da vinci code movie

The wife and I just got back from the movie.
A thriller is suppose to have energy and movement.
This movie was laid back and casual. Technically, it
was good, but it had no passion, no energy, no pizazz.
It just laid there and looked at you. Even the car chase scenes
had little energy. It was well acted, but the film was
by the numbers. There were some changes from the book,
but the changes were clearly meant to to keep the film
moving and they didn’t. My wife who has not read the
book like the movie far better then I did. Perhaps that
is the key, not reading the book. The movie does assume
you have read the book, because some things happen that
is not explained in the movie, but is in the book.

In a scale of 1 to 10 I would say maybe 5 or 6, because
of the acting.

Kropotkin

That’s a good assessment PK…found the same thing for having read the book first, but I have to say the book contained a lot of melodrama that the movie steered clear of. (A good thing).
I gave it more than you for the holding ambivalent, an important role to the giving of the story, for it to make it’s point.
I have always found when it comes to movie and book, always do the movie first.
-cp

I haven’t read the book. I thought some of the insights and information in the movie about the shapes in The Last Supper, the meaning of the hexagram, importance of balance in male and female energies and the church’s suppression of the female, the intentions of the editors of the bible, and the mortality of Jesus were important, but I read that The Da Vinci Code (book) is notable for mixing historical fact with historical fiction, which is allegedly a taboo in fiction, and so I’m not quit sure what is what. I wonder if there is a website out there going point-by-point on what’s true and what’s not. I think one would be good if not.

I thought the book was mediocre. It’s a potboiler enhanced by pseudo-history. The author was probably inspired by x-files, a show of which I was a big fan. He substituted pseudo-history for pseudo-science. I thought the movie was quite faithful to the book. Too faithful in fact because it was mediocre as well. The ending was anti-climatic. I give it 2.5 stars out of a possible 5. The .5 is for the pseudo-history which was the best part!

The author is virolently antiCatholic. Angels and Demons also slams the church.

The book was far better than the movie, which was very flat.

Smiles,

aspacia :sunglasses:

I really enjoyed both the movie and the book. I guess you just have to be willing to lose yourself instead of being caught up in what matches the book.

Ron Howard wouldn’t direct a movie that wasn’t awesome, anyway.

Tom Hanks seemed to be miscast in that movie, he didn’t seem to shine with any particular character. at least his presence pulled in the popularity, though. Magneto (whatever his name is) was pretty good though. i guess he always is.