| (07.26) | Lady in the Water  |
| (05.21) | Da Vinci Code, The  |
| (05.06) | United 93  |
| (02.05) | King Kong  |
| (01.29) | Syriana |
| (01.24) | Walk the Line |
| (01.05) | Chronicles of Narnia, The: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe  |
| (01.02) | Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire |
| (12.30) | Jarhead |
| (12.27) | Wallace & Gromit in The Curse of the Were-Rabbit |
| (12.05) | randy: Polar Express, The |
| (12.02) | Geoff: Polar Express, The |
| (07.27) | Jen: Lady in the Water |
| (07.27) | Justin: Lady in the Water |
| (07.12) | Sarah: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Chris: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.25) | Acceler8: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.21) | Mr Plow: Da Vinci Code, The |
| (05.11) | Sarah: United 93 |
| (05.11) | Bread: United 93 |
Dan Brown's novel is one of those "guilty pleasures" that is terribly written and chock-full of preposterous ideas passed off as 'fact'. But dammit if it isn't a page-turner in the truest sense, and if Brown doesn't somehow make those preposterous ideas seem so obviously true. It's a completely trashy book, but it was a blast to read.
I was hoping the film might've felt similar. Unfortunately, it lacks most of the book's urgency and it really cuts down on the (admittedly quite interesting, although, as I've said twice already, preposterous) theories about Jesus and Christianity that Brown discusses at length in the book. What's left is a fairly mundane 'intellectual adventure' story that feels, more than anything, like all of the talent involved is simply cashing in a large paycheque (with the exception of the always-exceptional Ian McKellan). It's generally unexciting, and despite the incredible locations that the story takes place in, it's dull and drab and not particularly good looking (the book had better visuals than the movie). It also has one of the worst-shot and worst-edited car chase scenes I've ever seen.
I suppose I should've expected this. The excitement in the book comes more from intellectual, internal revelations delivered via dialogue or not even spoken at all -- just narrated. The trashy writing in the book was more-or-less acceptable because it was the ideas that carried weight, rather than the characters (come to think of it, both the book's and the movie's version of protagonist Robert Langdon have almost no real 'character' at all). With some of the book's ideas being short-changed in the movie, we're left with a movie full of substandard, excessively-expository dialogue.
While the movie version of The Da Vinci Code is not exactly terrible, take it from me that the book is way more exciting and much faster-paced. This is a movie that definitely didn't need to be made, and I'd recommend that, if you liked the book and want to see a filmed version, check out National Treasure instead.
I agree, it was really, really ...."meh".... I thought the acting was decent for the most part, I especially enjoyed Paul Bettany's role as Silas. But the whole thing just lacked something that could make me feel anything but underwhelmed by it. My biggest problem with it was the dialogue. I mean it's not a very well written book so I assumed screenwriter Akiva Goldsman would have maybe improved upon it for this adaptation. But, wow, overall it was just so bland that I honestly wanted to rip off my ears whenever Hanks' would begin speaking. overall I'd give it a 5/10. Do yourselves a favour and go see Over The Hedge instead.
I think your being a little over critical on this one. I enjoyed the movie overall. One of the main things that bothered me was Silas. I didnt like him nearly as much as the book. I pictured him as more of an ugly brute. He came accross as a pretty boy with makeup on the movie I thought.
I liked the movie more than I expected but less than I hoped. If I hadn't read the book I think I'd be completely lost in trying to figure out Silas. They did a 30 second flash back of his life whereas in the book they actually explain what his history is. I was not a fan of alot of the acting. Tom Hanks was a good choice for the character but brought very little to this movie. A lot of things seems conry when it came to deciphering the codes. It was like, "Ah yes, I know this." And the ending seemed different from what I remembered of the book. I mean, wasn't that guy Sophie's brother in the book? Like I said, it was alright, more like brain candy than anything else.
Geoff, I take issue with you writing off the theories of Christ and Christianity as "preposterous", and I will explain why in a moment.
The movie was terrible compared to the book. They messed up entire sections, re-wrote some parts, and as such disrupted the continuity factor, and did not explain others. I think I would have preferred the movie more if I hadn't read the book first, howeveer, I only understood the movie because I had in fact read the book. Talk about a catch 22.
Now, to address my issue with your claim that the theories about Christ are preposterous:
You do not know that they are not true. Now, I believe that they may quite possibly be so, but I do not know for sure, so at best, either of us can only claim that we do not know the truth. Anything else is a fallacy of argument.
You must remember that the current bible is the King James version, and this was only published in the 17th century. James wanted a book that would be accessible to the masses, and commissioned this work to be created. I am not disputing that what has been presented in the bible is true, I am just saying that when anyone compiles a work, there are obvious things that must be left out. Look at any anthology to see that this is true.
Also, the bible is a translation from earlier texts, and by nature discrepancies occur when dealing with translations. And please note that the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until 1947-1956, so these documents were not able to be included in what is known as the 'official' version of the Holy Book.
The Gnostic Gospels were also not included in the KJV Bible, and it is here where much of the relationship between Christ and Mary Magdalene is discussed. They also detail a world where women were much more involved in the practices of politics, religion, and the home. Indeed, it would seem that men and women were much more equal in earlier times. The KJV bible perpetuates the patriarchial system that developed from before medieval times, and supports the continuation of these practices.
The Vatican does have a vast library of rare documents that are not for public view (as discussed by Dan Brown in Angels and Demons), so how are we to know what is secreted there? To have it confirmed that Jesus was just a man, albeit a spectacular one, and married to a woman, propegating, would undermine the basis of not only political patriarchy, but also that of the Church, where priests are not able to marry, and sex is forbidden, in order to make the holy men more akin to the accepted form of Jesus.
Anyway, just keep your mind open to the possibilities. The theories presented not only by Dan Brown, but also by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln, are plausible. Some may not like them, but that is not reason to completely write them off.