PDA

View Full Version : The Da Vinci's Code [May 19, 2006]


beauty_is_pink
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:28 AM
I CANNOT waitttttttt for the movie to be open in threate!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

saw some sniplets on ET and it jus looks SO goood...
it better damn right not be a major letdown! :mad:


Love the book, and now I can't wait until the 19th to see it! :D



who else is excited? or dreading the release???

Alena
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:30 AM
I didn't like the book and I'm not waiting for the movie

Hayato
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:39 AM
I got bored with the book. Hopefully the movie will be better!

Mattographer
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:42 AM
I haven't read the book yet :p I prefer crimes books ;) I'll probably watch the movie :)

beauty_is_pink
Apr 13th, 2006, 11:44 AM
I actually can't believe a lot of people thought the book was a bore.. welll there was a lot of information and stuff.. but I was jus so hooked to the chase scenes and unravelling of the mysteries :p

Ceze
Apr 13th, 2006, 12:11 PM
I CANNOT waitttttttt for the movie to be open in threate!!!! :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

saw some sniplets on ET and it jus looks SO goood...
it better damn right not be a major letdown! :mad:


Love the book, and now I can't wait until the 19th to see it! :D



who else is excited? or dreading the release???I am, because of Audrey :hearts:

AjdeNate!
Apr 13th, 2006, 01:36 PM
Never read the book, doubtful I'll get a chance to see the film - although the trailer looks very good.

Haute
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:04 PM
I am, because of Audrey :hearts:

I haven't read the book, but that's the reason why I'm going to see! :p I love Audrey. :hearts: And I'm excited that Alfred Molina is in it as well. :yeah:

Ceze
Apr 13th, 2006, 02:10 PM
I haven't read the book, but that's the reason why I'm going to see! :p I love Audrey. :hearts: And I'm excited that Alfred Molina is in it as well. :yeah::worship: :worship: :worship:

Erika_Angel
Apr 13th, 2006, 06:22 PM
I think despite having a decent story, the book is just ... well limited ... no wait ... crap is the word I'm looking for.
I will definately see the film though, it should be good.

beauty_is_pink
May 18th, 2006, 03:20 AM
2 days!!! :drool:

Reckoner
May 18th, 2006, 03:34 AM
I'm keep reading that people are laughing at the serious parts and reviews have been terrible. Then again critics are usually harsh on movies.

Rohin.
May 18th, 2006, 03:35 AM
I think despite having a decent story, the book is just ... well limited ... no wait ... crap is the word I'm looking for.


lol

Rohin.
May 18th, 2006, 03:37 AM
I'm keep reading that people are laughing at the serious parts and reviews have been terrible. Then again critics are usually harsh on movies.

thats what they said on the news here too.

beauty_is_pink
May 18th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I'm keep reading that people are laughing at the serious parts and reviews have been terrible. Then again critics are usually harsh on movies.
ugh if this turns out bad I'm gonna be realli upset.. then again, usually when something is realli hyped up it turns out horrible....

dementieva's fan
May 18th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I'm surprised so many people did not lke the book :rolleyes:. I loved it. Can't wait for the movie to come out. :bounce:

Goai
May 18th, 2006, 04:08 AM
I think the casting could have been better. I might just watch the DVD...

ZeroSOFInfinity
May 18th, 2006, 04:16 AM
Critics are panning this movie....

Even audiences whistled and laughed at some scenes of the movie...

It must be bad. REALLY BAD.

Mattographer
May 18th, 2006, 04:22 AM
I am, because of Audrey :hearts:
She is the main reason I want watch this movie if I can ;)

firehorse
May 18th, 2006, 04:54 AM
I dont care what critics say...I will see it.
Even some critics say too much..osme of them do not know what they are talking about ( not on this movie)..I am just curious..I will go to see it....I want to see Albino, a monk assassin..Paul Bettany looks COOL

harloo
May 18th, 2006, 04:58 AM
I read the book and thought it was excellent. Now I can't wait to see the movie. Woot!!!

azmad_88
May 18th, 2006, 06:56 AM
book was mind blowing

movie shud be good..will be watching soon

beauty_is_pink
May 18th, 2006, 09:38 PM
tomorrow!!! :bounce:
who's going for opening day?

I'm not... :lol:

Edward.
May 18th, 2006, 09:57 PM
I'm seeing it tomorrow evening with mates. :)

I have a bad feeling though.....I hate Tom Hanks and don't think he fits the role at all. Most critics have said the same thing.

The rest of the cast is great though. Really great. :D

decemberlove
May 18th, 2006, 11:38 PM
Fuck the book. Fuck the movie.

PamShriverRockz
May 18th, 2006, 11:50 PM
Mmm I didn't like the book...but that was because I thought it just wasn't very well written at all...I'll go and see the film though, because the new releases recently have been sooooo dull and boring ;)

moby
May 19th, 2006, 01:28 AM
Most people who've read the book said it didn't live up to expectations, was worse than the book. I happen to think the book was a load of drivel, so where does that put the movie? :tape:

dementieva's fan
May 19th, 2006, 01:55 AM
Fuck the book. Fuck the movie.
fuck you :wavey:

ZeroSOFInfinity
May 19th, 2006, 02:34 AM
fuck you :wavey:

I wouldn't want you to fuck me :lol:

mandy7
May 19th, 2006, 06:23 AM
came out here yesterday
might go tonight or monday

i'm more excited about seeing X3 on thursday though :D

Dahveed
May 19th, 2006, 01:30 PM
Critics are panning this movie....

Even audiences whistled and laughed at some scenes of the movie...

It must be bad. REALLY BAD.

It is :)

Boring, long and blah.

Even Audrey Tautou that i really like is bad.

Oh well! Nice scenes of London and Paris to appreciate though! ;)

azmad_88
May 19th, 2006, 02:52 PM
watched it..i enjoyed it..

dementieva's fan
May 19th, 2006, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't want you to fuck me :lol:
Are you sure? :hehehe:

Maajken
May 19th, 2006, 06:33 PM
that book is just way overrated, it's not very well written at all, so i don't expect the movie version to be any better

Dana Marcy
May 19th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I'm keep reading that people are laughing at the serious parts and reviews have been terrible. Then again critics are usually harsh on movies.

I've read the same! Not sure if I'm gonna see it. :shrug:

ys
May 25th, 2006, 04:23 AM
Fuck the book. Fuck the movie.

Glorious review! :bigclap: My sentiment exactly. Extremely boring shit..

JonBcn
May 25th, 2006, 05:29 AM
I didnt read the book but I was forced to take my Mum to see it the other night, as she loved it. It was truly dreadful - one of the worst films I've ever seen. The script is laughable and the characters completely ridiculous, it was like an insult to my intelligence. Worse still, it goes on for ever...

Marcus1979
May 25th, 2006, 05:36 AM
the movie is around 2 hrs 45 mins in length.

I didn't mind it tho altho I don't read books much :o

it seemed to take a while for my friend as he was holding on for the last hour he thought his bladder may explode :lol:

gentenaire
May 25th, 2006, 08:42 AM
I looooove the NY times review:

The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence...

http://movies2.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/movies/17cnd-code.html?ex=1179460800&en=3eb410db3f28cd98&ei=5083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes

Halardfan
May 25th, 2006, 08:49 AM
I plan to watch the thing just to spite the god bothering lot, who are up in arms about the lack of truth in the book and film...but are strangely silent on the similar lack of truth in that bible thing. ;)

Julie
May 25th, 2006, 11:23 AM
loved the book, although i prefer some of his other books more, but htis was the first one i read when i was holiday in tunisia and it had me gripped from cover to cover.

thought the film was ok - it didnt do the book justice though and well it seemed to go on and on and on!

lucashg
May 25th, 2006, 02:15 PM
I haven't read the book, but seen the movie and it's okay, the story is interesting but highly flawed. I don't think Audrey Tautou was as bad as people are saying, but I was unimpressed with Tom Hanks (one of his worst roles ever?) and Jean Reno. Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen are the only ones who stand out, actually. I've heard the script is really faithful to the book, which cannot be considered as a compliment to the novel, I'm afraid.

The solving of the mysteries with use of symbology and history are nice, but the action drive in the chase scenes is really poor. I don't think it was boring, but could certainly have been much better. Some critics are being way too harsh and off-topic with their reviews, and those few who praise the movie are also being dellusional, but go see it for yourself.

Ryan
May 25th, 2006, 05:36 PM
I haven't read the book, but seen the movie and it's okay, the story is interesting but highly flawed. I don't think Audrey Tautou was as bad as people are saying, but I was unimpressed with Tom Hanks (one of his worst roles ever?) and Jean Reno. Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen are the only ones who stand out, actually. I've heard the script is really faithful to the book, which cannot be considered as a compliment to the novel, I'm afraid.

The solving of the mysteries with use of symbology and history are nice, but the action drive in the chase scenes is really poor. I don't think it was boring, but could certainly have been much better. Some critics are being way too harsh and off-topic with their reviews, and those few who praise the movie are also being dellusional, but go see it for yourself.


How is the story "highly flawed"? Just curious.


I thought Tom Hanks was boring, but did his job. Robert Langdon was a middle-aged, boring, Harvard Prof., and Hanks pulled it off. Sophie was shit except for some scenes, and Ian Mckellen was by far the best actor. I loved the book, and the movie did a pretty good job too.

smiler
May 25th, 2006, 05:43 PM
I read the book, and I thought it started well and then got really boring, I saw the film and I thought the same thing. It was a good story -they could have made it really good but they stuck too close to the book. Boring. :yawn:

gentenaire
May 25th, 2006, 08:47 PM
How is the story "highly flawed"?

Because it's based on a hoax.

Lord Nelson
May 25th, 2006, 09:47 PM
Because it's based on a hoax.
so is Buddha and co.

Drake1980
May 25th, 2006, 09:50 PM
I saw it on Monday!!! I thought it was decent. 7/10!!

gentenaire
May 25th, 2006, 09:59 PM
so is Buddha and co.

Why the obsession with Buddha? :confused:

Josh
May 25th, 2006, 11:51 PM
I didn't really like the movie, it was kinda boring and predictable.I never read the book but I've heard it's not very well written at all.

CondiLicious
May 26th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Firstly, Tom Hanks was okay but he really just seemed like he was going through the motions... He looked bored. Audrey Tautou bothered me a lot as Sophie. I guess because a couple of years ago when I first read the book I totally imagined Sophie Marceau as being Sophie and so I just couldn't accept Audrey. She was boring. The Sophie in the book is interesting. Bad casting.

I was entertained enough for pretty much the whole movie (which is what counts, I guess but then I find cheesey American soaps entertaining... doesn't mean they're good) but I expected more. The guy who directed National Treasure should have directed this movie instead of Ron *yawn* Howard... at least that movie, in my opinion, was kinda exciting and done with a bit of enthusiasm. I hear there's going to be a National Treasure 2... hopefully it will be a remake of The Da Vinci Code.

lucashg
May 26th, 2006, 04:49 AM
How is the story "highly flawed"? Just curious.

I meant as a movie and its screenplay, I'm not getting into the whole religious discussion (you didn't imply it, but just in case you thought I reffered to that - I really don't have much information nor will desire to know the exact foundations of Christianity). That said, I was talking about how some dialogues are pretty cheesy and poor, something that really hurts a dialogue-driven movie, and the action scenes are just not that good, IMO.

The investigation plot is good, and so interesting! While they spew perhaps too many information making some twists and turns rather predictable, most of it was needed for those who haven't read the book and still some people didn't even understand the movie completely so while that could be a flaw to some, some others do view as necessary.

And I didn't like how they didn't show much of anyone's background. Perhaps that's a flaw of the novel, but I felt that we needed to know more about everyone, especially Sophie, Langdon and Leigh, though Silas' story could be very interesting, as Aringarosa's.

The movie also seemed to play safe by having a rather neutral attitude towards what it presented in the first place, though it's also understandable why the author/screenwriter/director chose that road.

raddronald
May 26th, 2006, 08:59 AM
movie was slow. my movie friend fell asleep. book was waaay better.

ron howard, the direction??

Lord Nelson
May 26th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Why the obsession with Buddha? :confused:
because the argument you give should be used for all religions. Liberals such as yourself tend to lash out at religion which is ok but then praise Buddhism. Isn't the nirvana and afterlife stuff also based on a hoax?

gentenaire
May 26th, 2006, 10:15 PM
because the argument you give should be used for all religions. Liberals such as yourself tend to lash out at religion which is ok but then praise Buddhism. Isn't the nirvana and afterlife stuff also based on a hoax?

I've never praised Buddhism. I'm an atheist.
I'm liberal in the ecomonic as well social sense so basically I'm left when it comes to social issues and right when it comes to economical issues, so I'm not at all liberal in the American meaning of the word liberal. Liberal means more freedom, less state involvement so fewer taxes, no state telling me who should marry who, no state taking away responsiblity from people, etc. So if you want to call me a liberal, clarify what type of liberal you mean.

Josh
May 26th, 2006, 10:20 PM
because the argument you give should be used for all religions. Liberals such as yourself tend to lash out at religion which is ok but then praise Buddhism. Isn't the nirvana and afterlife stuff also based on a hoax?

I think Tine was refering to the Da Vinci Code as being a hoax, not religion. Or am I wrong?

gentenaire
May 27th, 2006, 06:44 AM
I think Tine was refering to the Da Vinci Code as being a hoax, not religion. Or am I wrong?

You got it right, Josh.

fifiricci
May 27th, 2006, 09:32 AM
because the argument you give should be used for all religions. Liberals such as yourself tend to lash out at religion which is ok but then praise Buddhism. Isn't the nirvana and afterlife stuff also based on a hoax?

You're very good at making vast generalisations about people and then putting words into their mouths :rolleyes: There was nothing in his post that targetted catholicism in the first place.

My take on all this is that the Catholic Church is LOVING all this publicity, underneath its mock outrage ;)