out of 5. I was looking forward to seeing this movie, but now I'm going to pass. I wonder how big the budget was for the flop.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=davincicode.htm

Australian reviews didnt rate this film very well. Overall, despite its controversy, it was a poorly made film... And if you didnt read the book, the plotline of the movie is ridiculous at best.

A budget of $125 Million, eh?

I like Tom Hanks---good actor. Too bad about the movie.

i just feel sorry for Tom Hanks who now has to deal with the fact that he has lost a good portion of his fan base. (Did you notice that Tom Hanks' other film which currently being filmed has not made any adverts for its future release).

Its like when Russle Crowe threw that phone and no one went to see Cinderella Man, despite its Academy award wins.... A 70 million dollar movie only made 20 million back.... dissaster.

Have any of you actually seen the movie?

I am reading the book which is good. It reminds me of a Shelock Holmes mystery which I love.

I will see the movie when I finish the book.

I don't see how the movie could be bad if you are interested in symbolism, religion, and mystery. I am excited to see it.

I saw it two nights ago. It was terrible and I don't know what Ron Howard was smoking when he made it. In fact, before I went to see it I was like "Hmm, I liked the book, but I'm not sure the movie version will be as good" then I saw that Ron Howard was making it and thought "Ahh well, he'll probably do a good job of it, I'll give it a whirl"

I can only assume that he actually wanted to make a 3 1/2 hours film but got told to chop it down, because the pacing in this film is insane - not just fast, but erratic. The first 30 mins or so they do the usual introduction but they seemed to try and cover the book too literally, so it wasn't spending enough time on any characters to let you get into it before they chopped to some other characters. Another major pacing issue I found was that the emotional tension never got paid off, something would start (they'd find a puzzle, or they'd realise something was wrong) and then withing about 1/2 a page of script it was over. So you'd sit there going "oo, cool, something's going to happe......Oh, it's over"

It got itself together a little more toward the middle, but even then the characters had little personality and their skills (Cryptography, symbology etc) were really only touched on. When I go to see a film like this I like to see people struggling to work out puzzles and have the film spend a reasonably amount of time on them, and with the DaVinci code, obviously meld it with extreme religious mythology. In this film they would find a puzzle and then solve it almost immediately. This meant they had to get their tension from elsewhere, and seeing as the movie wasn't a high action film, they couldn't get it from there. They couldn't get it from the antagonists either, as they were rather hollow.

All in all I felt like I thoroughly wasted my money. In fact about 45 mins into it I almost suggested to my wife that we leave..Little did I know, she was thinking the same but didn't say anything cause she knew I'd read the book and that I had wanted to see the film!

I say 2 1/2 is too high. I give it 1 1/2 out of 5. Bad story, bad execution, bad casting.

I'll say one hting for the divnci code, the cable channels are having a ball with it.
Between a&e and discovery and history channel, it's almost a 2 week marathon.

Interesting article from the New Yorker... Sony created a website, " the Da Vinci Dialogue" to stir up controversy among Christians over the movie: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060522fa_fact

(Barbara) Nicolosi felt that Christians had been sold out, as she proceeded to make clear on her blog. “Christians being coaxed into writing anti DVC pieces on a stupid web site . . . are meekly accepting that they are being given ‘a seat at the table’ in some grand cultural discussion,” she wrote. “Duped! There is no seat, folks. There is no discussion. What there is, is a few P.R. folks in Hollywood taking mondo big bucks from Sony Pictures, to deliver legions of well-meaning Christians into subsidizing a movie that makes their own Savior out to be a sham.”

I saw it two nights ago. It was terrible and I don't know what Ron Howard was smoking when he made it. In fact, before I went to see it I was like "Hmm, I liked the book, but I'm not sure the movie version will be as good" then I saw that Ron Howard was making it and thought "Ahh well, he'll probably do a good job of it, I'll give it a whirl"


Just saw it last night and totally agree. I have no clue how they could take such a good idea and make it any worse.

If anyone is a fan of books, or have done any literary study, you would realise that Dan Brown's style of writing is boring and pedestrian. The only thing he knows is how to make a plotline run, and thats why its such a quick read - the pacing is fast and its very very very easy to read.... I mean, my dad who hardly knows much engligh understood the story, and he has trouble understanding News Papers. Another good analogy is its the same style of writing in Harry Potter Books. Very simple language, no brainer dialogue....

I mean, the book itself didnt make Down Brown famous, its his controversy. I mean, none of his previous books sold well because his writng style sucked in the literary world. Only now hes just cashing in.

I saw the movie, and I've lost all respect for Ron Howard. In a review on DVD Talk, Eric D. Sinder writes about Ian Mckellen's acting.

[Ian] embraces the story's inherent outrageousness, rather than pretending it doesn't exist. I bet Ron Howard thinks it's a brilliant book, while McKellen read it on a plane once, smiled, and forgot all about it.

Hi all,

I saw the movie on friday.. i mostly agree with Aaron Koolens review above..Particualrly the pacing of the movie was terrible.. and there was no payoff or climax for key scenes..and also you are 100 percent correct on the solving of puzzles.. there was no tension or mystery for the most part.. it would be like oh thats this symbol from this century.. and then they would just pull something out of their ass, and solve it.. boom.. move to next scene.. I am not sure Tom Hanks is at fault.. He was not particulary good, but i think any actor would have struggled with this.. Its dissappointing to me, because i like Ron Howards directing.. (Cinderella Man, Apollo 13...)
but it looks like the movie will still make a bunch of money.. at least on the first weekend.. we'll see if it has legs..

Mike M.

Watch The Albino Code instead (http://www.albinocode.com/); I helped make it :)

lol...

Bloody hilarious mate... Love the whay you guys injected the actual text into the movie... The Narrator is piss funny.

Leo, I disagree. It is a good book. And I love books and have done literary study.

Your opinion is just that a opinion. You act as if it is fact.

Have you even read the book? Or do you just know everything from the first few chapters? Or is it that you judged a book by the movie and what other people tell you to think?

The book is about architecture, symbols & icons, religion, mystery, art, politics, the human condition, and other cultures. Also, it is entertaining and fun. Try reading it.

I am having a great time with the book and enjoy it, but fear the movie can not do it justice.

This wouldn't be the only recent flop for Hanks... who here remembers "The Ladykillers" from 2004, a poor remake which the Coen brothers probably would rather forget and should have passed on in the first place. This whole thing reminds me of "Heaven's Gate" in a way. Hanks and Howard will survive this experience just as Kristofferson and Cimino did (well Cimino sort of survived it).

Saw it yesterday with the wife. I read the book she did not. I did not like the movie she did. Blasphemy I say; not the movie or the book, the fact that my wife did not agree with me.

In my opinion, the movie is in a can't win situation. Impossible to capture all thats in the book, which I loved, which will cause all the bad reviews. Which I feel is deserved. If you didn't know anything about the book or the premise, which my wife did not (duh), the movie is a bit confusing.

Oh well, what can you do. $18.00 down the drain.

BTW, yes 125 million to make and an estimate so far, Domestic: $77,000,000 - Foreign:$147,000,000=$224 million.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=davincicode.htm

Thus proving the point, even crap sells. :)

Leo, I disagree. It is a good book. And I love books and have done literary study.

Your opinion is just that a opinion. You act as if it is fact.

Please quote areas where I say anything is fact. If you have read my post, You will notice I talk about my own experiences (like my fathers story) and that presents an opinion based on experience. So you love the book, good for you... I didnt like it much, so who cares? Maybe just you?

Have you even read the book? Or do you just know everything from the first few chapters? Or is it that you judged a book by the movie and what other people tell you to think?

Yes, I've read the book, a very fast read and I commend Dan Brown techniques of making it intersting and compelling. In fact, its very engaging. BUT I didnt mention any of that in my previous post - I said It was an easy read BASED ON ITS LANGUAGE. If you did do any literary study, you'd notice I focused my argument ONLY on Dan borwn's language techniques because, well.... Thats what I was talking about. I think its a great book despite its language, its popular and its smart. But Dan Brown hardly pushes the language. Like I said its pedestrian, its a no brainer to read because it doenst force you to open a dictionary to understand it.


The book is about architecture, symbols & icons, religion, mystery, art, politics, the human condition, and other cultures. Also, it is entertaining and fun. Try reading it.

Yes, its great book huh? I like the descriptions. I visited the Lourve once, and I think the atmosphere in the book is great.

Say, lets get a book club together to discuss it shall we?

I am having a great time with the book and enjoy it, but fear the movie can not do it justice.

Of course it cant... movies never do...

Richard, I suggest you lay off because although you CLAIM I'm laying waste to your precious book, you should have noticed I only disliked Dan Brown's use of Language. And If you read some Harry Potter books, the analogy is very similar - and accurate because both can be described as fast reads.

Did I ever damn the book? No, I accused Dan brown of poor language use, because I felt it was very simple, and extra language techniques could have made the story more engaging. For example the scene in the bank (of the book) where the wrong password would be damaging is hard to take seriously. Its full of one liners and a lack of character insight. And thats one example.

Read my previous post again - Now, did I say it was a bad book? Did I say it was fact? did I allude to fact? No - The only fact I made was my fathers story. And if Dan brown is such a literary mind, explain why his previous books never sold well until after the Da Vinci code?

I haven't read the book. I enjoyed the movie very much. I also liked the ladykillers. I find it weird that so many people on this forum want to make films, and still most of those hate most movies and/or going out to the movies. I think if you have a tendency of liking books more than their film couterparts, perhaps moviemaking isn't your thing.

Ok, some ggood points, but here's he reason for some of us. If you go out ot see a film here in the states, not only is it highway robbery for a ticket (i think in some of the larger cities it's 10$ a show). But you also have to put up with other people who think talking on their cell phone during the movie is ok (among other things).

The quality of films thatt come out of hollywood, in general is so poor that I personaly won't spend money to go. dvd offfers me a better option for viewing and is cheaper. Plus i'm not forced to sit thrpugh 15 minutes of previews.

knowing nothing of the da vinci code (in term of story and such) i don't realy have an opinion about it. Ron howard is a pretty safe director, and tomhanks usually pulls off a good preformance (i still love bachelor party(spelling).

I think the physic act of film making might be what osme of us like. So if we like a book more then a movie , that doesnt' reflect on us in terms of makeing films

It does reflect on you in the sense that you cannot expect other people to pay for something you do, when you yourself wouldn't. On the other hand, I have always found hollywood films (not all, but most of the big ones) to be very entertaining. Of course there are good streaks and bad streaks. I would say 5 or 6 out of every 10 hollywood films are good, while foreign films usually rate much lower. And don't even get me started with mexican films because it's just too depressing. I usually go out to the movies 3 times a week or more (it costs around U$5 here for a regular ticket, $2.50 on wednesday, and $10 for VIP venues with recliner barca lounger style seating, waiters to get you your snacks, etc... Yes, sometimes you get the cell phone guy in there, yes, sometimes the sound is poorly calibrated, yes, yes, yes. I still enjoy going out to the movies, and have since I was little. I also purchase 2 or 3 dvds evey week and watch those at home (I don't like watching TV programming). I know for a fact I have never experienced the same excitement and emotional response of an opening day at the theater, at home watching a dvd. I feel sorry for those who think they do, because they surely must be having a lousy time at the theatre.

Oh, i do pay for it, I watch the dvd, and the dvd market is actually where most of the money is made now a days. But asides

here's some news about sequals of the da vinci code

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/sony-has-da-vinci-ii-and-iii/

They did a good job with Rosslyn chappel at the end because the real place has a huge metal roof over the church. I payed a visit to the chappel when they were filmming it....closest i've ever been to a proper movie set.

And I must admit I liked the book and the movie, as Leo says the book is as simple as they come and because of that it only takes you 3 or 4 days to read and in my opinion it was worth a few days.

People have to high expectations of films these days, films are there pure and simply to entertain people and with the davinci code whats not to like...good cinematography well put together, a half decent story and Tom hanks (ok the sub plotline of langdon falling down a well was absolutely pointless and would have been better spent expanding on her grandfathers secret meeting but hey it is what it is).

Andy.

I saw the film on opening night with a lot of friends, some who read the book and others like myself who hadn't. We are all avid movie goers, and I'm a film major myself (undergrad). One of my friends is a cinematographer (recent grad).

We all left the theatre somewhat disappointed for different reasons. My friends who loved the book, all felt a bit cheated and thought the movie was a bit boring and bland copared to what they envisioned in the book.

I and my friends who hadn't read the book also felt the movie was boring (pacing was too slow, not enough development of the characters, a connect the dots kind of story), the acting while not terrible wasn't anything to write home about, and basically there was no real connection with either the sometimes confusing plot/sub-plots or the characters.

I think the cinematography was good, the lighting and mood were often really good; the editing seemed decent, with long takes as opposed to lots of cutting and there were times I got a sense of the location very clearly. The effects/cgi seemed very reminiscent of "A Beautiful Mind" which was sorta ho-hum for me. The score and sound editing were solid but again not that great for me.

In my opinion the movie sorta sucked. It made a lot of business which is good for the movie industry but I won't even want to see this again on cable or dvd.

I think the controversy may have sold the movie more than the movie sold itself. Sequel? I won't waste my time on it, unless one of my friends pays for me! :-)

Bless.

Check out this DaVinci Code/Apple parody site for a chuckle: http://www.icryptex.com/

Saw Hanks on Letterman few weeks back. Letterman with the usual puffery, words like blockbuster and megahit (just doing his job). Hanks' reaction couldn't have been more subdued, something along the lines of " we do our best, they don't all hit". So my expectations were lowered, and with good reason. A mediocre film. Not all great, or even good, books make good film.

the book is a good book but not a great piece of literature, probably the movie is the same.
if you want to read good book written on same kind of subject or see the movie, try Umberto Eco , in "the name of the rose" or "Foucault’s Pendulum".
I think lot of the style and content of Da Vinci Code have been inspired by this two books.

In my opinion the movie sorta sucked. It made a lot of business which is good for the movie industry. . .

I don't think so. It would be much better for the movie industry (and the audiences) if bad movies tanked.

Otherwise, the yahoos at the top will continue to think they can do a piss-poor job and still buy a Bentley.

I don't think so. It would be much better for the movie industry (and the audiences) if bad movies tanked

Productions are subject to market value, so its sometimes obvious why poorly made films make more money than some literary artisticly cedited films. In the case of this movie, they got Dan Brown's story, slapped on some famous names and sold it.

Its all about the bottom Line. Dan Brown was asked to do the film early in his controversy. He didnt do it then because he wanted a major response fromt he Church.

If you do your research, you'll find that the church at first did not approve of the book and that was it. When it became famous, the Church tried to stay quiet, until the Media started to claim that the Church and Opus Dei had something to hide, then the Church responded. The Film was announced only months after the Church responded....

The timing is just too perfect dont you think? At the height of controversy Dan Brown signs the rights away to Hollywood.

Although a good book, Dan brown sold the controversy better I think.

I don't disagree with you Daniel but the film industry needs money/box office to continue; it's like any other business really.

I also feel that it's a shame that many well made movies don't do good box office, but it's the commercially successful movies that allow studios and certain filmmakers the leeway to continue to make movies of any genre. It sucks yeah but it's a reality we all have to live with.

And Leo is so correct: they sold the controversy not a good story.

[QUOTE=Although a good book, Dan brown sold the controversy better I think.[/QUOTE]

I didn't read the book or see the movie, but in the early '90s I ready 'Holy Blood, Holy Grail' which has the same idea, but presented as true. Well, the authors say 'not proof, but evidence', which is fancy dancing IMO.

You may recall the authors sued Dan Brown and lost.

Anyway, at the time I read it, I thought the whole proposition was nonsense, but that if I had all that material at my disposal, I'd fictionalize it and make a bundle.

Now Brown has gone and done it!