I just got back from seeing it.

Almost every single review I read, ign, msn, yahoo, gave opinions I completely DISagreed with.

I thought it was very well done, it was a good adaptation of the book, it Ian Mclellan didn't really steal the show, he just did a good job for his character. Tom Hanks wasn't NEARLY as miscast as people said, I thought he did a great job. There might have been a better actor, but Hanks protrayed Langdon much better than I thought he would (ie totally bomb it).
All of the codes were there, it didn't take anything out (that I recognized) from the book.
There were a few moments where I though "what?", then I realized it was leading up to something new and interesting. Lots of twists, lots of codes, lots of
fun.

OVerall I was very entertained.
B+

______________
My take on all the religious stuff:
For crying out loud, it's fiction.
Go watch Indiana Jones and the raiders of the lost ark and tell me how sacriligious they are.
Also watch Indiana Jones and the last crusade and tell me why there should be more controversy over the holy grail, it's distorting facts just as much as this and it's practically classic cinema.

I think we have a thread for this already

Shush. The man touched Jewel Staite. Let him start as many threads as he will.

On that not, I decided to see Over the Edge over Da Vinci Code tonight.

My take on it : hilarious. I love the squirrel.

People give it poor rateings based on religious controversy. I thought this movie was indeed very well done.

I got a weird religious "Cash in 10,000" check looking thing that has a lot of BS on the crap of it, saying the world is going to end.

Scary Christians.

[edit:] Also, anyone just randomly pop into their minds when Silas said he was a ghost, that Ghost Busters music played and a picture of Tom Hanks came into mind?

Did NOT like it.

And yeah they took stuff out. There's only one cryptex is the main thing I saw, and Sophie finding out her secret was done MUCH DIFFERENTLY, and I didn't like that.

Or, maybe they give it poor ratings because it sucks? Seriously, just because something is controversial doesn't mean any criticism is religiously based. :p

It was good.

Seven of us went to see it. Seven of us loved it. I don't get the reviews

I enjoyed it

Yeah I enjoyed it too. Wouldnt say I loved it, but it was enjoyable even though the pacing was a little off which made it dull in places.

Or, you know, not. People here gave it C's because it was "Slow". I laugh at the attention span of most Americans if that's the case.

I saw it last night and I finished the book the day before so the book was fresh in my mind.

So...

Firstly I'd say the book is far better than the movie, that doesn't however mean the movie is bad, its just not that great in my opinion. I'd give it 3 out of 5.

The main problem for me is that bits of the book which I think are quite important to the story were missed out and/or changed for another meaning. Perviously in films such as LotR and Harry Potter (all of which i have read) I could understand the changes, however in Da Vinci, I couldn't.

I won't go into details I'll just say that firstly looking back at the book I don't think it is really Summer Blockbuster movie material, and secondly in the case of a book that has a plot that needs to be understood 100% for it to make sense, changing stuff isn't a wise idea.

I'm not sure whether Dan Brown approved the changes or if he was even consulted, I doubt it comparing the movie to the book.

Still, it wasn't a terriable movie, just not all that good.

Needed more Land Laviathans.

It's not really slow. It's just dull, uninteresting and not exactly the best adaptation of a book one can do.

Honestly, didn't anyone learn anything about these adaptations from Peter Jackson?

Just saw it... I'd give it a C, I think.

Tom Hanks and the female lead really detracted my interest. Nothing they said really drew me in. I like Tom Hanks too, it just seemed... false.

Ian McClellan on the other hand, rocked my world. Everything he did seemed right, everything was genuine.

It wasn't perfect, there were some parts that were decent, some parts felt forced or rushed, or slowed too much, and I think they captured the mediocrity of the book perfectly.

I liked it.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]

Honestly, didn't anyone learn anything about these adaptations from Peter Jackson?[/QUOTE]


yeah, they learned that these adaptions can make millions of dollars :p

I just saw the movie like half an hour ago and all I can say to that is...


THANK YOU!! I so agree with what you put. I heard that it dragged out and wasnt good. on the contrary it was great. Obviously I still enjoyed the book more, but the movie was well done. The way I envisioned things in the book was exactly how it came to life on the screen.

I give it a B+ as well

It was okay.

I *totally* forgot about the two layers of cryptex thing but yeah, that was a major omission ..

I actually thought the beginning was very slow. McCellan/Teabing's Last Supper explanation scene was what got me back "into it" (caught my interest) after a mostly drab first half

They also cut out a lot from the "figure out the code is Apple by going everywhere and looking at a bunch of stuff."

Also, the ending could have been more dramatic.

6.75 / 10

No..... >.<

If people really liked the book, they'll sit through 3 1/2 hours of movie.

They won't if it's not a good story for cinema, which to be honest, this isn't.

I saw it with my sister yesterday, and I loved it.

It's ironic how we are Catholic and during the film, the portray Catholics in the most negative light.

I didn't really give a ****. I still thought the movie was great.

That's not irony.

(Sorry, I had to)

I didn't read the book.

I thought the movie was okay, but the pacing was definitely off and parts of it I hated.... like the flashback scenes were horribly done (I hate flashback scenes that use film grain or overlay onto non-flashback scenes) and I really hated Sophie and her entire role towards the end of the film, for which I blame Dan Brown for making a retarded ending.

Im right there with you PetMC20, my sis and I watched it, along with her husband and our parents...we are all catholic and we all enjoyed it. I think the ones who liked it most though, were my sister, her husband and I

I just saw it, and to be honest, it wasn't that good. Most of the scenes were interesting, but some parts sometimes got long and dull. Also, I thought the ending and Sophie's role weren't appropriate.

Overall, it was an okay movie, but I'm not interested in reading the book.

You guys will hate European movies if you didn't like this one.

Seriously. Try watching Shultze gets the Blues. It's the least intellectually devoided movie made by Germans, but you wouldn't stand watching 15 mintues of it, because it's so "long and dull".

Saw it last night, and I enjoyed it. Not something I'll watch again, but it got me interested in reading the book. I wish I could've seen it on the opening night, though. Apparently there were a bunch of protesters and reporters there making quite a scene.

Haven't seen it yet, but if it's even a decent movie it'll have to be better than the book.

Saw it, never read the book. Well, I read the Preface on amazon.

I don't understand why the story isn't cinematic other than too much explanation needed to truly tell the story. I mean, the Preface read like a freaking movie.

Less cinematic books have been turned into movies. A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man comes to mind.

I probably actually loved the scenes that people concidered dull, for example when they go to the professor's house and he explains things like the grail and his studies, etc. I kept getting pissed that the one guy was on his way to attack them, thus ending the "dull" scene.

Wow. There's badly written 'long and dull' and then there's good 'slow but intruiging' and very well written dull. Da Vinci ventured into the 'bad dull', ie. nothing of overall significance, interest, relevance, or intrigue happening for too long, and boring writing.

Good dull: Lost in Translation (the ultimate example of 'good dull'), Garden State, Chasing Amy

Bad dull: The Blair Witch Project, Waterworld, Signs (dont hurt me!!), just about any chick-flick if you're a guy.

I just don't understand what's dull about it.

In places it was uninteresting and boring, hence dull.

It wasn't slow and uninteresting, but then again I am able to read entire books, unlike most other Americans.

However, I really disliked the glowing things (like the portions of the star of david) and the grainy flashbacks. Also, Langdon's hallucination of Galileo's tomb was stupid.

However, I am absolutely fascinated with this subject matter. Forget that Holy Blood Holy Grail, forget that some (much) of the stuff in the book is obviously made up, ideas of grand conspiracy, lost truth, and ancient knowledge are my obsession. I'll find oout if there is actually anything under Giza, DAMMIT!

...

>_>
<_<

It was slow and uninteresting... towards the end, when the movie should have ended after they find out Sophie is Jesus' great-great-greatx20 love child. Instead they drag it out 20 more minutes to finally have Tom Hanks run around the Louvre again like a dumbass.

Again though, that's more Dan Brown's fault for writing a retarded ending. In fact, the entire book would have been better if it was just about gnosticism.

I can agree with that, actually.

The fact that Sophie was the last Scion was coming from miles away, easily, but I still enjoyed the film. I give it an A-.

Also, the movie doesn't portray the modern Catholic church in a bad light at all. They make it very clear that the council operates outside of the authority given by the Church, and that they would all be excommunicated if discovered.

Yeah, a Catholic girl was going off on how we shouldn't believe anything in the movie during English class. So I started going off on how we should then believe that the Vatican is concealing evidence of Christ's libido, since the movie says otherwise.

>_>
<_<