Da Vinci Code-The movie . .

I'd say Brosnan would be the best..I was never a Hanks fan..and Gibson is a ****ing nutcase.
 
emodx said:
kiltedcraftsman said:
emodx said:
Damn, why didn't I think of it earlier. Russell Crowe as the lead.
[snapback]188284[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I thought about Crowe, but I just don't think its a fit...I think Clooney would be better. You can't go British w/Langdon, that was the whole thing..he was more of a bumbling American Professor, who was unaware of how good looking and charismatic he was, not to mention brilliant. If you did go Brit you would have to lose the accent . .now that I say that-what about Clive Owen-minus the accent. I think he would fit . .
[snapback]188416[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Ater the performance Crowe gave playing a crazy professor, and how women swooned over his looks and athleticism in Gradiator, I think it would be a great pick. But that's just my opinion whcih really doesnt count for crap around here. lol

Emo
[snapback]188427[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Nothing but love from this newb Emo! Course I am a newb! LOL!! :D ;)
 
From a chick's line of thought Deception Point was the biggest disappointemnt for me out of all the books. an as for Langdon Harrison Ford would be good 910 to 15 years ago, I don't think I am all that crazy about Hanks either. Hanks has the body style I pictured when I read the books but from the neck up I can't see it. But I don't have a replacement either so I don't know. Just my 2 cents. :p
 
I am so bummed I can't make this tonite!! At least I get to go to a Black Eyed Peas concert instead! :thumbs: Trying to put together a group to go tomrrow though..

Anyone else going tonite? I would be curious to know what you thought.
 
Will be there this evening, as my wife bought tickets earlier this week, she has to be there on opening night! Early reviews are not very favorable, but will see what I think. The book was a great read, hope the movie is as entertaining.
 
I saw the movie this morning and it was pretty good.
Ron Howard stayed true to the book.
Some of the flashbacks were out of sequence but there were none of the
plot changes that can occure when transferring a book to a movie.

All in all, not a bad flick.
 
inflatus said:
I am not a Da Vinci Code fan, but I do know that multiple Oscar winner Hanks will bring many dollars to the project.
Click to expand...


Angels and Demons IS the better book. Although I read Da
Vinci first. I could pick out who was doing what in the book. Kind of saddened me.

However I think Tom Hanks will do a great job as Robert Langdon. I am actually gearing up to see the movie now. I reread the book yesterday(yes in one day) and now im ready to go see it.
 
I'll be going tonight hopefully. I absolutely loved the book, so hopefully the movie will be good. Even though the critics aren't giving good reviews, I don't really care. My tastes and the critics tastes seem to differ on about every movie. :)
 
junkman_56 said:
I saw the movie this morning and it was pretty good.
Ron Howard stayed true to the book.
Some of the flashbacks were out of sequence but there were none of the
plot changes that can occure when transferring a book to a movie.
Click to expand...

Kool Im glad to here that. I was worried they changed some stuff from the trailers Ive been seeing.

Im going to try and see an early show this weekend. Too many folks on opening night for my taste.

Russell
 
IMHO i think that Val Kilmer would have made a great Langdon. He is one of the most versitle actors I have seen in a long time. He is who I pictured while reading the book
 
I could see Val playing the part of Silas, not langdon.


I just got out of the movie....it was at best OK. I mean it changes around a lot and doesn't stay as true to the book as it could have. I guess it's Howards interpretation though.

I'd gp see it if you've read the book it shows some things, that the book does not.

Overall 87/100.
 
I just returned from the movie. I'll see it again before I make final decisions but here is my first impression:

I was disappointed in Silas, he wasn't portrayed in any way similar to the book. They didn't even give him contacts to look Albino - he was barely white, with white hair and the make-up was thin enough that he didn't always appear white at all, just white-haired.

Most major plot points were similar to the book, and most early deviations were understandable in the context of a visual medium with limited time. However, some of the other major deviations bothered me a bit. I won't get into details (for those that plan to see it) but I would estimate that you should expect 30-40% difference btwn the book and movie. (and that is a very low number compared to most adaptations, just look at Jurassic Park)

The acting was well done, and Ian McKellan was brilliant (as to be expected). The plot and story moved fairly well with only a few undue sequences to "spice the action" for the big screen. The ending was a tad disappointing campared to the book, but not untrue to story. I didn't notice any major tech problems and the cinematography was decent. The "eidetic memory" sequences were annoying, however and I thought Sophies role was watered down to allow Hanks' Langdon to shine more than the book version did.

All said I think anyone who has not read the book will probably like the movie, and those who have read the book will be split. If you are the kind that can appreciate differnces, you'll be fine. For those who get disappointed when little things are wrong, you will probably not like it. Based on its own merits, without comparison to the book, I would give the movie a 7. Decent script, few plot holes and decent acting. Hanks was a bit of a let down for me, but McKellan more than made up for it.

-K-
 
The point of making a movie based on a book is to make a movie, not put the book line by line on the big screen. Faithfulness to the original is only important to a point, and slamming a movie for not being faithful to a book is not a critique of the movie at all - it could still be, by all means, a very good movie. They are just simply two related, but different, works.

That said, taking a dry pulp fiction novel, marketing it as essentially non-fiction, and then adapting it to the silver screen seems less like artistic endeavour than commercial goldmining. Oh well, that's entertainment.
 
Treamayne said:
I won't get into details (for those that plan to see it) but I would estimate that you should expect 30-40% differnce btwn the book and movie.

-K-
Click to expand...


i have to disagree with you on this. there were 2 minor differences at the end, but id say the movie was about 95% spot on.

well give the others about a week to see the movie and then start talking about the plot.

also, if youre going to see it soon, see if sophies neck mole bothers you as much as it did me.
 
I didnt know there was a book that this movie was based on and I just watched the movie after they had a rocky start. I really loved this movie and cant wait for it to come out on DVD. :D
 
Went last night.

The movie was great. Very powerful !

The ending was unbelievable. I dont wanna spoil it for anyone.
 
marcsheldon said:
i have to disagree with you on this. there were 2 minor differences at the end, but id say the movie was about 95% spot on.

well give the others about a week to see the movie and then start talking about the plot.

also, if youre going to see it soon, see if sophies neck mole bothers you as much as it did me.
Click to expand...

Can't say there was anything about Sophie that bothered me!! Quite an attractive young lady.

Even though the movie was 2 1/2 hours long, parts of it seemed a bit "rushed", and it had to rely on a great deal of dialogue to move the plot forward, where the book could develop things at a more leisurely pace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top