Da Vinci Code only gets 2 & 1/2 stars...

[Richard Zlamany]

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.

[Chris Hurd]

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).

[Bill Schoaf]

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 Pepingco]

Originally Posted by Richard Zlam

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.

[sarcasm] Say, lets get a book club together to discuss it shall we?[/sarcasm]

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?

[Luis de la Cerda]

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.

[Tim Goldman]

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

[Luis de la Cerda]

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.

[Tim Goldman]

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.co...ci-ii-and-iii/

[Andy Graham]

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.

[Krystian Ramlogan]

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.

[Boyd Ostroff]

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

[Eric Emerick]

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.

[Giroud Francois]

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.

[Daniel J. Wojcik]

Originally Posted by Krystian Ramlogan

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.

[Leo Pepingco]

Originally Posted by Daniel J Wojcik

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.