Home Theater Forum - View Single Post - *** Official THE DA VINCI CODE Review Thread

Dan Hitchman · 05-26-2006, 01:39 AM

Unimaginative directing (I've always felt Ron Howard was doing more made for TV type movies, but getting to show them on the big screen-- I'm sure he's a great guy, however please put more "oomph" and "weight" into your style, and I don't mean the Michael Bay type), uninspired writing (it is Akiva Goldsman after all!), "bleh" acting (Hanks sounds like he was nursing the flu during most of the whole shoot and looked tired too; basically, phoning it in), and the "history" (whether truth or not-- who cares, it's a work of fiction!!!) was thrown out in simple terms and rushed so that the central theme of Leonardo and his works were hastily summed up in about five minutes of screen time (the book and the film were called the "Da Vinci Code" for some reason). You could actually question the motives of Leonardo and his paintings and say, "hmmm... they might have something here, tell me more," but it was dumbed down. For godsake don't let the audience think during a summer movie!! Heaven forbid!

Hell, I was more interested in the quick historical subplot of the Ark in Raiders!!

As many have said the film faithfully followed the book... and that was its downfall. The book was an average thriller at best. If a competent writer were brought on board and a director who could see a great suspense thriller with historical elements hidden beneath the fluff, then it could have been a great film and far surpassed the book.

Oh well... next!

Dan

05-26-2006, 01:39 AM	#10 of 12
Dan Hitchman Join Date: Jun 1999 Local Time: 01:11 AM Local Date: 10-08-2008 Posts: 5,493	Re: * Official THE DA VINCI CODE Review Thread** Unimaginative directing (I've always felt Ron Howard was doing more made for TV type movies, but getting to show them on the big screen-- I'm sure he's a great guy, however please put more "oomph" and "weight" into your style, and I don't mean the Michael Bay type), uninspired writing (it is Akiva Goldsman after all!), "bleh" acting (Hanks sounds like he was nursing the flu during most of the whole shoot and looked tired too; basically, phoning it in), and the "history" (whether truth or not-- who cares, it's a work of fiction!!!) was thrown out in simple terms and rushed so that the central theme of Leonardo and his works were hastily summed up in about five minutes of screen time (the book and the film were called the "Da Vinci Code" for some reason). You could actually question the motives of Leonardo and his paintings and say, "hmmm... they might have something here, tell me more," but it was dumbed down. For godsake don't let the audience think during a summer movie!! Heaven forbid! Hell, I was more interested in the quick historical subplot of the Ark in Raiders!! As many have said the film faithfully followed the book... and that was its downfall. The book was an average thriller at best. If a competent writer were brought on board and a director who could see a great suspense thriller with historical elements hidden beneath the fluff, then it could have been a great film and far surpassed the book. Oh well... next! Dan Last edited by Dan Hitchman : 05-26-2006 at 01:47 AM.