What's new

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

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
Robert was underwritten for the film in terms of characterization, I was never hooked into his character, never got a sense that he'd exist outside the requirements of the plot, plus he seemed too decent, no shades of grey within him, just a deep-seated phobia of enclosed spaces due to his childhood trauma. Sophie's introduction into the film was a head-scratcher (how did she intercept the dispatch of Sauniere's death at the Louvre and show up in the nick of time, and had the cloak-n-daggar foresight to record a voicemail for Robert to be directed to call?) , but without her, we wouldn't have much of a film at all. Silas was too one-dimensional, and the Bishop shared the same deficiency.

Leigh was probably only interesting character in the film, but requirements of the plot rendered him all too fortuitous in having Robert and Sophie show up on his doorsteps in the middle of the night and give the audience the history lesson to shine some light of the stakes in question.

The final hour just ran out of gas, this is especially true after Leigh is apprehended, and Robert and Sophie press on to find the holy grail, and learn more of the past that was guarded by the Priory of Scion. There was no real sense of wonder and awe in the last hour to buoy such revelations.

I think a different director might have given the final act much more punch, I think someone else with a more Euro-centric sensibility could have better realized a more energized ending. I would not have minded it if Philip Noyce or Philip Kaufman were in the director's chair.
 

Carlo_M

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 31, 1997
Messages
13,385
Which is about all you know about him from the books (including Angels and Demons which could basically be called The Da Vinci Code Beta Version).

Dan Brown takes the Michael Crichton approach to character development (nearly none) to the extreme. The characters really are there only to advance the plot/theories he's advancing. So in order to have more characterization onscreen, Howard would have had to make stuff up.
 

Pete-D

Screenwriter
Joined
May 30, 2000
Messages
1,746
If I'm a Sony-Columbia exec, I'm very happy with the film that Ron Howard turned in.

It's the book ... put on-screen.

Basically.

Which is really what you want with a property like "The Da Vinci Code". You don't want to tinker or screw around with it too much IMO ... just get it up there on the screen.

Of course, that's a lot easier to say now looking at the monsterous opening Friday box office.

The critical reaction is kinda off base IMO. If you look at the Rotten Tomatoes score, you'd think this film is bad as something like Scary Movie 4 or something ... that's really not the case.

I was expecting something really different from the book after hearing the critical reaction ... but basically it was about everything I expected.
 

Lord Dalek

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2005
Messages
7,093
Real Name
Joel Henderson
I've never read the book and I still found this sloppy, stilted, and bland. And I have no idea how anyone could find it enjoyable.
 

PaulP

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
3,291
Didn't read the book but I like the subject matter and found the film interesting. Don't see where all the hostility's coming from.
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328

Are you claiming that everyone who dislikes the film feels that way because of "personal baggage"? That's a real stretch. I couldn't care less about the film's religious content - it doesn't offend or bother me in any way, and I am too areligious to be defensive in any direction.

I was simply BORED. This isn't baggage - it's dull filmmaking. I had no axe to grind with the flick, so you can't explain away my dislike of it on philosophical lines. (Other than my "I hate dropping ten bucks on crummy movies" philosophy...)
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328

I guess I don't think of myself as "hostile" toward the movie. I was irked I wasted my time and money, but as I just explained, this isn't a philosophical annoyance.

I just can't figure out why this dull "adventure" stirred up such a fuss. I was thoroughly bored through much of the film - I kept waiting for it to become interesting but that never happened...
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Personal baggage is who you are and how you perceive what you're encountering so it takes in a lot of stuff beyond just religious belief which is why you were bored while others were thrilled by what they've experienced with this film. In short, personal baggage makes each of us unique as some level of hostility, disagreement and whatever else you want to call it are essential ingredients in all of us.




Crawdaddy
 

MickeS

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2000
Messages
5,058
I just saw it, and found it rather bland. I was entertained enough that it never got boring, but Ron Howard's movies so far just don't do much for me, and this was no exception. His movies all lack "oomph"... they are always competent, never really bad, and always end with me feeling "well, that was adequate". There's just no dynamic to them, and the screenplay didn't help either, it went from point A to point B to point C without much originality.

Plus, I just didn't get the point of the story, and there were a bunch of nuances that maybe the book covered, but the movie didn't.

For example, WHY was this a secret in the first place? It seems to me that both the Opus Dei and the other guys (can't remember that organization's name, but the ones that came to the church and met Hanks and the girl near the end) had the same goal: keep this a secret. The only difference seemed to be that the good guys wanted to keep the bloodline alive, and the bad guys didn't.

EDIT: I was also wondering what the big deal was about Jesus having a child... I am not religious, but I love the religious ceremonies and symbols. I don't see what difference it would make for christianity if Jesus fathered a child or not. Didn't he have like 6 brothers, and that didn't seem to make his mother Mary any less of an important figure in the catholic church? Or maybe the catholic church never recognized that either... I'm not versed enough in theology to remember who believes what and when. :)

Also wasn't that glass stuff in the Louvre built a long time after the clue was hidden? It didn't make sense to me.

And of course, the safety deposit box thing in the beginning... why would the night manager have to wait EDIT: 20 years (see correction below :)) for someone to come and get that thing, surely during that time (at least before the computer system they had), he would've been able to come up with a way to get at the contents... also, I gotta say he was damn lucky they came during his shift, otherwise his wait would've been in vain!

I guess most of the story just seemed kind of goofy and without much purpose. On page, this might have been interesting, but cinematically, conversations aren't hugely impressive. And the illustrations to them were bordering on parody - I was almost waiting for "the wavy lines" to come and indicate when the girl was remembering things. :D

Overall, it felt like a movie that, except for the star power of Tom Hanks, could've been the movie of the week over two Sundays on CBS. Had I been channel surfing during the first Sunday, and caught it in the middle, I would've stayed and also made sure I caught the end of the story next Sunday... but that's about how impressive this movie felt to me.
 

Patrick Sun

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 30, 1999
Messages
39,660
The bank guy had waited 20 years for someone to show up to claim the contents of that particular box.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
I think it would have been better to say "personal expectations/perspective/standards" instead of "baggage", which carries a negative connotation that's unnecessary.
 

JackKay

Second Unit
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
461
From Hollywood Reporter:

Sony's "The Da Vinci Code" deciphered the boxoffice code for success this weekend as the mystery-thriller from Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment cracked an estimated $224 million in worldwide receipts -- the second-biggest worldwide opening in history. Only 20th Century Fox's "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" grossed more on opening weekend, with $253.9 million in worldwide ticket sales.

On the domestic side, the Tom Hanks starrer pulled in a sterling estimate of $77 million, which depending on the final tally, is the 16th- or 17th-biggest weekend of all time in North America. One thing that is clear about the bow is that it definitely is one of the top openings for pictures that appeal largely to an adult audience.

"Da Vinci's" debut was in the area where most industry observers thought the film would land, but was higher than the distributor's stated $60 million expectation. The per-theater average for the PG-13 film was a stellar $20,616 from 3,735 houses.

The international side of the boxoffice coin was nearly double its domestic counterpart. The Ron Howard-directed film generated a staggering estimate of $147 million -- the biggest international debut of all time, bumping "Sith" ($145.5 million) into second place. "Da Vinci" was on 12,000 screens in 90 international markets.

Next week we will see as the Summer Movies unfold.
 

Jason Harbaugh

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2001
Messages
2,968
Never read the book, didn't know any of the secrets. Only recently found out that it was about fnding/proving that Jesus fathered a baby but other than that I went in a virgin of the story.

With that I found it quite interesting and thought the movie moved at a pretty decent pace considering it is 2 and half hours. I like Ron Howard as a director. Hell, Far and Away is a guilty pleasure, and I think he did a great job with what the script called for.

It was pretty easy to figure things out well before the twists. I don't know if this was similar to the book. I even pegged 'apple' as soon as Newton was mentioned. And Sophie's secret was a dead giveaway during the whole last supper painting deconstruction.

McKellen was great as usual and by far the most enjoyable part.

I guess what I really don't get is all of the hype over the book/story. I don't understand the outcry to have it banned and some people to go as far as saying that the people who see it should be arrested. It's a fictional story that puts together some pretty cool clues and connections. Add to that the bad reviews that sprang up last week just don't seem justified based on what I saw. So I'm really glad to see its weekend take and even moreso with the global take.
 

JeremyErwin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
3,218
Some people wanted to ban "The Last Temptation of Christ." Some people just like to ban things-- perhaps the act of censoring helps to assuage feelings of intellectual inferiority.
 

Robert Crawford

Crawdaddy
Moderator
Patron
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 9, 1998
Messages
67,599
Location
Michigan
Real Name
Robert
Since, it's my term to distinguish the differences in us all, I like the term "baggage" because it is what one carries throughout their life. Now, if somebody else want's to use other terms like "luggage" in that regard then they're welcome to do so.:)





Crawdaddy
 

derek

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 20, 1998
Messages
494
Re: Controversy...

Just to clarify the big outcry agains the "Da Vinci Code'" does not have to deal with Jesus being married or having a child (zero evidence to support this anyway.) It has to deal with the the book/movie claims that Christ's divinity was somehow in question till 325 AD Council of Nicea. To a lesser extent other issues include pegging the early church with anti-feminine bias, politically motivativated deceit and merging with paganism. See www.jesusanddavinci.com for a very good summary.
 

nickGreenwood

Second Unit
Joined
Dec 13, 2004
Messages
494
Real Name
Nick Greenwood
I thought the acting was good, I love Paul Bettany and he continues to win me over. Tom Hanks is my favorite actor, period. But the story was so dull. I couldn't even finish the book. I didn't really agree with what Dan Brown was stating in the book either. Maybe that was against it for me.
I fell asleep a couple of times during the movie, I was a bit tired, but heck last night's episode of 'Desperate Housewives' was far more interesting and kept me awake.

I thought during the movie a couple of times I'd rather be watching 'National Treasure'. Similar movies, but N.T. was just better done and a better plot.
I did sort of like the movie, but didn't at the same, hard to explain but yeah that's about it.

I forgot, I guess what makes it interesting to me, if the book gets people questioning and wondering about that stuff, then it's done it's job, I'm not going to complain, as a Christian it's interesting to see people wanting to learn more about the religions history.
 

Albert_M

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
532
I saw the movie last night and while I had read the book, I try to view the film as its own entertainment and not constantly compare.

Overall it's a decent movie. I feel like the amount of info was rushed and this created (at times) a somewhat choppy rhythm to work within in traditional movie lengths (even though it's 2 1/2 hours, it needed to really be longe).

I also do feel like the exposition required within 2 1/2 hourse made for a lack of depth in character development and the way that the story was changed (to condense the story into a time restrained screenplay), also was at the expense of depth and in some cases suspense. For example the twist involving Teabing was much better in the book.

But overall, decent. I thought that Howard did a good job visually (inherent great locales aside, the film was shot well).
 

PaulP

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2001
Messages
3,291
I thought the film went along at a nice pace. It would be impossible to cut the length down due to the amount of information that is needed to convey. I agree that it could've been even longer, and it would've been better. But I enjoyed it as it was anyway. It don't really see what there was to be bored with, honestly. If you read the book and knew all the "shocking secrets", or even knew them beforehand, than I can see how it might've seemed bland to you. Still I thought all the actors did their work quite admirably, and Audrey Tautou is always fun to look at :)

As far as the theological discussion is concerned, I don't know if it's proper to delve into that here. Suffice it to say, the storyline as presented in The Da Vinci Code is plausible. Of course, Brown's novel just took existing theories and added a few fabrications and came out with a pretty interesting novel (I understand; I haven't read it). But there are certain facts (or evidence, or coincidences) that can't be proved or disproved about the origins and history of Christianity (the whole conspiracy angle is really stretching coincidences though). I find it possible that Jesus and Mary were a couple and she was pregnant with his child at the time of his crucifiction. If Jesus' bloodline survived into 2006 - that's much less possible. Regardless, it doesn't change or aid my own personal opinion that Jesus was just a man, even though the film implies that. It probably shouldn't influence a Christian, either.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,811
Messages
5,123,601
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
1
Top