View Full Version : Just Saw the DaVinci Code Movie
CoMoChief
05-20-2006, 12:07 AM
It was a great movie. For those people who gave it bad reviews can shove it. This was a good movie IMO. I suggest you go and see it.
Taco John
05-20-2006, 12:32 AM
I never let critics guide my decision to see a movie.
pak1983
05-20-2006, 12:40 AM
i agree, i just saw it as well and thought it was put together very nicely.
BWillie
05-20-2006, 12:52 AM
I heard it was just like National Treasure except with a relgious undertone.
beavis
05-20-2006, 12:57 AM
I was surprised at how true they stayed to the book. I think it may have had to do with me knowing what was going to happen, but overall I enjoyed the book more than the movie.
DaneMcCloud
05-20-2006, 01:00 AM
I heard it was just like National Treasure except with a relgious undertone.
Ah, no. But I did tease Turtletaub at dinner last May (the director of National Treasure) that he got all his Mason research from DVC.
He was the only guy at the table not to laugh.
stevieray
05-20-2006, 07:25 AM
Ah, no. But I did tease Turtletaub at dinner last May (the director of National Treasure) that he got all his Mason research from DVC.
He was the only guy at the table not to laugh.
hey everybody, dane is in hollywood!
:rolleyes:
nychief
05-20-2006, 07:30 AM
ron howard has not made a good movie since "splash."
stevieray
05-20-2006, 07:32 AM
ron howard has not made a good movie since "splash."
parenthood was pretty funny
nychief
05-20-2006, 07:34 AM
parenthood was pretty funny
not a huge fan. but better then some of his latter stuff. his films always look good, but the content is very neat... too neat.
gblowfish
05-20-2006, 07:47 AM
I saw the film last night at the cool old '50's retro Englewood Theater in Independence. I thought it was good, definitely not a movie for kids, too much dialogue..you have to pay attention and stuff...
It could have been about 20 minutes shorter...start to get fidgety after about two hours.
And Ron Howard has made lots of good movies since "Splash." I thought Apollo 13 was a really good movie.
Hammock Parties
05-20-2006, 07:48 AM
Anything that shits all over religion is fine by me. I'm seeing it Sunday. Haha! On Sunday! Get the irony?
stevieray
05-20-2006, 07:55 AM
I saw the film last night at the cool old '50's retro Englewood Theater in Independence. I thought it was good, definitely not a movie for kids, too much dialogue..you have to pay attention and stuff...
It could have been about 20 minutes shorter...start to get fidgety after about two hours.
And Ron Howard has made lots of good movies since "Splash." I thought Apollo 13 was a really good movie.
That theatre is awesome!
Adept Havelock
05-20-2006, 09:34 AM
ron howard has not made a good movie since "splash."
I don't know. I thought Cocoon, Gung Ho, Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind, Backdraft, and Ransom were all pretty good. He also did one of my favorites, "The Paper".
All better than Splash, IMNSHO.
Can't wait to see Da Vinci. It's at the Englewood? Fantastic! That place almost makes up for them razing the old Glenwood.
tyton75
05-20-2006, 01:24 PM
I watched it yesterday.. it was very good, and I liked the ending better than the book thanks to the visuals
I thought the beginning went a little too rapidly and I'm not sure if you DIDn't read the book if a viewer would be able to catch it all
Reaper16
05-20-2006, 01:53 PM
I watched it yesterday.. it was very good, and I liked the ending better than the book thanks to the visuals
I thought the beginning went a little too rapidly and I'm not sure if you DIDn't read the book if a viewer would be able to catch it all
I didn't read the book, but I thought the movie was very much easily digestible. My high school freshman little brother didn't read it either, and he was able to pick up on everything. (Even making two correct plot predictions along the way.)
Fire Me Boy!
05-21-2006, 12:09 AM
OK, take this for what it's worth... I'm a critic, afterall.
Meh. Not bad. Certainly not up to Ron Howard's par with Apollo 13, A Beautiful Mind or Cinderella Man. But Meh... not bad.
The biggest problem: they took all the excitement out of it.
Deberg_1990
05-21-2006, 12:17 AM
I have always loved Ron Howards movies. Sure, they are all "commercial" and "mainstream" but they guy knows how to craft solid entertainment.
My personal faves of his in no particular order:
Ransom
Apollo 13
Backdraft
Willow
Parenthood
Night Shift
The Missing (Very Overlooked and underrated)
Cocoon
Miles
05-21-2006, 12:20 AM
I never let critics guide my decision to see a movie.
Good reviews may interest me more in a movie I was wasn't really planning on seeing or had overlooked. Though bad reviews will usually not keep me away from something I think looks interesting.
Miles
05-21-2006, 12:22 AM
I have always loved Ron Howards movies. Sure, they are all "commercial" and "mainstream" but they guy knows how to craft solid entertainment.
Completly agree. I am almost always very entertained by his movies.
58-4ever
05-21-2006, 12:24 AM
I rented Capote tonight. Either I was really high, or that was a good movie. :hmmm:
Miles
05-21-2006, 12:25 AM
I rented Capote tonight. Either I was really high, or that was a good movie. :hmmm:
I vote its a damn good movie.
Logical
05-21-2006, 12:25 AM
Anything that shits all over religion is fine by me. I'm seeing it Sunday. Haha! On Sunday! Get the irony?
You will probably be suprised and disappointed. It disparagaes one religion to an extent, but not the concept of religion/faith.
Taco John
05-21-2006, 12:27 AM
Good reviews may interest me more in a movie I was wasn't really planning on seeing or had overlooked. Though bad reviews will usually not keep me away from something I think looks interesting.
That's a good way to put it.
58-4ever
05-21-2006, 12:28 AM
I vote its a damn good movie.
Probably a bit of both.
morphius
05-21-2006, 12:28 AM
You will probably be suprised and disappointed. It disparagaes one religion to an extent, but not the concept of religion/faith.
Don't ruin it for him, he decided long ago that there could be no God, because no God could have made someone as pathetic as him.
Of course I'm a moron or something...
Logical
05-21-2006, 12:32 AM
I do think they did some wonderful things with imagery that the book could not quite pull off. I also liked the intro scene where Langdon is giving the lecture. In fact the movie really took maximum advantage of imagery without looking gimmicky.
Megbert
05-21-2006, 12:47 AM
I saw it today and
ehhh
pretty much sums it up. I had read the book about a year ago so it wasn't fresh enough in my mind to be like wait-a-minute thats not like the book. Do agree it coulda been 20 min shorter.
Chiefs Pantalones
05-21-2006, 03:40 AM
I saw it, and thought it was dumb. I go by the Bible, though, not some stupid fictional story that people with a lot of time on their hands made up.
Tom Hanks is a good actor, though, but the story wasn't believable. The true story is in the Bible. People need to read that instead.
DaneMcCloud
05-21-2006, 03:58 AM
The story was far more believable than Tom Hanks acting.
Sully
05-21-2006, 08:47 AM
They strayed from the book in a few respects, but in good ways, IMO.
They explained what Logical is explaining in another thread. Basically, how would any of those "revelations" if true, affect your faith?
They also added more "argument" against the facts that Brown claims int he book, so as not to look like they were 100% endorsing it all, though the end story pretty much blows that up. The movie was good. No real character development, but I enjoyed it. I've rea the book 3 times, so it was odd seeing it on the screen, but I did like it.
keg in kc
05-28-2006, 01:03 PM
Just saw it.
Liked it.
As for taking the excitement out of it, as someone said earlier, I thought it pretty much followed the outline of the book, which itself stopped being exciting (in an action/movie sense) about 75% through. It's not exactly a read that ends in a blaze of gunfire and glory.
Even so, I enjoyed myself, and never once felt an urge to check my watch, which is what I consider the true measure of just how interested in a movie I really am.
Mr. Laz
05-28-2006, 02:15 PM
I go by the Bible, though, not some stupid fictional story that people with a lot of time on their hands made up
doesn't the bible say "Thou shalt not go around pantless" or something
'Hamas' Jenkins
05-28-2006, 03:29 PM
It was a decent movie. That's about all I can say for it.
Tribal Warfare
05-28-2006, 03:59 PM
I saw it, and thought it was dumb. I go by the Bible, though, not some stupid fictional story that people with a lot of time on their hands made up.
the irony of your comment is hilarious
Logical
05-28-2006, 05:26 PM
hey everybody, dane is in hollywood!
:rolleyes:
:thumbsdown: We don't give you shit when you share your artistry with us. You shouldn't dog Dane for sharing his career with us. I found the little story interesting.
stevieray
05-28-2006, 05:31 PM
:thumbsdown: We don't give you shit when you share your artistry with us. You shouldn't dog Dane for sharing his career with us. I found the little story interesting.
Well, I'd better conform to your line of thinking then. Because I sure do talk about my art alot.
Logical
05-28-2006, 05:33 PM
I saw it, and thought it was dumb. I go by the Bible, though, not some stupid fictional story that people with a lot of time on their hands made up.
Tom Hanks is a good actor, though, but the story wasn't believable. The true story is in the Bible. People need to read that instead.The bible is far more unbelievable actually. If you read with your mind and not your heart. Nothing wrong with your faith, nothing wrong with following the bible, but don't confuse that with claim the storys (parables) are all realistic. They clearly are not.
stevieray
05-28-2006, 05:34 PM
The bible is far more unbelievable actually. If you read with your mind and not your heart. Nothing wrong with your faith, nothing wrong with following the bible, but don't confuse that with claim the storys (parables) are all realistic. They clearly are not.
good for you decide these things for us in this free society.
Logical
05-28-2006, 05:35 PM
Well, I'd better conform to your line of thinking then. Because I sure do talk about my art alot.Actually you know I like your art Stevie but you have created whole threads on your art. I have not seen Dane doing that. He throws out an occasional interesting tidbit and that is it. I personally like it when anyone (like Mr. FAX as another example) shares stuff about there career. That is what make this a community.
Were you in bad mood when you wrote that post?
Pitt Gorilla
05-28-2006, 05:38 PM
:thumbsdown: We don't give you shit when you share your artistry with us. You shouldn't dog Dane for sharing his career with us. I found the little story interesting.It sounded more like a bit of jealousy; it was pretty harmless.
Logical
05-28-2006, 05:39 PM
The story was far more believable than Tom Hanks acting.
i somewhat disagree. I thought he did a good job of putting the thoughts related to the story into his characters portrayal. It was not a classic acting role and required some out of the box acting. Definitely not academy award acting mind you but done in a manner that you better grasped a story that could not be easy to put on screen.
Logical
05-28-2006, 05:40 PM
It sounded more like a bit of jealousy; it was pretty harmless.I almost said that, but I don't see Stevie as the jealous of someone else type. He loves what he does.
It's so funny how different people get different things from a movie. Art is weird that way.
I respect your opinion on all things, Mr. Logical. But, I was extremely disappointed in Hanks. It was impossible for me to suspend reality sufficiently to accept him in the role.
FAX
stevieray
05-28-2006, 06:36 PM
That is what make this a community.
I agree with this. Point taken.
Frankie
05-28-2006, 08:29 PM
It's so funny how different people get different things from a movie. Art is weird that way.
I respect your opinion on all things, Mr. Logical. But, I was extremely disappointed in Hanks. It was impossible for me to suspend reality sufficiently to accept him in the role.
FAX
Reading the book, I kept visualizing Gregory Peck in the Langdon role. But I grew up in the 60s. It would be interesting to imagine who would be cast for the book's characters if it had been written 40 years ago. :hmmm:
Reading the book, I kept visualizing Gregory Peck in the Langdon role. But I grew up in the 60s. It would be interesting to imagine who would be cast for the book's characters if it had been written 40 years ago. :hmmm:
That's an intriguing thought, Mr. Frankie.
My guess would be Jimmy Stewart although Peck would have been a natural choice as well. They both did a lot of those "bookish" roles.
In this case, I agree with (whoever posted this idea first)'s notion that they should have cast Depp. His star power and box office draw are equal to Hanks (if not greater) and, for me at least, might have brought additional depth and interest to the character. Maybe a "moodiness" that would have added a little complexity to Langdon to mirror the plot.
FAX
Frankie
05-28-2006, 09:05 PM
That's an intriguing thought, Mr. Frankie.
My guess would be Jimmy Stewart although Peck would have been a natural choice as well. They both did a lot of those "bookish" roles.
.....
FAX
Funny you should mention JS. I actually was torn between Peck and him. If someone like Stanley Donen were to direct (ala Charade or Arabesque) it would be Peck. If a darker version was made, I could see Hitchcock directing and Stewart playing Langdon.
vBulletin® v3.8.8, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.