Did The Da Vinci Code Film Stay True to the Book?

[Hootenanny]

I went to see the Da Vinci code movie on friday. I would quite wary as the critical reviews were not all that good. However, in my opinion it turned out to be a very good film; I was impressed how much the film actually stuck to the book (although there were a few deviations). I was especially impressed by Ian Mckellen's performance. I was just wondering what everyone else, who as been to see it thought of it. Please post your comments .

~H

 

[arildno]

Sir Ian IS a great actor (his Richard III performance is awesome).

I didn't know he was playing in this movie; perhaps I'll go and watch it now.

 

[brewnog]

Saw it on Friday. The screenplay left a bit to be desired, and they seemed to try every trick in the book to maintain the tension throughout the film. That said, it just about managed to keep my attention for the 2.5 hours, but I wouldn't particularly recommend it to anyone!

I liked the way that the Opus Dei were so sinister that they even spoke in Latin on their mobile phones. Oh no wait, that was wank.

 

[neutrino]

Still waiting for the release...

 

[Andy]

I saw it last night, not as good as the book but i still thought it was very good. Would like to hear an opinion about the film by someone that hasnt read the book.

 

[JamesU]

It was pretty good...Tom Hanks was a bad choice for Langdon though...

 

[heartless]

Did everyone of you go to the movies?

 

[RVBuckeye]

It was just good to me. Never read the book, but was well versed on the subject matter. Ian Mckellan did a good job. Hanks didn't give a Hanks-worthy performance, agreed.

 

[DaveC426913]

I enjoyed it quite a bit.

No matter how you cut it, one movie of this calibre is worth fifty of the calibre that Hollywood has been consistently churning out over the last year or two.

 

[heartless]

I got it off the internet a while ago. I thought it will be something about the medieval or Reneissance Europe and what I saw is our 200something. I feel a little bit disapointed but anyway that will do too.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I got it off the internet a while ago. I thought it will be something about the medieval or Reneissance Europe and what I saw is our 200something. I feel a little bit disapointed but anyway that will do too.

You stole a copy?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Just saw it today. Liked it and voted Very Good.

My insight. Tom Hanks was made up to look like Richard Feynmann. I think some of his gestures and body language were copied too. And that led me to conjecture that they picked Hanks BECAUSE he had a resemblance to Feynmann, and they (I think I mean pricipally Ron Howard) wanted to pitch the movie as a story about Creative Thinking, and RF is accepted by the public as the public face (after AE) of creative thought.

The last few scenes, from the "orb at the tomb" to the end, were icons of a thinker having interlocking brilliant insights, one after the other. The action was just to keep the multitude watching.

 

[heartless]

You stole a copy?

Nope, just borrowed for a few hours.

 

[Hootenanny]

Incidentally, I will say that the soundtrack album is very good. I think a major difference between an average cheepish film and a good polished film is the soundtrack, for me it makes all the difference; it magnifies the emotions that you see on the screen and draws you into the world you are watching. I enjoy all of Hans Zimmer's compositions, especially the soundtrack to Hannibal, which I think is amazing; I have not decided as yet whether the Da Vinci soundtrack bests Hannibal.

~H

 

[Ideologue]

If you like The Da Vinci Code then you should really like the work and research of Michael Tsarion.

Listen to some of his radio interview recordings, or watch his free video stream. I recommend his ‘Astro-theology’ pages on his main site Taroscopes.com:

http://www.taroscopes.com/home.html

http://www.michaeltsarion.com/

 

[arildno]

I'm seeing it tomorrow.

 

[Mk]

I enjoy all of Hans Zimmer's compositions

Zimmer! Also, I have to Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack, which is very good (Klaus Badlet).

 

[Semaphia]

I think it was a very good and convincing film, I wouldn't go as far as to say excellent, but if it wasnt blown out of all proportion by the press my view may have been different.

 

[arildno]

Rather slow-moving and predictable, but OK enough.

So called "hard" clues like "a knight a pope interred" made me think at once: "Oh dear, why did they have to put old Isaac into this story?".

 

[Hootenanny]

Rather slow-moving and predictable, but OK enough.

So called "hard" clues like "a knight a pope interred" made me think at once: "Oh dear, why did they have to put old Isaac into this story?".

Had you read the novel before hand?

~H

 

[arildno]

Not at all, but I knew that Alexander Pope attended Newton's funeral.

 

[Hootenanny]

Not at all, but I knew that Alexander Pope attended Newton's funeral.

I must say I am impressed, that is something that I didn't know and only became aware of while reading the book.

~H

 

[loseyourname]

I almost wanted to see this just to see what all the hype was about, but nah. There are better movies to be spending money on. If it comes on HBO and I've seen every other movie playing and no sports are on, I'll give it a roll. As it stands, nothing released in the last two months has given me any impetus to head for the cinema.

 

[scott1]

I thought it was good

 

[GCT]

I think it's pretty incredulous how popular this movie and book has become considering it's based entirely on a transparent hoax by an aspiring charlatan.

The Shroud of Turin was a more elaborate hoax, by none other than the master himself, Da Vinci.

What can I say, ignorance is bliss. It's totally unnecessary to paganize a religion which so many people follow seriously. It'll do nothing more then to confuse those people who are confused already.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it's pretty incredulous how popular this movie and book has become considering it's based entirely on a transparent hoax by an aspiring charlatan.

The Shroud of Turin was a more elaborate hoax, by none other than the master himself, Da Vinci.

What can I say, ignorance is bliss. It's totally unnecessary to paganize a religion which so many people follow seriously. It'll do nothing more then to confuse those people who are confused already.

You seem to be under the impression that people are actually believing this is more than a well-told fictional adventure.

The only hoax being perpetrated here is the hoax that the movie is causing any kind of uproar.

(BTW, you mean incredible, not incredulous.)

 

[Gokul43201]

I saw it last night, when the rest of the world was going to X3 !

I voted "good". The acting was okay, but a little below expectations from all three protagonists. The one actor that exceeded expectations was Paul Bettany (playing Silas). The music was pretty good. The screenplay and direction came off as generally good but a little cheesy at one or two spots.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it's pretty incredulous how popular this movie and book has become considering it's based entirely on a transparent hoax by an aspiring charlatan.

And who is this charlatan ?

 

[DaveC426913]

but nah. There are better movies to be spending money on.

For instance?

I ask because I saw it and found it an OK movie - but certainly MUCH better than the crap Hollywood has been churning out.

Forget the hype. tDVC did inspire a fair amount of after-movie discussion, and that alone in my books, is worth a thumbs up.

 

[GCT]

You seem to be under the impression that people are actually believing this is more than a well-told fictional adventure.

The only hoax being perpetrated here is the hoax that the movie is causing any kind of uproar.

(BTW, you mean incredible, not incredulous.)

actually, I meant incredulous.

National geographic had a front page article recently regarding this issue of Jesus and Mary Magdalene...etc. So did Newsweek. They probably wanted to appeal to the crowd, for the purpose of a good read, but all in all I think that it's rather frivolous. I'm not a catholic, but I think that Dan Brown is an ass.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12815760/

And who is this charlatan ?

Pierre Plantard, supposedly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/27/60minutes/main1552009_page2.shtml

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1968141&page=1

 

[selfAdjoint]

[quote-GCT]actually, I meant incredulous.[/quote]

Then you should have said you were incredulous, not that "it" was. Incredulousness (inability to believe) is an emotion, people have it, things don't.

 

[GCT]

Then you should have said you were incredulous, not that "it" was. Incredulousness (inability to believe) is an emotion, people have it, things don't.

I see, thanks for the correction.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not a catholic, but I think that Dan Brown is an ass.

I don't see why. All he did was take Baigent's semiaccurate (and largely unverifiable) theory and build a storyline around it.

 

[siddharth]

I was going to see it on June 2nd, before it was banned, this time by the state government.

Freedom of expression, they said.

 

[neutrino]

I was going to see it on June 2nd, before it was banned, this time by the state government.

Freedom of expression, they said.

I was just going to post about it. If it was not for that one exam on the 3rd, I would've probably watched it last weekend. What's the use of banning a movie that has been running for a week, and for two weeks around the world. I'm thinking that this a plot by the greymarket to boost their business.