View Full Version : The "Da Vinci Code"
sligoman
27/05/2006, 11:26 AM
I didn't put this in the Current Affairs forum because I just want to know what ye thought of the film itself, not if ye believe it's true or anything.
Went to it last night. I thought it was a good film, never read the book(but plan to) so didn't know what to expect. I had heard people say it was over-rated because of all the hype but I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it. Opinions?
dahamsta
27/05/2006, 12:02 PM
Ain't seen the flick yet but I liked the book, despite the detractors. IMHO most of them are either fundamentalist christian nutjobs, or morons that fell for the fiction hook, line and sinker. Neither matter a dime to me. I reckon I'll be disappointed by the film though, simply because stories like this rarely cross over well.
Dazzy
27/05/2006, 12:32 PM
Ain't seen the flick yet but I liked the book, despite the detractors. IMHO most of them are either fundamentalist christian nutjobs, or morons that fell for the fiction hook, line and sinker. Neither matter a dime to me. I reckon I'll be disappointed by the film though, simply because stories like this rarely cross over well.
You would be right, was very disappointed with the film after reading the book.
Risteard
27/05/2006, 3:31 PM
Thought the film was v.good(though i'm easily impressed by films).
Definately well worth making.
I thought it would be a bit baffling for someone who hadn't read it though.
Taking my 10year old brother to see it tomorrow.
He'll be lost.
Partizan
27/05/2006, 5:01 PM
Never mind the 'Christian nutjobs' as dahamsta said, heard that a few of their Islamic counterparts in Pakistan have also taken issue with the movie.
lim abroad
27/05/2006, 5:24 PM
came home after watching the film to find tom hanks in my bathoom looking for more clues in the cistern of my toilet
finlma
27/05/2006, 6:51 PM
The book was a trash novel at best - fodder for the masses. Films are generally worse so I'll be giving it a wide berth.
I liked the book....
Must say i'm Shocked :eek:
dahamsta
28/05/2006, 1:30 AM
Just saw the flick, thought it was pretty good. Exception that proves the rule I guess.
Gaillimh Al
28/05/2006, 10:08 AM
Such a letdown after a good book....tom hanks awful choice, as was dude who played fache. He was supposed to have cut an hour and a half off.
Books are always better than the film version, so i suppose this was nothing new.
Drumcondra Red
28/05/2006, 11:52 AM
Really liked the book, going to see the film tonight, I think, will keep you posted!!!
I too am easily impressed by films...
I thought the book was a great read. The film was ok but as with most books
turned films the book was better.
Just read in one of the Sunday papers that Ian Mckelland (?sp) is saying the
reason there have been mixed opinions about the film is because it's based on
a rubbish book!!!
Drumcondra Red
29/05/2006, 8:26 AM
I enjoyed the film anyway!
the 12 th man
29/05/2006, 8:51 AM
The book was a trash novel at best - fodder for the masses.
RE the book:I don't think any book could stand up to the reputation that the hype machine built up for it.If you managed to read it (the book) when it came out first I think you might think different.Some of the devices described in the book were ingenius.
It seems to be fashionable right now for the Press to bash it.
dahamsta
29/05/2006, 9:06 AM
I just don't understand the knockers to be honest. They don't make any sense.
"It's based on an inaccurate premise."
"It's fiction."
"It uses flawed arguments."
"It's fiction."
"It mixes reality and imagination."
"It's fiction."
"It's unrealistic."
"It's fiction."
"It's sacriligeous."
"It's fiction. And yay."
I just don't understand the knockers to be honest. They don't make any sense.
Most of it is down the the extreme hype (and therefore snobbery) and the refusal of Browne to admit its fiction.
John83
29/05/2006, 11:42 AM
Most of it is down the the extreme hype (and therefore snobbery) and the refusal of Browne to admit its fiction.
There are also people who don't want to go see a film that had its tense moments laughed at in Cannes, where the great plot revelation will be that... Jesus and Mary Magdeline - hang on, I know about this already - who cares? It'd be like trying to watch the Usual Suspects already knowing the twist? Or Fight Club? There's no tension, no surprise. That makes for a really terrible thriller.
Then you have stupidity like a Professor of the mythical discipline of "symbology", a malapropism devised by idiots in order not to confuse the public with a real word like "semiotics". It's like calling psychiatry "talk-about-it-ology." I'm told that the film opens with a lecture in Paris about how "symbology" is the study of symbols (Really? Fascinating), and then, for those of you too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, that symbols are a form of language.
I'm told that many scenes contain revelations along the lines of:
Hanks, "Wait a minute... What if the letters are mixed up?"
Tautou, (supposedly a cryptographer?) "You mean... an anagram?"
I'm not surprised that the church sees something as idiotic as The Da Vinci Code as a threat - clearly they know their audience.
dahamsta
29/05/2006, 11:53 AM
There are also people who don't want to go see a film that had its tense moments laughed at in Cannes, where the great plot revelation will be that... Jesus and Mary Magdeline - hang on, I know about this already - who cares? It'd be like trying to watch the Usual Suspects already knowing the twist? Or Fight Club? There's no tension, no surprise. That makes for a really terrible thriller.
Then you have stupidity like a Professor of the mythical discipline of "symbology", a malapropism devised by idiots in order not to confuse the public with a real word like "semiotics". It's like calling psychiatry "talk-about-it-ology." I'm told that the film opens with a lecture in Paris about how "symbology" is the study of symbols (Really? Fascinating), and then, for those of you too stupid to walk and chew gum at the same time, that symbols are a form of language.
I'm told that many scenes contain revelations along the lines of:
Hanks, "Wait a minute... What if the letters are mixed up?"
Tautou, (supposedly a cryptographer?) "You mean... an anagram?"
"It's fiction."*koff*
John83
29/05/2006, 11:56 AM
*koff* Scoff if you like, but fiction doesn't have to be inane or pander to imbeciles.
Dodge
29/05/2006, 11:57 AM
There are also people who don't want to go see a film that had its tense moments laughed at in Cannes
I thought he was talking purely about the book.
Knockers of the film just think its cack (me included)
dahamsta
29/05/2006, 12:14 PM
Scoff if you like, but fiction doesn't have to be inane or pander to imbeciles.It doesn't pander to imbeciles, it plays to some extent to the lowest common denominator, because t'internet and other modern social networks have homogenised our society. If you don't like this, I'm afraid you'll have to exit society. (Believe me, sometimes I wish it was an option.)
Yes, there are flaws with the movie, and the book; yes, they dumbed them down. If you haven't noticed this before, you haven't been reading a whole lot of books or watching a whole lot of movies lately. This is not a judgement, simply a statement of fact.
It's not just a modern thing either. Pick your favourite movie and someone out there will already have found problems with it.
adam
Dodge
29/05/2006, 12:17 PM
Goodfellas. I f***ing dare you...
John83
29/05/2006, 12:18 PM
I thought he was talking purely about the book.
First post:
...I just want to know what ye thought of the film itself...
:p
Goodfellas. I f***ing dare you...
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film557
John83
29/05/2006, 12:30 PM
It doesn't pander to imbeciles, it plays to some extent to the lowest common denominator
Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.
If you don't like this, I'm afraid you'll have to exit society. (Believe me, sometimes I wish it was an option.)
You could just not give money to people making that sort of thing. :rolleyes:
...yes, they dumbed them down. If you haven't noticed this before, you haven't been reading a whole lot of books or watching a whole lot of movies lately.
I'm always critical of stupidity in film and TV. This one happens to have a taller soapbox than most. Look at the film's reviews though. Try an aggregator like rottentomatoes.com. On that, it's scored 23% - an almost universal sign of a poor movie. It's still making an obscene amount of money.
It's not just a modern thing either. Pick your favourite movie and someone out there will already have found problems with it.
There are errors in everything. There are levels I'll tolerate - levels I won't notice either. This is far past that threshold.
Dodge
29/05/2006, 12:31 PM
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film557
All of which can be easily explained. When I have time. later probably Or maybe tomorrow. I dunno, I'll gwet back to you...
dahamsta
29/05/2006, 12:46 PM
Here's (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099685/goofs) a few more from Goodfella, in case that site missed anything.
John83, each to their own. Every movie has mistakes, goofs, even stupid moments. I noticed some of them in the movie, even scoffed at a few. I still enjoyed it, so it was money well spent. I don't think it made me any more imbecilic than I already was, and I'm pretty sure that at least technically, I wasn't an imbecile before I saw it.
adam
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.