The "Da Vinci Code"

Printable View

27/05/2006, 11:26 AM
sligoman

The "Da Vinci Code"

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?
27/05/2006, 12:02 PM
dahamsta

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.
27/05/2006, 12:32 PM
Dazzy

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.
27/05/2006, 3:31 PM
Risteard

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.
27/05/2006, 4:09 PM
Dodge

Awful film. Truely awful
27/05/2006, 5:01 PM
Partizan

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.
27/05/2006, 5:24 PM
lim abroad

came home after watching the film to find tom hanks in my bathoom looking for more clues in the cistern of my toilet
27/05/2006, 6:51 PM
finlma

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.
27/05/2006, 8:48 PM
pete

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

I liked the book....

Must say i'm Shocked :eek:
28/05/2006, 1:30 AM
dahamsta

Just saw the flick, thought it was pretty good. Exception that proves the rule I guess.
28/05/2006, 10:08 AM
Gaillimh Al

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.
28/05/2006, 11:52 AM
Drumcondra Red

Really liked the book, going to see the film tonight, I think, will keep you posted!!!

I too am easily impressed by films...
29/05/2006, 8:16 AM
Ash

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!!!
29/05/2006, 8:26 AM
Drumcondra Red

I enjoyed the film anyway!
29/05/2006, 8:51 AM
the 12 th man

Quote:

Originally Posted by finlma

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.
29/05/2006, 9:06 AM
dahamsta

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."
29/05/2006, 9:59 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

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.
29/05/2006, 11:42 AM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

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.
29/05/2006, 11:53 AM
dahamsta

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

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?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

"It's fiction."

*koff*
29/05/2006, 11:56 AM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

*koff*

Scoff if you like, but fiction doesn't have to be inane or pander to imbeciles.
29/05/2006, 11:57 AM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

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)
29/05/2006, 12:14 PM
dahamsta

Quote:

Originally Posted by John83

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
29/05/2006, 12:17 PM
Dodge

Goodfellas. I f***ing dare you...
29/05/2006, 12:18 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

I thought he was talking purely about the book.

First post:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sligoman

...I just want to know what ye thought of the film itself...

:p
29/05/2006, 12:22 PM
Ash

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodge

Goodfellas. I f***ing dare you...

http://www.moviemistakes.com/film557
29/05/2006, 12:30 PM
John83

Quote:

Originally Posted by dahamsta

It doesn't pander to imbeciles, it plays to some extent to the lowest common denominator

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to.

Quote:

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:

Quote:

...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.

Quote:

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.
29/05/2006, 12:31 PM
Dodge

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ash

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...
29/05/2006, 12:46 PM
dahamsta

Here's 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