religiously biased over the film BTW).

 

[Jordan_E]

We're going to see this at the drive-in tonight, so we can:

(A) Talk and tear it to pieces without bothering anyone else.
(B) Eat "good" junk food we'll bring along.
(C) Look around at the other screens if this one does indeed stink!

 

[Michael Harris]

First I see this from a post above
Coincidence?

 

[Steve_Tk]

It just doesn't transfer into an entertaining movie. Some of those scenes took pages and pages in the novel, and in the movie it's forced into three seconds. I was bored. Oh well.

I expected more from the beginning scenes in the Musuem (It's Luvre?). That was so fast and on to the next scene.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Since, I didn't read the book, I'm wondering if my enjoyment level would be more than those that did? Will find out tomorrow, either way.





Crawdaddy

 

[Larry Sutliff]

If you're insinuating that the person in the chat was me, it wasn't. I don't think I'm the only guy who doesn't care much for Akiva Goldsman's writing skills!

 

[Quentin]

LOL!! Get in line!

 

[DeeF]

Dreadful film. Dreadful book. No entertainment, let alone enlightenment. Save your money.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Never read the book, enjoyed the film, but I can see why others wouldn't.




Crawdaddy

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Liked the book, found the movie sometimes blah and often irritating.

 

[Holadem]

Whyzdat?

--
H

 

[Dan Lassiter]

Saw the film this afternoon with my wife and son. We liked it and think that most of the critics are seeing what they want to in the film and many are just plain offended by the ideas. We did not think it was boring, thought Hanks was OK and felt there was enough suspense to keep it interesting. My wife gave it three stars and my son gave it 3 1/2. I was the only one to read the book and I thought Howard did a good job with the material. My son's comment was, it was amazing how they tied all of that stuff together?

 

[Robert Crawford]

Because those that read the book beforehand, sometimes, come with preconceptions as to how the story should be told and when that doesn't occur then you have some people that are disappointed and will most likely have negative thoughts about the film while comparing it to the book.

Myself, I never read the book so the only thing I had to worry about was watching the film and taking it all in as the story unfolded before me on the screen which possibly helped my enjoyment level moreso than those that read the book prior to their viewing.





Crawdaddy

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I didn't read the book - indeed, I've willfully avoided the thing, so I knew little more than the general plot concept of Da Vinci.

And I HATED the movie! Dull, dull, dull - stupid, pointless and plain old boring. Ron Howard may be the most pedestrian Oscar-winning director out there today - the man has no imagination or spark to his work. He's made some good films when he sticks with basic emotional fare - such as Apollo 13 - but if he does something that requires an unusual touch, he's the wrong man for the job.

D- (I'll keep it from an "F" because Audrey Tautou looked pretty hot...)

 

[Robert Crawford]

I don't agree with you about the rest of your comments, but I do concur with your thoughts about Tautou. A little too slightly build for my taste, but her eyes have always mesmerize me. The camera loves her face.




Crawdaddy

 

[Allen Hirsch]

My wife and I both liked it, but I also had low expectations, after all the critics trashed it.

I can't figure out why the reviews aren't much closer to 50-50. Either it's the content (religion isn't a favorite topic of probably 99% of critics, I'd guess - probably just makes them squeamish - much like the Passion of Christ), or maybe, if they liked the book, they were expecting more of an Indiana Jones-style, summer-popcorn thriller/chase movie. Otherwise, I'm at a loss for its almost universal panning.

I really didn't see it as slow, boring or dull - unless the content bores you. It is a talk-y film, b/c to be reasonably faithful to the book, it takes a LOT of exposition to move the plot along. There isn't any chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, but there wasn't very much between their characters in the book, either (unless my memory fails me).

I liked the closing scene alot, back at the Louvre.