PDA

View Full Version : So I saw the movie today... (Da Vinci)



max venable
05-19-2006, 06:50 PM
Here's my take in a nutshell: Dud-Vinci.

Very disappointing. I don't know if it was just over-hyped or what...but it just wasn't all that.

My buddy felt the same way. In fact, he nodded off once or twice during the film.

Maybe it's just as simple as this: the book is always better than the movie and it's way true in this case. Don't get me wrong, it didn't totally suck, it just wasn't that good.

I'll be interested to get opinions from people who see the movie and did not read the book. Maybe their take will be different.

The book was great, IMO. The movie was just all over the place. The movie felt like the book on speed. My buddy agreed with me when I told him that if I hadn't read the book, I think that I would have been totally lost and clueless in that movie. It just seemed to jump all over the place...and at times it seemed more like a lecture on grail theory and symbolism rather than a movie. It just didn't work for me. I didn't feel like I ever got to know the characters.

I'd give it 5, maybe 6 stars out of 10.

Well, that's my rant. Post your reviews here after you've seen the flick.

TeamBoone
05-19-2006, 07:31 PM
Awwww man; I'm disappointed that you were disappointed. Ron Howard usually does such a great job too.

Like you, I absolutely LOVED the book. I haven't seen the movie yet, but way back when the lead was announced, I was sorely disappointed in the choice. Don't get me wrong, I love Tom Hanks. But if I remember correctly (I read the book a couple years ago), his character is younger than Hanks and a bit more savvy than I've ever thought most of Hanks' characters to be.

Oh well, I'll see it anyway, but probably wait for video.

savafan
05-19-2006, 10:46 PM
I posted my thoughts in the "Movie Reviews" thread, along with the other movies I've seen recently, but I enjoyed it. It was a fun popcorn flick. I think too many people will be going into this looking for some deep meaning or affirmation of truth. To me, this is just a modern day Indiana Jones searching for his Ark of the Covenant.

Hanks did seem a bit stale at times, but at other times, he picked it up. Ian McKellen was good, as he is in most films. Movies are never as good as the books, you can never fit everything into a film.

TB, it's been a few years since I read the book as well, but as I recall, Langdon was supposed to be in his forties.

max venable
05-19-2006, 10:50 PM
I haven't seen the movie yet, but way back when the lead was announced, I was sorely disappointed in the choice. Don't get me wrong, I love Tom Hanks. But if I remember correctly (I read the book a couple years ago), his character is younger than Hanks and a bit more savvy than I've ever thought most of Hanks' characters to be.

I heard that Russell Crowe was the first choice to play Langdon and that they had to "settle" for Hanks. Don't know how true that is, but it's what I heard.

savafan
05-19-2006, 11:13 PM
I heard that Russell Crowe was the first choice to play Langdon and that they had to "settle" for Hanks. Don't know how true that is, but it's what I heard.

I heard that Crowe was the first choice as well, but that in order to get Ron Howard to direct, he wanted Hanks to star. Maybe that is settling...

savafan
05-19-2006, 11:29 PM
Another interesting fact is that before the book became as popular as it did, the producers of Fox's 24 had the okay to use the plot for the show's second season. When the book's popularity soared, they dropped the idea because it became apparent it would make more money as a movie.

I'm actually glad that didn't happen. I don't know that 24 would have survived this long.

kbrake
05-20-2006, 01:57 AM
Saw the movie tonight, and I have never read the book. I thought the movie was pretty good and so did the 3 other people I saw it with. 2 of us had not read the book and the other 2 had and we all agreed that it was pretty good. None of us were blown away, but it was about what I expected.

GAC
05-20-2006, 06:05 AM
Here's my take in a nutshell: Dud-Vinci.

Very disappointing. I don't know if it was just over-hyped or what...but it just wasn't all that.

And that is what a majority of movie reviews are saying too. It wasn't too well received at Cannes and around Europe.

It needs good hype/PR in order to recover the monies invested.

Ron Howard said that it's not about theology but entertainment. Ronnie may need to research what entertaining is.

I'll wait till it comes out on DVD (around the time for Christmas sales), and rent it. ;)

savafan
05-20-2006, 07:06 AM
The worst part of the movie was the trailer for Casino Royale

kbrake
05-20-2006, 01:30 PM
Very good point save, tell you the truth, I had happily forgot about that. GAC, I found the movie to be very entertaining and so did the group I was with. What I didnt get was why the church is so upset, it is a movie, if the church was such a strong structure I dont see why they are being so intimidated by a movie.

Falls City Beer
05-20-2006, 01:38 PM
My question is: why is it called Da Vinci Code? Isn't "Leonardo Code" much more appropriate? It would be like calling a movie made about me "The Of Philadelphia Code"

pedro
05-20-2006, 02:05 PM
My question is: why is it called Da Vinci Code? Isn't "Leonardo Code" much more appropriate? It would be like calling a movie made about me "The Of Philadelphia Code"


I saw that movie, it was called the Philadephia Experiment. It was about your prediction that Kearns would disapear. Unlike the Da Vinci Code, we still don't know if that one is fact or fiction.

max venable
05-20-2006, 05:16 PM
What I didnt get was why the church is so upset, it is a movie, if the church was such a strong structure I dont see why they are being so intimidated by a movie.
I'd have a hard time believing that someone could go see that movie and then have a crisis of faith. And FWIW, I don't think the church is intimidated at all by it. I just think that a lot of churches are trying to seize the opportunity to engage in spiritual converstations...but before this thread gets locked for being "religious," let's get back on track.

Kbrake, did you read the book? I think I may have liked it better had I not read the book first...that is if I would have been able to follow it.

GAC
05-21-2006, 07:42 AM
What I didnt get was why the church is so upset, it is a movie, if the church was such a strong structure I dont see why they are being so intimidated by a movie.

We're not. At least not us Protestants. And I don't think the average Catholic is either.

What has "concerned" some is what Dan Brown has said....

"While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history."

Brown has been very coy or sly when asked to differentiate the fiction from the fact in his book. Which is understandable since he wouldn't do anything that might hurt sales.

But many, many others, whose credentials on church history far surpasses Brown's, have shown that his research and presentation makes huge leaps and assumptions, while some are downright disproven. He seemed to have ignored that, and purposely, or else it wouldn't have made for an interesting and entertainng novel.

Just like he says above, where "each individual must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretation" - any individual who does so, at any in-depth length, will see it is pure fiction - an entertaining thriller to be sure - but that the Jesus-Mary Magdalene "rumors" are nothing new and have been around for centuries.

So it is not a shock or intimidating at all to Christians.

But I can see where it would be "eye opening" and catch the attention of non-believers who are not "rooted" in scripture, and have simply "surface" knowledge of Christianity.

Example: last month I was sitting in the breakroom, and a female co-worker was finishing up reading the book. Knowing I'm a Christian she asked me how I could be so knowing what this book reveals.

I simply asked her in what section did she get the book at the book store? Fiction maybe? ;)

I look forward to seeing the movie when it comes out on DVD. I've been watching /reading subject matter for the last 20+ years that attack and malign Christianity, and offer up all types of conspiracy theories.

Jesus predicted it, and we, as believers expect it (or should).

Unassisted
05-21-2006, 07:17 PM
I've noticed that the only good reviews for the film are coming from people who've read the book. If the film won't stand on its own, I think it's doomed to failure in this era where most people don't read books.

TeamBoone
05-21-2006, 08:08 PM
Most people don't read books? I'm genuinely surprised.

Falls City Beer
05-21-2006, 08:27 PM
Most people don't read books? I'm genuinely surprised.

Me too.

GAC
05-22-2006, 08:55 AM
Most people don't read books? I'm genuinely surprised.

I use to be an avid book reader. I'm trying to get back into it too; but with three kids and so much going on it's hard.

Plus I am so hyper-active it's hard for me to relax, sit down, and read a book.

I've been doing it more now at work during breaks.

Blimpie
05-22-2006, 10:54 AM
I've noticed that the only good reviews for the film are coming from people who've read the book. If the film won't stand on its own, I think it's doomed to failure in this era where most people don't read books.I think you are going to need to define 'doomed to failure'...The movie grossed $ 77 million dollars over the weekend. Obviously, the box office drops after opening weekend are precipitious; however, I cannot imagine the producers were expecting much better than that for opening weekend.

Unassisted
05-22-2006, 03:57 PM
I think you are going to need to define 'doomed to failure'...The movie grossed $ 77 million dollars over the weekend. Obviously, the box office drops after opening weekend are precipitious; however, I cannot imagine the producers were expecting much better than that for opening weekend.Didn't it cost $300M to make, though? Figure another $100M to promote and it still needs to make up some ground to break even.

Blimpie
05-22-2006, 04:45 PM
Didn't it cost $300M to make, though? Figure another $100M to promote and it still needs to make up some ground to break even.Wha? I had not heard that figure being bounced around. Your promotion number sounds spot on, but I cannot fathom how a picture like that would cost $ 300 million to produce.

Were there, like, mega battle scenes involving Imperial Cruisers or something that I am not aware of?

NJReds
05-22-2006, 04:57 PM
I read that it cost $125M to make. It pulled in $224M worldwide so far.

Unassisted
05-22-2006, 05:00 PM
I would swear I heard $300M somewhere as the budget. I think it was Matt Drudge's radio show. He's been doing everything he can to torpedo this film, so he's hardly unbiased. I admit I haven't looked it up.

GoReds
05-22-2006, 05:20 PM
Da Vinci Code = National Treasure in France.

max venable
05-22-2006, 05:21 PM
Da Vinci Code = National Treasure in France.
Maybe...execpt National Treasure was a way better flick, IMO.

max venable
05-22-2006, 05:23 PM
I read that it cost $125M to make. It pulled in $224M worldwide so far.
Second biggest worldwide opening weekend ever, just behind 2005's Star Wars Episode III.

BTW, $125 is the budget number I read as well.

The Baumer
05-23-2006, 08:15 PM
The Da Vinci Code wasn't a movie. A movie is a story told with pictures. The Da Vinci Code was people standing/sitting in a room and talking about symbols and myth. If it felt like you didn't know very much about Tom Hanks or Audrey Tatou's characters it is because they didn't do anything. There was no action. It was all talking heads.

Paul Bettany was far and away the best thing about the movie. He actually did things!

TeamBoone
05-23-2006, 11:04 PM
If the movie was that inactive, then it didn't even remotely reflect the book which was action-packed at every turn.

The book was non-stop thrilling activity that must not have been portrayed in the movie. It was edge-of-your seat suspense, a page-turner that was tough to put down.

SandyD
05-23-2006, 11:31 PM
I don't know ... the book was suspenseful, but not really "action packed." It had moments of intense drama, but the "action" in those moments would play out very quickly on the screen.

To me, it was a "page-turner" because I wanted to know the answers to the riddles.

eg: "they're" running down a staircase, when they realize something. "She" has to go back, and "he" must go forward. Then, "he" realizes that he must tell her something, and turns back. Lots of thought, but not much action.

max venable
05-24-2006, 09:29 AM
eg: "they're" running down a staircase, when they realize something. "She" has to go back, and "he" must go forward. Then, "he" realizes that he must tell her something, and turns back. Lots of thought, but not much action.
There was virtually none of that stuff in the movie.

Caveat Emperor
05-24-2006, 10:13 AM
I actually just read the book this past weekend -- I decided that it would be better if I read the book BEFORE seeing the movie.

I have to say, I was extremely disappointedd by the movie. I think the movie took the Robert Langdon character and stripped him of just about any likability. The movie does a poor job of allowing the audiance to get inside his head the way the book does -- since there's no internal monologue, the script has to allow actions to show what kind of a character he is, and the movie doesn't do that. Langdon also didn't come across nearly as smart in the movie as he did in the book -- especially in the scenes with Teabing at Cheateau Villette, which bore almost no resemblence to it's corresponding scene in the book.

Normally I love Tom Hanks in movies, but there was just ZERO chemistry between his character and Audrey Tautou's character. In the book, you could sense the trust that built between them throughout the book to the end, where you felt there was a real symbosis to the characters -- both were absolutely necessary to one another -- and a friendship. The movie's ending (it seems like they deliberately went away from the book's ending) just underlines the feeling of "oh, well that was cool" that went through the movie -- they hug and it's like "OK, bye then..."

Some stuff was well done, I thought -- I liked the Silas character and thought that was extremely well realzied on screen, and I think they did well to cast Ian McKellen as Teabing. Otherwise, I thought the book was superior to the film in just about every way.

Oh well...still a better movie than most I've seen recently.

jmcclain19
06-04-2006, 08:34 PM
Well, I read the book. And watched the movie this afternoon.

I enjoyed the movie to be honest.

I thought the story line as a whole kept pretty true to the book.

Books always seem to pale to strong novels, simply because you never have enough time in movies to develop the depth of the story or the complexity of the characters. To me, that's why books are always richer and more entertaining.

But I found the movie entertaining enough. I have family members who want to read me the riot act because I enjoyed the book and went to see the movie today, but I can't imagine anyone being so weak in their faith that watching this today would turn on a lightbulb and cause them running for the exits.

Personally, after I read the book I became more interested in Christian history, and had a desire to seperate fact from fiction. But that's just me.

westofyou
06-04-2006, 08:36 PM
I thought Hanks had better chemistry with the Vollyball than the female lead.

I read the book about a month ago, both were hyped more than their payoff IMO.

Blimpie
06-04-2006, 10:37 PM
I thought Hanks had better chemistry with the Vollyball than the female lead.

I read the book about a month ago, both were hyped more than their payoff IMO.I, too, read the book recently. I thought it was a decent enough effort to keep me turning pages over a couple of nights. For that reason alone, I referred to Dan Brown on another thread as an "excellent writer."

By the reaction I got, one would've thought I was nominating him for a Pulitzer Prize.:D Haven't seen the movie, but I will probably rent it.