Great review.

Marginal comment.

This film changed my life. I now look at religion, Jesus, Albinos, and old crippled english historians in a completely different way.

***1/2

How about pixie-ish Frenchwomen? Tautou can drive a mean reverse!!

No, I always thought they were excellent drivers.

No need to add anything.

Besides, while there's the guy who waits in line at midnight for a 360, what do we make of the other guy who comes just to laugh at people for waiting in line at midnight for a 360?

Just got back from seeing it.

C

they fucked up Langdon and Fache. Hank & Reno were bad choices to play them.
why did i read the book before seeing it.

Never read the book. Thought it was decent but inferior to National Treasure and The Ninth Gate. I give it a B.

Ninth Gate was a great movie - interesting comparison!

I liked The Ninth Gate quite a bit.

I'll add that one to my netflix list. Thanks guys.

After just finishing the book, and not yet seeing the film, Jean Reno seems like a peculiar choice for Fache.

*Spoilers*Fairly entertaining. I didn't read the book, but it was pretty easy to follow. The Council of Nicae did not decide biblical matters such as what books consituted the bible and what books were to be discarded. They tried to work out when was Easter and other matters that were unresolved by the early Church. The biggest controversy was if Christ was the perfect creation or a co-equal of God (from the same substance), this was known as the Arian (they believed He was a creation) controversy. The council ruled in favor of Christ being co-equal. It wasn't until the end of the 4th century that the canonization of the Bible occurred, at least 50 years after Constantine and Council of Nicae. There are so many historical inaccuracies like that throughout the movie, that the whole theory as Brown presents it has to be discarded. It is interesting to think of Christ in a different perspective and if he existed he was almost certainly married. I am just not sure it was Mary (although she is the most likely candidate) and that his children escaped to France. Did you know the only possible historical document of Christ written even close to the time of his life was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls? He left a will when he died at Masada in 73 CE at the age of 70 and had two children and a wife named Mary. I am surprised no one has ever written a blockbuster novel about that possibility. The controversy is whether this is the Jesus of Nazareth Christianity is based or another.

Anyways, the movie. Audrey Tatou's driving was too preposterous to be believed, that was probably the apex of ludicrous moments in the movie for me. Her acting wasn't that great, but she looked great. She reminded me of Genevive Bujold in Coma, except she didn't do anything, other than that just like Genevive. Tom Hanks was horribly miscast, I guess he did all right with the role, but it should have been Matthew McConaghy even Nicholas Cage anyone at least born after 1960. McKellen was very good, I identified with him more than anyone else. Reno was good but the whole episode with him beating the air traffic controller was so ridiculous, he would have been kicked off the case and suspended, but not in Dan Brown world or the whoever came up with the crap. The movie was not very suspenseful. I mean if you know anything about the basic plot, you know Tatou is the heir and McKellen is the bad boy of academia (Prof=Teacher, WOW). So there is not much suspense. I also don't get the whole thing of shielding the heirs. People like Da Vinci, Galileo, and Newton would have shouted the secret, they wouldn't have kept it. They were interested in the world and how it worked. Newton was very religious, but his religious beliefs waned as he realized the bible was not infallible. I don't think Da Vinci was religious nor cared either way, and he never let the Church interfere with his life or beliefs. Galileo wouldn't have used this "secret" as leverage in his trial, get outta here.

Still, the movie was enjoyable escapist entertainment and it made me think a little harder than the average Summer blockbuster. I give it one Opus Dei Albino, one Freemason, and one Knights Templar, or 3 stars out of 4.*Spoilers*

See, a problem I have with a lot of the reviews are that they are more about the religious theory than the film itself. "I don't believe his theory, it's ridiculous, so therefore it's a bad movie."

Well, you know what? I don't believe in hobbits but I liked Lord of the Rings. I don't believe in the force and I liked Star Wars. I don't believe in Jesus and I liked DaVinci Code.

Is the theory stupid? Yeah but no more than a lot of other films. If you treat the entire film as fiction, you can enjoy it.

That was my problem with all the reviews that stated that they hated JFK because they didn't agree with Garrison's theories. Like you Groucho, I don't believe in the KKK, but I liked Mississippi Burning. I don't think a man can crawl on walls yet I enjoyed Spiderman and I am not a mass murderer, but I love a lot of horror films.

It shouldn't be that hard to seperate what you believe from what is entertaining.

I was a big fan of the book, and DVC was my most anticipated movie of 2006. Unfortunately, my expectations were too high, as the movie didn't fully deliver. That being said, it was still an enjoyable movie.

First for what I didn't like: The movie cut corners around the book with little, yet important details like the number of cryptex devices, the details about Sophie as they were presented in the book, and the short explanation of Leigh Teabing being the teacher. In short, all my problems with the film were areas where they changed the book to make the movie smoother. Also, like the book, the ending was not completely satisfying, and it dragged after Teabing's arrest.

Now for what I liked: In spite of what's been said about the cast, I thought that every character was well casted. I had my doubts about Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon going in, as I would have casted an older actor (Harrison Ford would have been my top choice) in the role, as Langdon seemed to be described as older in the book. The best example of casting, however, was Ian McKellen as Leigh Teabing. He was absolutely fantastic in the role, as was Paul Bettany as Silas.

B+

You don't believe in the KKK?

Hm. I can't quite pin down my exact thoughts on this. On one hand, you have decent performances (remarkable on behalf of McKellen and Bettany), a wonderful second half, a faithful adaptation, great music, and above average cinematogrophy. On the other hand, the first half drags, the secondary characters have little exposition and the two leads don't get developed enough, and a lot of what were supposed ot be the action/tense scenes failed. But McKellen was so great. And, apparently, unlike many here, I absolutely loved the scene at Teabing's. The best part of the entire movie.

Anyway, I think I give it around a B/B+, but my thoughts are all over the scale on this one, so hat very well may change even in the next hour.

I thought the scene at Teabings wass the best part of the film.

A

Loved it. Maybe I have bipolar senses when watching movies, but I had the complete opposite reaction of the reviews. Dull? Not even close. I was riveted, on the edge of my seat for almost the entire thing. I was more entertained at this movie than at MI:3, and that's a hard feat. Seriously, I thought it rocked. I think Howard did a pretty good job too, a lot of the scenes were shot well, the lighting worked, there was solid atmosphere, the transferring of storylines worked. And unbelievably, I actually thought his shining moments were his action and thriller scenes, above all. Like I said, I was on the edge of my seat, biting my sweater strings beyond relief constantly through this movie.

Hanks and Tautou started off a bit stiff, but got better throughout right until the end where I was completley sold on them. I actually thought they and of course the fantastic McKellen had great chemistry, especially at the hold-up scene near the end. The movie showed a surprising amount of charm and heart, in that last scene between the leads, the last scene with the pyramid, and at just general scenes in the film.

#1 film of the year so far. I'm on kypade and Chip's side in this one, I thought it was fantastic.

Finally saw this one for Father's Day. My full review:

After having read the novel twice, I had confidence that a film adaptation could be quite good - the book was suited for it. Unfortunately, this was not the case. The movie was good, yes, but not as fantastic as it could have been. In fact, I would go so far as to say the book was better than the movie - I simply found it more entertaining. Still, this movie is a (fairly) faithful adaptation of the novel, with a few changes that don't really affect the overall story or theme.

Of the changes, the ones I found the most noteworthy were the added character development of Langdon - falling down a well? really? - and the missing puzzle, and of course the end. The end was where the film really dropped the ball - it is far too long, and the revelation could have been done much smoother and more effective. The beginning also could have been compacted - the scenes in the Louvre should have been longer, but the other scenes (Aringarosa & Silas) could have been significantly trimmed. The pace was quite uneven at the start, the cutting back and forth between the separate stories was far too jarring. Even the scene in the bank felt rushed; I couldn't help but feel that these scenes could have been much better realized. The movie didn't really find its groove until they get to Teabing's, where it took off. The scene where they are revealing the true nature of the grail was the best scene of the book, and it's even better in the movie with the accompanying flashbacks and the arguments between Langdon and Teabing (which are not present in the book but are welcome here). After that, the pace really picks up and the movie flies by until the climax - which, unfortunately, is a good 30 minutes before the end of the movie. Talk about a premature ending. I felt the villain reveal was kind of botched, also - it wasn't nearly shocking enough. The scenes at Roslin are needed but were boring, until the final conversation between Langdon and Neveu, where their chemistry finally showed itself. And the final scene was superbly done - much more effective than the novel. A very uneven product results.

The performances were all over the place. Hanks seems to be phoning it in until the scene in Teabing's mansion, where he holds his own against McKellan. I still think he was miscast. Tatou didn't really impress me, she felt kinda flat at times. McKellan was the star of the show, I even felt his performance was Oscar-worthy. It's a mark of his incredible performance that the movie immediately picked up once he entered. Reno was terribly inconsistant - considering the character was written for him, I felt he could have done a much better job. Bettany is sufficiently creepy as Silas - the first scene of him chastising himself went on a bit long, though. And Molina is wasted - I think the entire subplot with him getting money from the Church could have been dropped altogether, actually. No one else makes a decent impression.

Technically, this film is, again, all over the place. The production design was fantastic, but the lighting was off sometimes, and I felt that some of the art & architecture could have been highlighted better. The cinematography was appropriately sweeping at times, and not even noticeable at others. Same with the music - I didn't even notice it until the incredible final scene. The only aspect at which the film really excelled was, surprisingly, the visual effects - the historical flashbacks were very well done, and the visual style they incorporated was very effective. Howard does a decent, if not noteworthy, job directing - pretty much like all his other works. All this makes for an uneven result.

So, overall, this film is probably best described as 'inconsistant'. Story, performances, pace, technicalities - all were all over the place. Considering the book flows very well, this is the fault of the filmmakers. Still, it's a good film, but not the great one I was expecting.

One big question???

What was the deal with the ending - how did the blood in the sink lead Hanks to his book??? > which lead him to the outside plaques in the street > and then back to the muesum > and then to the triangles > and then to the tomb under the ground..................

Okay...I absolutely hated the book and it's nonsensical pseudo-intellectualism. And the fact that people felt smart for reading it, even though it's really just mindless and unfounded as most pop culture.

That said, the movie was somewhat entertaining, although it dragged in parts. Tom Hanks was good, as was Sir Ian, however, the rest of the acting was pretty mediocre. And thanks to Ron Howard's direction and the lead girl's limited ability, it was very anticlimatic. But, for some reason, I did enjoy this a bit.

C+

I'm one of those people who think the book is really just a piece of glorified crap, that plays around with very controversial subjects, but really isn't written very well. Brown's vast knowledge of all that stuff is amazing, as is his ability to grip you with a thriller, but his writing sucks. Like, actual writing. And the movie is bad because of that. And because you just can't make people talking for two and a half hours, with little clues about the whole damn plot sprinkled in every 5 minutes exciting.