My mum and uncle saw the film (I was supposed to go, but I got called in for work at last minute - pisses me off). They both enjoyed the film, and liked the one advancement/change from the book (the added historical presence in the film, when in the book it was just glanced over). They, like everyone it seems, loved Ian McKellen as Teabing! Both read the book.

Hopefully I will be seeing this tomorrow or at least this weekend. T'was supposed to be this morning. Bleh.

PEACE, Mike.

Never read the book. Full-time atheist.

I enjoyed the film. It ran about 20 minutes too long, the 3rd, or more apt, 4th act, doesn't really work. And Tom Hanks seemed uncomfortable in the role.

But Sir Ian, wow, wow, wow, steals the show. Interesting visuals. Great locales.

B-

I haven't seen the movie yet, but the comments about Hanks' performance unsettles me. I never wanted him to be Langdon.. he just didn't fit the character (when reading the book, I always pictured Langdon looking like David Duchovony or Aaron Eckhart), and now to hear he seemed uncomfortable in the part.. on top of all the negative reviews. Mehh. I was heavily anticipating this movie (looveed the book), but now.. not so much.

To sir ian steals the show i say "Bullshit he does" He never rises above decent. Audrey Tautou is the true shining star in this project.

By the way, I thought the final 20 minutes was the best part of the movie. The first half is the worst.

I liked it, Its not the best film I've ever seen or controversial, afterall it is a fictional story. Its a lot like National Treasures older brother. I found the performances to be very good, especially reno, bettany, and McCellan. Although I agree Hanks doesnt look the part, it is Tom Hanks and he is at least believable and enjoyable.

Having never read the book, I didnt find it confusing or too talky. Actually I think a lot of readers may find it a little more boring, having knowing the entire story. I think as long as you have gone to church and know many of the stories, you won't be lost. But going into it, I don't think its amazing, merely a good adult thriller. The ending, which Im sure is suppose to be the main controversy, is not very believable, but for a movie it works. I feel this would have been much better if it wasn't based off the phenomenon that was the book.

All in all, get ready for a solid film with a great cast, good story, good direction, with a little uneven pacing and you will have a good time. B+ to an A-

Bizarro Film Criticism.

Was it bad? No
Was it slow and dull at times? Yes

It's kinda shocking that a movie such as this has the chance to make 300m. Not because it's bad but just because it doesnt feel like a big blockbuster nor is it one. I never read the book and I feel as though that made me enjoy the movie a bit more then if I did actually read it. My opinion isnt much different then others, Ian was great, he brought energy to the movie, while most other performances which surprisingly includes Hanks who though maybe not his fault the character just is kinda dull and resulted in what seemed at times sleepwalking acting. The movie doesnt deserve all the negative reviews it's been getting but it doesnt mean it deserves to be looked at highly because theres nothing very special to be found here. Overall bland and dull at times due to pacing issues but still keeps you interested though never really takes a big step up but never takes one down either.

Grade - B-

im in the direct opposite camp. I really felt blockbuster from this one. And you know, I think its universally agreed that the main problem with the film was its first acts pacing. I think they flung too much stuff to quickly together there and it made it slightly confusing and it diffused the potentially slow burning, stab and leave em effect.

But overall the whole film clicked together nicely.

I have one question to people who have read the book, did the movie make any major changes? Leave anything out? Is so
what?

The movi enot bad, its just kind of dull. I got bored int he middle, but I expect this base don having read Angels and Demons. The scene were Sophie confronts Albino boy was pretty cringeworthy. McKelllan was definitely fun to watch, Tautao handles some horrible dialogue and no character development well.

Hanks is sleep walking, remeber the days when he was an acting god, here is is a fine Langdon but I miss the days of Philadelphia.

The film wastes Jean Reno

(from the boyfriend) It also wastes Alfred Molino, correction is wastes everyone's talents. He thinks the film should get the lowest grade possible, I'm more forgiving. The film is what I expected when you pair a writer that I don;' think is all that great and a director that I don't think is all that great.

Most of the characters are paper thin.

Akiva is such a hot/cold screenwriter.

I don't like him, A Time to Kill was alright, otherwise I really dislike all his movies (save I. Robot which I did not see).

Batman Forever, Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, all worked for me.

Batman and Robin, I, Robot, Lost in Space, not so much.

Haven't seen CM, but otherwise I agree.

I really hope to see this sometime this weekend.

BF is not as bad as everyoen says it is, its campy fun but not something I;d watch again. CM and ABM, especially the latter, are like bad tv movies to me, both films hae performances they help them but not enough for me to like either.

i think Goldsman and Howard so work with other people, to me they both don;t bring enough to the table, I wish they work with someone who did, the balance might work better. I end fidning all their omvies togerhr jsut so meh, they just do nothing for me.

Cynthia, I know you have a penchant for typos as I do. But jesus woman! Crack is whack!

most negative feedback ive heard yet.

The only changes i really noticed where
at the beginning he doesnt go to his hotel room
his fear of enclosed spaces is developed more
flashbacks are used instead of characters just talking
Hanks' character is more cynical of the theory about mary magdelene in the film, apparently the voice of christian concern.
the original lecture appears slightly different than in the book
the westminister abbey place is dead in the book, but is quite busy in the movie
they get on a bus and use some dudes cellphone to find out about alexander pope
at the end, he doesnt go inside the louvre
there is another puzzle inside the Keystone (which is bigger in the book) and connects more directly with Sophie's name (SOVIA)
dunnan@msn.com says:
that puzzle leads to the effigies, another one leads to W. Abbey

Well, seeing as I loved the book, I haev to say that the film is pretty much exactly what I had hoped for and expected. It was about 10 minutes too long, but with the book offering up as much talk as it does, and with so many pieces of info to get across, there isn't much you can do about that. I thought the strong point of the film was the screenplay. It was talky but to translate what Brown wrote is difficult and Goldsman does a wonderful job of translating. I think if you like the book, you will like the film quite a bit. As I said, it is a bit long but it has to be to unravel the mystery.

A

Expanding on what Michael said. The film softened some of the dialogue a little. Constantine in this version didn't "create Christ's divinity" but he merely "popularized it". A lot in this section was softened with words like "theory" and small arguments which were not as evident in the book (Langdon is much more of a Teabing follower in the book). Also there are some given quips about how Opus Dei members all aren't crazy it's just these "extremeists", although this point was touched on in the book .

Sophie seeing her Grandfather fucking that woman played much a bigger tramatic part of her history and was the real reason she decided to stop talking to him. This wasn't as clearly stated in the film. The book goes into what that ritual is a bit mroe, it was kinda touched on in the movie.

At the end of the film the "priory" doesn't show up at Roslin, in fact, they don't find documents or anything. Langdon and Sophie go into the church and find the Star of David (a giant one on the floor) then some old woman shows up. She is NOT the grandmother, she is Sangiere's (sorry spelling) lover/wife who split up Sophie and her still-alive brother, Luke and Leia style. The brother would be the keeper. In the movie this is combined. Langdon and Sophie decide not to break the church floor and the lady tells her that it's not there anyway. The movie has more of a "holy grail" in this respect.

Langdon still goes and kneel's at the end, but there is no confirmation in the book that he is right, it's far more ambiguous.

The cryptex in the film is bigger and the answer they find on the film is like "SOVIA" which is Sophie's name (it has some meaning) and it has another cryptex inside which leads them eventually to W. Abbey and the Newton grave.

As mentioned there is no bus scene in the book, it's a much longer scene where they go to the library. It was better in the movie.

Fache (sorry spelling again) is a lot more sympathetic earlier in the film.

In the book, the way Teabing and Remy spied on the priory and found out their secrets is revealed (high tech set up in the barn). This wasn't necessary.

I thought the first 1/2 of the film was a mess, but I liked the second half. It's still very close to the book. Overall I enjoyed myself. I think it's better than the book (although the book is not OMFG amazing IMO).

Now I disappear again.

i think when andaroo likes a movie, its doing something right Hes one of the more critical people on the reviewing front.

I should add, this is how Fache learns that Langdon is not guilty, they show up and raid the mansion and find Remy/Teabing escaped and all of this equipment in the barn, there is nothing about a "false confession". From the moment they escape France, Fache is bascially chasing Teabing only (although this is hidden from the reader of the book until the last minute).

Fache, in the book, is portrayed as a career detective (I can't even remember if he was Opus Dei or just Roman Catholic in general) but he has no larger interest in the OD grail plot other than finding someone to nail for the murders of the four people.

Also in the book, I believe OD got money as a buy out for money that it invested in the RCC when it became part of it, but in the book the RCC is separating itself from the OD. So the money is a bit of a buy-off and the RCC generally has nothing to do with the rest of the plot of the film. The movie, surprisingly, implicates the RCC more than the book did.

That's how I remember it at least.

SPOILER FOR ME READ AT YOUR OWN RISK



























My biggest problem was the end. Did anyone else just think that Hanks and the girl would have more of a reaction to finding a relative to Jesus. I mean it proves the very end of christianity. I felt that it just wasn't shown well enough. and I felt it dragged because of it.

Maybe someone can clear this up for me, then, as I never finsihed the book. Teabing is on neither side right? He's neither a priory nor is he a opus dei extremist. He works both against eachother just because he's so obsessed with finding the Grail?

He's mad at the Priory because the truth about Mary M. was supposed to be revealed at the turn of the 21st Century according to Priory Legend (or so he believes). He kills them in order to learn the secrets and expose the information himself, so he uses the OD members' fear of the information to his advantage. In the book, Sophie has a lot of internal dialogue about the pros and cons of chasing the grail at all but by the time she gets to London, it becomes more life and death... this was touched on by Langdon at the end.

She decides that despite all the bad that she doesn't necessarily feel the need to take away anybody's faith from them and that the responsibility was too big for her to make such a rash decision on. Langdon basically supports whatever her decision is.

SPOILERS!

This was my most anticipated film of the year, but I was both disappointed, but at the same time, felt like I was just using up 2 hours of time sitting there, but that the movie didn't really transcend into something more than just a movie. I had a indifferent feeling toward it. This will sound like the weirdest thing ever, but I somehow enjoyed National Treasure more than this, as the characters seemed much more interested in solving one of the character mysteries ever, while in this film, it seemed like it was Nancy Drew and long haired friend solving school riddles and hardly even caring about what a huge riddle they were trying to solve. They felt emotionless. Pacing was a problem, and is even more profound in a film like this. I have read the book, and also wasn't happy with how they wrapped up some of the ends, and changed the book. The reunion at the end of the movie seemed awkward, while it felt so much more real in the book. We get to hear from Sophie's brother, and Langdon putting two and two together, while in this film, it was just sprung on her. Also didn't like the fact that they implied that he wasn't Sophie's grandfather. The brother and sister were separated, and elaborating a bit more on this story may have made the film overall a bit more coherant. The reunion was one of my favorite scenes in the book, so I felt Howard just didn't handle these scenes well at all. Suggesting that he wasn't her grandfather was a poor directing choice, and I just didn't like that addition as it made the ending seem even more choppy and disoriented, and wasn't true to the theme of the book, which emphasized how much the two of them wanted a granddaughter-grandfather relationship but just couldn't, and to what lengths he went to protect her (separating her from her sibling).

The Da Vinci Code is not that well written a novel, but I got the impression that someone like Jerry Bruckheimer, and the National Treasure crew could have made this a really, really improved film. I NEVER would have seen myself saying that, but Bruckheimer seems more good at this type of story. I really enjoyed the book, and gave the film the benefit of the doubt by not really listening to the reviews, but if your not going to be faithful to the book, in some of its most pivotal scenes, then I can only give him so much credit.

Hanks was miscast, Audrey really wasn't at her best, but Bettany and McKellan were great.

B-

BTW, its been a while since I read the book, so forgive me if I can't remember exact book details...