AAnnAArchy
Gifted Procrastinator
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 643
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Opening 5-19-06
Please discuss only *after* seeing the movie. We have plenty of other threads for those of us who haven't seen the movie yet.
Edited by AAnnAArchy (05/18/06 05:29 AM)
|
shawnbreit
stranger
Reged: 04/24/06
Posts: 2
|
|
Just got back from my first viewing today. Going again tonight with friends. I am interested in what is hidden in the movie. For instance, there is a scene on a bus and I swear the 2 authors of "The Templar Revelation" are on the bus. I wonder what else fun I missed!
|
Iceal
stranger
Reged: 02/15/06
Posts: 17
Loc: Hjørring, Denmark
|
|
I was so angry when i saw the movie. All because of three major flaws:
a) Silas' eyes, was NOT red
b) What happened to the cryptex? In the movie there was only one!
c) The most horrifying ending in ANY movie, EVER!! What went through Ron Howards twisted and insane little mind, when he said to himself: Hey! i've got a GRRRRREAT idea! why don't we change the entire "Rosslyn-chapter"? I swear to, what ever God i pray to, i was so angry when i saw it that i hit my friend, Bjarke who was sitting next to me, so hard that people starred at us...
Anyway, the rest of the movie was great, and i think Tom Hanks and co. did an exellent job!
-Iceal
--------------------
"On a hot summer night, will you offer your throat to the wolf with the red roses?"
|
scubaone
stranger
Reged: 05/19/06
Posts: 1
|
|
OK. It's time to say something. Having read the book and seen the film it is startlingly obvious that Dan Brown is not the most talented of writers but he hit on a great story and tells it efficiently and the movie is a fair reflection of that. I enjoyed them both. So to the critics, 60 million book sales can't be wrong and any Ron Howard and A list cast movie will hardly flop, particularly with all the free publicity kindly provided by world-wide church folk.
I'm a Christian and I follow my faith and I have to say it takes a lot more than an average novelist and a good movie to sway me away from that - something I think church leaders should give us some credit for. Especially when it involves a work of fiction and has never been claimed to be any more than that by ANYONE. Just correct references to
art, architecture, documents and secret rituals. But not the story.
Did the religious world go crazy when in Raiders of the lost Ark, Indy went in search of a TRUE religious relic the Ark of the Covenant, the treasure hunt which followed and the murder of the nasty Nazis at the end? The same holds for Indiana Jones and the last Crusade - the search for the Holy Grail no less - followed by treasure hunt and 800 year old templar nights protecting it - sounds kinda familiar huh? Joseph and his amazing technicoloured dream coat - based on a religious truth and turned into a musical - do i really think it happened that way - no, its a fictitious musical obviously, still running in theatreland across
the globe without religious protests to help market it. The Omen series was actually based on the BIBLE and other easily accessible religious documents and had more of a basis for being fact than most but no, its a made up story, a good yarn - we didn't need to be told then and we don't now. Devil's advocate, where Al baby screams that God is an
absentee landlord etc etc - did I shake with religious ury, no no no - its made up you see.
I could go on as could you - the point is very clear. Come on church people, have a little faith in your world-wide flock - we know its just a story and it seems to be you rather than us who needs convincing otherwise. You have
done far more to raise doubt over the truth we know and believe than Dan Brown ever could have. Have faith.
|
MsVetra
enthusiast
Reged: 09/29/05
Posts: 300
Loc: UK
|
|
*****Spoilers ahead*****
I went to see the movie last night and here's what I think:
I found it to be a good quality screenplay of the book. It's dark and sleek, fast pased and gripping.The carachters are well played and convincing. The plot unfolds and flows brillantly.
Of course, a book *always* loses something when translated into a film, but the way The Da Vinci Code is written is so visual that I knew that, as long as the film was done sensibly, it would have been a fair portrayal of the book.
If I had to make one criticism I'd say that when Sir Teabing turns nasty, the viewer who hasn't read the book is left wondering why he's turning the gun against his friend Professor Langdon: why? Because in the book Langdon and Sophie tell Teabing that they definitely believe the Prior of Sion is right to keep the secret and they'd do exactly the same; well, in the movie, they don't - so what you see is Teabing 'going mental' without having discussed with Robert and Sophie the issue of revealing or not the Big Secret.
The Roslyn Chapel scenes are very different from the book, but if I don't necessarily believe that the movie version is wrong: it's just dissimilar - I'm not sure there is one account that I prefer...
Finally, my favourite carachter is definitely Silas: played absolutely masterfully!
|
MsVetra
enthusiast
Reged: 09/29/05
Posts: 300
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
Iceal said:
I was so angry when i saw the movie. All because of three major flaws:
a) Silas' eyes, was NOT red
b) What happened to the cryptex? In the movie there was only one!
You're right: Silas hasn't got red eyes, however his eyes are the scariest icy light blue colour I've ever seen! Veeeeery spooky...
And yes, there's only one Cryptex, but it's the one that matters - the one that gets dramatically thrown up in the air and smashes onto the floor, for the horror of Sir T.
So you only have 1 Cryptex, but you still have all the drama, the intensity and the suspense...
|
MikePhil
stranger
Reged: 05/20/06
Posts: 1
|
|
My humble opinion is that the movie resumes the essential of the book; like someone said already books to movie adaptations usually make some details of the book disapear, but in this particular movie i believe the essential is there. Even being a novel, yes, the movie (like the book) does open your mind and makes you think about the real truth; and the truth im talking about doesnt need to be the Graal only.. i believe the Graal issue is just 5% of the iceberg, but thats chat for another topic i guess.
|
AbbySinead
stranger
Reged: 08/19/05
Posts: 9
Loc: New York
|
|
One thing I noticed was when Langdon was at his book signing a cameo of Dan and Blythe was spotted.
Has it ever occured to us all that the symbols used by some of metals bands (IE Judas Priest and Queensryche), have a distorted Neptune staff? And the cover of Disturbed's album "Beleve" is covered in symbology? Are we surrounded by symbols of things relgious for a reason? A very good friend of mine has the belief that we are guided by the symbols we cross in life, be it a lesson to learn, or G-D navigating you to your purpose in life.
Are we just born to live and then die, or are we all placed here to do something meaningful, or G-D's bidding in a sense?
--------------------
IN DARKNESS MY HEART WAS WON...
Edited by AbbySinead (05/20/06 09:24 AM)
|
MsVetra
enthusiast
Reged: 09/29/05
Posts: 300
Loc: UK
|
|
Quote:
AbbySinead said:
One thing I noticed was when Langdon was at his book signing a cameo of Dan and Blythe was spotted.
Wow, was it?!!!! D**n, I missed that!!!!
|
SeppiGirl
stranger
Reged: 03/02/06
Posts: 7
Loc: Atlantic Canada
|
|
I missed them too! Shucks, I guess I'll have to drag myself to it again, darn it! 
My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it was a good enough movie, entertaining and intelligent. But I was bothered by the Rosslyn changes, it's not what I had hoped for Sophie Neveau. That being said, as Dan Brown was involved in the development of the movie, he must have known about the changes and approved of them so if he's happy, we must be too I suppose. Did anyone else feel like the movie tried too hard not to offend anyone, that the "point-counterpoint" approach taken, made too much of a big deal about the controversy and I personally felt like I was being spoon-fed counterpoints so that I would not take offense to anything presented. I just don't think that they gave the audience much credit there, I'm sure any intelligent, free thinking individual would get it. Hmmmm...then again, maybe it was very necessary, thinking about what people have already said about the book.
|
miraclegoose
stranger
Reged: 04/14/06
Posts: 4
|
|
I've seen it twice and I loved it both times. I, too, missed the Dan/Blythe scene but immediately caught the allusion to Dan while Langdon signed the books. Loved the "facist Opus Dei" remark. Great job Dan, Ron, and Tom et all!
|
AbbySinead
stranger
Reged: 08/19/05
Posts: 9
Loc: New York
|
|
I am seeing it again Tuesday with my husband, I am going to look for more hidden goodies!
--------------------
IN DARKNESS MY HEART WAS WON...
|
PhiPI
stranger
Reged: 11/02/05
Posts: 32
|
|
Terribly disappointed... 
So much time WASTED on added scenes including magical powers (sophie healing tom hanks with her aura?? Langdon's "photographic memory" illustrated in CG?? These were not in the book - for a reason!) Unfortunately the filmmakers rushed through the real gold that is the Da Vinci Code - the audience's own participation in trying to solve the riddles. Practically every single one was explained within 1-2 minutes of its introduction, and sometimes immediately after, leaving no time to even ponder what it could mean. Then the ideal proportions left out completely, no explanation of the vitruvian man or why a dying man would position himself naked like that with the fibonacci sequence, or why sophie chose the sequence for the bank code in order. And for all the 3 minutes spent watching "A Beautiful Mind" computer generated rearranging of letters in Langdon's mind, there is no visual or other hint that the 'missing orb' is an apple -- yes computer generated planets are nice, floating rearranging letters are nice, but what a waste.
I saw the movie with a friend who had never read the book and I resented that I had to explain all the 'best parts' that were left out (like this) or explain that the reason why its a bestseller is because in the book the puzzle solution is not handed out immediately so there is some thought process involved. Furthermore, after seeing it the grail as Mary Magdalene idea was to her a totally fictitious yet decent plot element, along the lines of indiana jones and the sankara stones, and was shocked when I said there might be some truth in it and by the number of tv specials trying to 'debunk' such a silly and melodramatic plot in the first place.
Tom Hanks was so wrong for the role. Sophie's overly dramatic lines and new supernatural abilities - so wrong. Some changes were necessary for film, like the key falling out from behind the Madonna of the Rocks rather than being pried out, and the Sony product placement was, I suppose, to be expected. But the ENDING.... 
Unfortunately, as a fan who has read the book several times I was distracted and then angered by so many completely unnecessary changes to the story during the movie, and the generally incoherent message which was the result. The adaptation by the screenwriters was obnoxious and very poor, and my friend, who has never read the book, will probably have forgotten DVC in a week.  
The good news is that the movie is so forgettable that maybe religious fanatics will stop accusing DVC of being a huge threat to religion and stop the Dan Brown The Antichrist protest shenanigans, not pour goat's blood in his driveway and leave the poor man alone. 
|
filmaker
stranger
Reged: 05/21/06
Posts: 1
|
|
Hilarious teaser of DA VINCI COCK here : http://www.comitedelaclaque.com/frame.php?go=3&video=davinci_cock
|
MsVetra
enthusiast
Reged: 09/29/05
Posts: 300
Loc: UK
|
|
LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
ktmason
member
Reged: 11/30/05
Posts: 172
Loc: Texas
|
|
I am afraid I have to agree. This movie actually SUCKED. 1/2 hr to long, to many changes, the ending had some people laughing....come on! Langdon prays! Gimme a break. All this time and I almost fell asleep.
Ron Howard should be ashamed!
--------------------
KTMason
|
PhiPI
stranger
Reged: 11/02/05
Posts: 32
|
|
Is that what people were laughing about? I almost laughed when Sophie said, "when my grandfather couldn't reach me, he reached out to you instead" and I was waiting for the un-intentionally funny Tom Hanks moment all the critics made fun of but I never saw it.
|
Adrenaline
stranger
Reged: 12/19/05
Posts: 12
|
|
I, too, was a tad bit disappointed. I think its mainly because they didnt have enough time to put everything into a 2hr movie (was it that long?). And i mean, why do they have to make Sophie and Sauniere so violent? That scene (Sophies flashback when she was trying to find info her family)was so out of character. Also the scene where Teabing and Langdon disagree with eachother i think was out of character and sometimes it looked like Langdon doesnt know what Leigh is talking about whreras in the book he does.
Now Silas, I loved the name variations. And yes he didnt have red eyes, and if you think about it he didnt really look that albino-ish but i think Paul Batteney made an alright Silas. By the way, i thought he was supposed to be french, and not Italian... the same with the "teacher"?
And why did they have to cut "robert, you have brought me a virgin" and the "robbing off the climax" i was looking forward for that! True they swapped it with something "staright to the point" but still... Although, i have to say, Ian McKellen did an excellent job on Teabing.
The scene with the library card was so hallerious! It just showed that they didnt have time but i mean, really...
I liked the ending though, apart from the remarkable finding that Sauniere wasnt Sophie's grandfather and that Sophie and Langdon were supposed to kiss and go on a date (although the joke with the wine was good)it was good.
And since when Collet will ever address Fache "Bazu"? that too was annoying. Actually the whole Collet was annoying really... the age and all. And Fache would never say "You know im an Opus Dei" I mean seriously.
I think there will be an extended version of the movie which showed fill up some wholes as it were. So there were quite a bit of stuff that werent to my liking but that is not going to stop me seeing it again on friday in 2 weeks. 
--------------------
Dont take life seriously, you will never get out of it alive.
|
Junco75
stranger
Reged: 05/22/06
Posts: 2
|
|
The Archbishop of the Opus Dei was called "your eminence" instead of "your excellency", by some member of the press on board the OD plane.
|
jwrobel0398
stranger
Reged: 05/22/06
Posts: 2
|
|
Hello Folks,
I'm new here and wanted say a few things that some may not like. First let me say I am a 32nd degree Freemason (York Rite), a member of the Royal Order of Scotland and a Catholic.
I wasn't impressed by the content of neither the book or the movie, although the film did offer some entertainment value.
What I am amazed about is the assertions made in The Da Vinci Code are old news and I believe to be nothing short of plagarism. If you would read, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and the, "Messianic Legacy" written by M. Baigent, R. Leigh and H. Lincoln (published in 1982 and 1986 respectively) you uwould see exactly what I am talking about.
Dan Brown basically made a novel out of these two books which were basically offered as a, "factual" account of the history of Christs life, his supposed crucifiction and his surviving blood-line.
Everyone is singing the praises of Dan Brown for being such a talented and imaginitive writer and it's nothing more than old rehashed material.
Thanks for your perusal.
|
Adrenaline
stranger
Reged: 12/19/05
Posts: 12
|
|
There was the whole court thing and the law sees Dan Browns work as not plagiarism so...... yeah
--------------------
Dont take life seriously, you will never get out of it alive.
|
jwrobel0398
stranger
Reged: 05/22/06
Posts: 2
|
|
Hey Adrenaline,
Thanks for the post. Yes, I am aware of the, "courts" findings butI bet his/her honor did not take the time to read either of the two publications by the other three authors. I guess my point is this, people are lauding Dan Brown for creating/writing such a controversial and/or unique story without realizing this is old news. The guys making a fortune off of someone elses years of personal time, expense and investigative talents.
|
AAnnAArchy
Gifted Procrastinator
Reged: 10/20/03
Posts: 643
Loc: Las Vegas
|
|
Okay, back to discussing the movie. There are plenty of other threads here to discuss the plagiarism accusations.
I must reiterate - this thread is about the Da Vinci Code MOVIE.
Edited by AAnnAArchy (05/24/06 05:24 AM)
|
Adrenaline
stranger
Reged: 12/19/05
Posts: 12
|
|
Indeed. Who thinks Alfred Molina was not the right actor for Aringarossa? (not sure about the double s)
--------------------
Dont take life seriously, you will never get out of it alive.
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
I was very impressed with the movie. I actually think it was rather a difficult book to turn into a film. I can understand some of the criticisms - there perhaps wasn't as much suspense and surprise in the movie as there could have been. But, they clearly took the decision to include as much of the book as possible in the movie; and, as it's a long book, this inevitably means there had to be some compromises.
Bottom line - this movie has been made for fans of the book. And given how many of those there are in the world, that's a pretty good strategy.
Great job!
|
BenJ27
newbie
Reged: 05/25/06
Posts: 32
Loc: France, Normandie (27)
|
|
I think the movie is a beautiful movie, but the story was not the book's story.
Where is the cryptex ?
But Jean Reno and Audrey Tautou was the best actors. (Vive la France !)
I have just a question : why, when they have the book, they write a scenario ?
It's not the book's story, like :
King Kong, Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, ...
--------------------
Ben-J ;-)
ben-j-magie@hotmail.fr
|
Remarkable
enthusiast
Reged: 09/30/05
Posts: 326
|
|
Ben, the reason why they have to change things going from a book to the film, is that some things in a book won't work in a film. If they made the film exactly the same as the book, people would think it was a bad film.
|
BenJ27
newbie
Reged: 05/25/06
Posts: 32
Loc: France, Normandie (27)
|
|
I think it is possible, but, it depends to the book too.
And Brown's books was made like a movie.
--------------------
Ben-J ;-)
ben-j-magie@hotmail.fr
|
Sephia
Supreme Goddess
Reged: 11/28/03
Posts: 876
Loc: MA, USA
|
|
I saw the movie last night and I didn't think it was all that bad. The three things that annoyed me were (1) Blatant attempts to overdramatise with extra gunshots, etc., (2)How easily each riddle was solved (with some kid's internet cell phone on a bus?!) and (3) this "Council of Shadows" bull that Aringarosa was part of. In the book, he was more of a victim, rather than a psychotic modern-day Crusader.
Still, I REALLY liked the guy who played Teabing, and I sort of liked the character spin on Fache, even if it's not accurate as far as the book is concerned.
--------------------
"Your life is yours alone, rise up and live it" ~Terry Goodkind
|
BenJ27
newbie
Reged: 05/25/06
Posts: 32
Loc: France, Normandie (27)
|
|
There is an other thing, but you can't to know that :
The translators of the movies didn't read the book, and the text isn't the same.
--------------------
Ben-J ;-)
ben-j-magie@hotmail.fr
|
EVDebs
enthusiast
Reged: 07/10/05
Posts: 272
|
|
Sephia
The basic premise of the Catholic Church suppression of 'the sacred feminine' is clearly undermined by the status the church places on what some call Mary Worship, the veneration (some would say worship) of the Virgin Mary
http://www.remnantofgod.org/godmary.htm
Does this fundumental discrepancy ever get mentioned or discussed by anyone ?
|
MaliciousMonkey
stranger
Reged: 05/23/06
Posts: 15
|
|
I loved the movie. The ending was magnificent (the very end, not the bit in Rosslyn Chapel that was altered from the book)
However, I was annoyed by how little Sophie did to solve the riddles and stuff. Ron Howard and Co. gave most of the stuff to Tom Hanks whereas in the book it's divided more equally between Sophie and Langdon. The reverse writing, for instance...it's more logical that they realized what the writing was more quickly (come on, if I could figure it out, any idiot could). But it should have been Sophie who figured it out. She is the expert in codes, after all.
--------------------
Ook!
Edited by MaliciousMonkey (05/31/06 05:17 AM)
|
Dazzle
addict
Reged: 04/02/04
Posts: 484
Loc: UK
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 
