Jump to content

The Da Vinci Code


Recommended Posts

Decided to go see this last night.

I found it enjoyable. Its not nearly as bad as the critics would have you believe (126 of 161 negative on RT).

Ian McKellen's performance shines the brightest. Hanks doesn't seem nearly inspired here, but even on idle, he gets by.

Even though it was critically bashed, it still brought in 224 million worldwide in 3 days.

Link to comment

I have to say that I expected more from a film like The Da Vinci Code. As a thriller it failed to create any sense of suspense and danger. Even the character of Silas, the albino Opus Dei monk, failed to instill and sort of genuine malice to the proceedings. I think the performances by everyone involved range from underwhelming to just plain pedestrian. It seemed like everyone was filmed as if they were just given the script for the first time and still trying to get a feel for the dialogue. I have to agree with you that Sir Ian McKellen's performance was the only true stand-out one in the film. He seemed to realize that pulpy and cheesy story he has been handed and went to town with it. He seemed to be the only one who was enjoying himself on-screen.

I've never read the book and thought that would make the film better since I wouldn't know what would be happening ahead of time. Maybe get a sense of the mystery that the book was suppose to slowly unravel as the story moved to its climactic conclusion. I solved the bloody mystery by the time they reached Ian McKellen's character's French estate. All the little twists and turns they tried to add in the second half of the film felt tacked on and more to give the film a sense of complexity when in fact it just seemed insulting. The filmmakers failed to establish a sense of danger in the first half so decided to complicate things to try and get people back on-board. I understand fully how this film was able to pull in alost a quarter of a billion dollars worldwide in box-office receipts, but as the tagline for the film said, "so dark the con of man", this film surely conned alot of people into thinking it was a quality thriller when it failed to be both.

I give this film a score of 3 out of 10. 2 points for McKellen's hammy but inspired performance and 1 point for the use of the Knights Templar in the film (big fan of these band of crazed killers).

Link to comment

I thought it was pretty much as I expected it to be, and I wasn't expecting it to be anything amazing. Ian McKellen was definately the high point of the film. Hank's performance was pretty uninspired, but I don't fully blame him as he was playing a character that has very little to him in the first place.

Link to comment

Generally speaking its pretty faithful to the book. You probably wouldn't have liked that either. Which seems to be the trend, like the book like the movie and vice versa.

Well, I did plan on reading the book after watching the film. Almost everyone I know have read and raved about it. But after seeing the film and knowing the basic plot, the book will probably just expand on the basic premise and themes. Also, I've read and researched the conspiracy that is the sacred feminine and how Mary Magdalene was involved. One good book that really deals with the subject in better detail --- from what I've read and comparing to what I saw on the screen --- is the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I may still end up reading Dan Brown's book, but I may wait until after the hoopla has died down abit.

Link to comment

One good book that really deals with the subject in better detail --- from what I've read and comparing to what I saw on the screen --- is the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail.

Be ready for some rather dense reading. I made it about 25 pages before I got sick of the blatant academic posturing and the relentless self-congratulation.

Link to comment

Be ready for some rather dense reading. I made it about 25 pages before I got sick of the blatant academic posturing and the relentless self-congratulation.

Meh, academic posturing and relentless self-congratulation sounds better than a cliched story-line with one-dimensional characters and really terrible writting.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

Too much hype and to few people who had any idea what they were walking into.

It was decent. Not nearly as bad as the vast majority of film critics have stated, but hardly a memorable film. It was fun, it was entertaining, and it was exactley what everyone SHOULD HAVE expected from a book to film adaptation.

7/10

Link to comment

It had too much hype for a reason, you know, the controversialness and all, and it definitely deserved the hype more than say "Over The Hedge" or "See No Evil".

Nothing deserves that much hype. Aliens could land on earth tomorrow, rape all our women, and declare dogs their children and it shouldn't get as much attention.

Link to comment

Well, I did plan on reading the book after watching the film. Almost everyone I know have read and raved about it. But after seeing the film and knowing the basic plot, the book will probably just expand on the basic premise and themes. Also, I've read and researched the conspiracy that is the sacred feminine and how Mary Magdalene was involved. One good book that really deals with the subject in better detail --- from what I've read and comparing to what I saw on the screen --- is the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. I may still end up reading Dan Brown's book, but I may wait until after the hoopla has died down abit.

isn't that the book that Dan Brown got sued for copying (even though he names it as a source of info) I think he even named some characters after the authors of that book...

As far as the movie goes, I have to agree with Siendra. Not awful, but nothing to write home about either. That said, there are a lot of people who are still excited about going out to see it.

Link to comment

isn't that the book that Dan Brown got sued for copying (even though he names it as a source of info) I think he even named some characters after the authors of that book...

As far as the movie goes, I have to agree with Siendra. Not awful, but nothing to write home about either. That said, there are a lot of people who are still excited about going out to see it.

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
He named the central antagonist, Leigh Teabing, after two of the authors (Teabing is an anagram of Baigent). For a movie rife with symbolism, naming your antagonist after your central inspiration for the story is pretty ballsy.
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...