• Hi Guest - Come check out all of the new CP Merch Shop! Now you can support CigarPass buy purchasing hats, apparel, and more...
    Click here to visit! here...

Da Vinci Code-The movie . .

The ending was so predictable, (I hadn't read the book) that I knew it about a half hour into the movie. And I don't want to ruin it for anyone but the movie ended with credits scrolling down the screen to an emotion prodding soundtrack.
 
ThankYouForNotSmoking said:
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.
Click to expand...


I would disagree that it was marketed as non-fiction. I would say that when it was originally released it caused quite a stir, to which Dan Brown and the publishers replied "It's Fiction!" Over time the critics' reaction to it made a bigger deal than the original book and people started trying to "investigate it's authenticity." Now we have thousands more pages published about the book than it is. I don't htink it was marketed as non-fiction, but I would agree that the media and the critics attacked it as if Mr Brown had tried to portray it that way.

-K-
 
Ok ...
I saw the movie in my humble opinion,"WAIT TILL VIDEO" I read the book to a point and dropped it once I knew there was a movie in the works. I have to admit, tom hanks... less than what I imagined Robert Langdon to be; the movie droned on like a scientologist conversion... belive me! In the quest of learning about NLP (neuro-linguistic programming) and the science of cognitive thinking I have seen a few !!! I can say that some of the cinematography was "Nice" at best and at times it was as plain as a half cooked bowl of oatmeal in the morning...not so exciting but still comforting.

Sadly, action was to a minimum...nothing much to see.' The highlight of my night out at the movies was my company and the fire roasted artichokes...but, alas that had nothing to say of the movie. i have to admit that the words written were not done justice. The characters were poorly casted ( IMHO ) and the screen play lacked.


:sign:
 
I saw the movie last night with the wife and confirmed that Tom Hanks was not not the best choice for Langdon. Still think the Kilmer would have done a better job. My wife thinks that Ben Affleck would have been the best for the role. I agree that he would have been better than Hanks.

The movie left out quite a bit from the book. Moved too fast to follow if you were expecting the whole story. If you never read the book, the screen play is good.
 
What about the chemistry between Langdon and Sophie? There was barely there attraction. :(


At best, I found that the screen play, mannerisms of the characters, and chemistry where minimally passable...( compared to the book )
 
I am reading the book now and I am a little more than half way through it. I will not see the movie until I am done with the book. The book does seem fairly predictable so far. As far as casting, I think Tom Hanks is one of the best actors today and he could play almost any role convincingly. Some of the other names mentioned do not seem to fit to me at all. But McConaughey would have been perfect.
 
tdog said:
But McConaughey would have been perfect.
Click to expand...

When i think of McConaughey all i can think of is this:

"Gotta love high school chicks man, I get older they stay the same age."

or

"You just gotta keep livin man, L-I-V-I-N!"
 
Ben Affleck would be a poor choice, McConaughey too, IMO.

Remember, the part calls for a 40-something academic with rouge-ish looks he is unaware of. Any of the bopper-romantic comedy types will be 1) too young 2) too aware of their look and style (and too used to playing charachters that are) 3) most are not very versitile.

While I agree Hank's was a bit of a let down, it would be his contemporaries that might have been a good replacement. Gibson might have pulled it off, but I find it hard to picture him as an academic (or doing something so off-religeous). Hoffman and Redford could do well but might be too old. I think Matthew broderick would have been great (and he is comfortable with the lovable academic role)

JMO

-K-
 
Treamayne said:
Ben Affleck would be a poor choice, McConaughey too, IMO.

Remember, the part calls for a 40-something academic with rouge-ish looks he is unaware of. Any of the bopper-romantic comedy types will be 1) too young 2) too aware of their look and style (and too used to playing charachters that are) 3) most are not very versitile.

While I agree Hank's was a bit of a let down, it would be his contemporaries that might have been a good replacement. Gibson might have pulled it off, but I find it hard to picture him as an academic (or doing something so off-religeous). Hoffman and Redford could do well but might be too old. I think Matthew broderick would have been great (and he is comfortable with the lovable academic role)

JMO

-K-
Click to expand...

In that case I think this dude would have been pretty good.
lawrence.jpg


"Two chicks at the same time!"
 
Went to see it yesterday morning.

While Hanks could have done a better job portaying Langdon its wasnt that bad. But then again the vehicle of the movie is the plot not Hanks.

I do feel that the part of Sophie was watered down a little.

They followed the book amazingly close with a few deviations I think. I was disappointed that the ending was tweaked. Im assuming to placate the religious folks who have their panties in a bunch over this. And maybe too give something with more closure for the common American movie goer.

I didnt care for the way they tweaked the role/character of the french detective (name slippng from memory). I think that took a lot away from the storyline. That and the total exclusion of the scene at the mansion after they got away that tied everything together in the book. I didnt like the way they tied things together with the detective having that talk at the back of the ambulance in the movie. That was a big story killer deviating from the book that way IMHO. Im not sure why they done that. The scene that was excluded could have easily been included instead of the pointless one that was used in the movie.

As far as cinematography goes I liked the job Ron Howard done.

I give it an 8/10 but if you havent read the book try to read it before heading out to see it. For obvious reasons it has more depth and adds to the movie.

R
 
Treamayne said:
Ben Affleck would be a poor choice, McConaughey too, IMO.

Remember, the part calls for a 40-something academic with rouge-ish looks he is unaware of. Any of the bopper-romantic comedy types will be 1) too young 2) too aware of their look and style (and too used to playing charachters that are) 3) most are not very versitile.

While I agree Hank's was a bit of a let down, it would be his contemporaries that might have been a good replacement. Gibson might have pulled it off, but I find it hard to picture him as an academic (or doing something so off-religeous). Hoffman and Redford could do well but might be too old. I think Matthew broderick would have been great (and he is comfortable with the lovable academic role)

JMO

-K-
Click to expand...

i thought clooney would have made a good langdon. also, i have to call myself out about sophies' neck mole i mentioned earlier. it was actually a knife wound from an earlier scene. oops. :blush:
 
With all the bad publicity, I was surprised that the movie was actually tolerable.

However, I say that knowing that I am seminary student with an undergrad minor in Art, so those long historical conversations were interesting to me.

Book was clearly better, but that is always true. The problem is that the book was suspenseful due it being a mystery and not an action film (which most Americans expect from a Summer Blockbuster).

Most big movies are now without any meaningful dialogue, a pointless sex scene and multiple explosions/car chases, it is accurate to expect that from the DaVinci Code. The one car chase season was a sad bone to through towards the action flick folks.

Good movie had it be marketed as a normal release.
Summer Blockbuster, espacism, action film it is not.
 
Zeebra said:
There's nothing pointless about sex scenes in movies.
Click to expand...

Nah you are right, it helps to lure men in,
just rarely does it aid the movie--which is what I was mostly refering to.

Sometimes it will: 40 year old virgin, helps advance the plot.
Most of the time it is purely hedonistic, or marketing: Thomas Crown Affair (remake), Rene topless on the beach does not help advance the plot. Titanic's "drawing scene" would be another example.
 
I'm a pretty big fan of all of Dan Brown's books, and I've got to throw my $.02 into this topic. My initial reaction was that Harrison Ford would have been perfect, maybe a little old for the character though. Even though I've liked most everything Tom Hanks has been in I can't really see him in this role, although I do intend to see the movie soon. My next thought for some reason was Michael Douglas, not sure why, but I thought I'd throw it out there...





edited for spelling
 
Drew_Moberly said:
Angels and Demons IS the better book. 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.
Click to expand...

Looks like A & D is officially going to be a movie now, per TVguide.com. Just waiting to see if the actors remain the same.
 
kiltedcraftsman said:
Drew_Moberly said:
Angels and Demons IS the better book. 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.
Click to expand...

Looks like A & D is officially going to be a movie now, per TVguide.com. Just waiting to see if the actors remain the same.
Click to expand...

Sweet deal. The only character that has to say the same is Hanks though. If they changed who Langdon was that woudl be ludicrous. I just hope that this movie is a little bit more developed by plot opposed to dialogue.
 
Well I finally made it last night. I thoroughly enjoyed the flick. I was suprised by Hanks performance, I actually was ok with it. Its been so long since I read the book I didn't catch any difference in the ending :blush:

All in all, I hope Hanks remains as Langdon for A & D, or any others that come about. :thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top