Jump to content

The Da Vinci Code

big ste

Recommended Posts

Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few months you'll know about all the hoo-hah being created about the Da Vinci Code movie.

I went to go see it on Saturday and kind of enjoyed it, having read the book I was intrigued to see how Ron Howard would transfer it to the big screen.


Although, it's on for far too long. Or maybe that's my own personal reaction as i knew what events were going to happen from the book, and then having them drawn out for agggges.

Ron Howard isn't very good at action films, and the 'action'-y bits were a bit laughable. But the presentation of dialogue and theories was quite cool, they really went to town on the special effects (particuarly ones where Tom Hanks is explaining stuff).


I was a bit miffed when certain elements were left out, but then realised if they had gone for a complete book-to-film approach with every detail adhered to, it wouldn't be very entertaining as 60 million people already know what's going to happen.


There's so many bad reviews of this film, and I can completely understand why, so many different people have read it and have their own interpretation of it, whereas this is just kind of Ron Howards.

It wasn't bad at all, in my opinion, but i wouldn't recommend seeing it if you haven't read the book as the ending didnt make sense at all really (in the book the ending is mostly Langdon's internal dialogue which helps explain, but is not present in the film).


The film has some scarey bits, not litreally scarey, but they did make the person in front of me jump many times. Much to my amusement.

But yeah, it's alright, it's not completely worthy of the massive media storm surrounding it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the book is ace (and I have just read it again in anticipation of going to see the film) but I had pretty low expectations of the film because im not a big fan of ron howard. But when I saw the trailer I thought it looked good. So ill reserve judgement until I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the book and will be seeing it this weekend at the movies - my sister loved it so much she is going to take me. Toma Hanks is a consummate actor and irregardless Ron Howard can make a very good film. Looking forward to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I don't know about the film version, In the book Robert Langdon was quite supportive of the theory suggested in the book, yet In the film he is very sceptical, when talking to teabing about the theory and uses the word "myth" about 12 times, this is a big variation form the book.

The ending was changed dramatically also, all in all it was an average film and a bad reflection on the book

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all in all it stuck pretty closeley to the book (as mentioned the end if different, but as far as adaptations of books go, its pretty close)


I really enjoyed the film, even though I didnt really expect to at first, although Tom Hanks didnt seem quite right for Robert Langdon.


As Van_uber stated, the deviation from the book version of the character of Robert Langdon is realkly frustrating. I believe it must of been to appease anyone who is religious. I was really annoyed that they tried to make Langdon sceptical of a lot of ideas that Teabing put forward. It totally devalues the argument when Langdon is sceptical, because Teabing is a bit mad. Obviously thats what Ron Howard wanted to put forward with the film!!!! :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't overly enjoy the book - just a chase story, but I did enjoy the movie.


I had previously read some of the more documentary style versions of the backdrop to Dan Browns story eg 'The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail', which is far more interesting and satisfying (and quite clearly states within its pages that the authors are putting forward a hypothesis based upon various historical data i.e. they do not claim it to be fact). Do I believe in the hypothesis?, not sure, but it is fascinating and not implausible.


Without purposely trying to offend, as the authors state, quote:


'It is simply more likely that a man (Jesus) would have married, fathered children and attempted to gain a throne than that he would have been born of a virgin, walked on water and risen from the dead', unquote.


....and how did the authors of 'The Holy Blood & the Holy Grail'lose their plagiarism case ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

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...