Da Vinci reviews

Gee - current rating at Rotten Tomatoes (overview of all reviews) is 0%! It is, by all accounts, an absolute stinker. The preview audience laughed at it.

A phenomenal best selling novel... Tom Hanks... Ron Howard... where does the problem lie? At a wild guess I'll pick writer Akiva GolRABman... the genius man who gave the world Lost In Space, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin and Practical Magic. Yup, I reckon he could screw up practically anything...
 
This is my first post, I feel compelled to finally post .

It is a truly awful film!

I loved the book and thought the film would be great, how wrong I was!
 
Not much hope of that after the gawd awful translation they did of GOF, one of the worst ever!

OOTP is a helluva lot longer than GOF and the hacked it to piecies to fit it into 2.5 hours.
 
Anyone who actually took time to read the book and didn't get swept up in the hype would say the book is shit and to prove that it has spawned an equally shit film.

Apparently, when it was screened in Cannes, people couldn't find a good word to say about it and they actually burst out laughing at the corny line at the end.
 
Couldn't agree more. Of recent blockbuster adaptations, only Narnia has got it right IMHO. I think it's much easier to make a good film out of a short story (LWW) than a big thick paperweight like Da Vinci or the Harry Potter books. All credit to Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens for the LOTR adaptations, which was brilliant work.
 
We saw the film last night, thoroughly enjoyed it, yes they have changed parts of it, but name any film where they have stuck exactly to the book and not deviated.

I guess most of the newspapers film critics write their reviews in the bar and very few see the films they review from beginning to end.
 
I thought Audrey was great, although not knowing Isabelle's work I couldn't comment on her suitability. But Audrey's Sophie was how I imagined in the book (even though Tom Hanks's Langdon was not quite right in my mind).
 
I really enjoyed it. Didn't think I would after all the reviews of read but over all it was a good film- not the best thing i've ever seen but not the worst.

It did seem a little bit long but it stuck to the book almost exactly... if it hadn't i think i'd have had bigger issues.

I think that all the actors were brilliant which was what made the film so good. Was nice to see everything visualised.
 
I saw the movie last night in proper anticipation. Tom Hanks, Ron Howard - Happy Days....or so I thought. As everyone has said 'much anticipated movie of the year!'. Boy did it suck. It would have been easier and cheaper to have had some guy sitting in an armchair and reading the book to us out loud. The budget for the stunt and special effects scenes must have been all of three and a half pence.

Tom was more woody than.....Woody!

Somehow I feel that although they may have duped millions to see this terrible film I suspect they are not going to make much money on the DVD release (once bitten-twice shy springs to mind).

Come on guys you could do better :mad:
 
I couldn't disagree more actually. Narnia got it completely wrong, it was cold, it's characters lacked charisma and it was too long. Gof was superior to it. The Potter films are far from perfect but at least I give a toss about the characters.
I do agree that it's far harder to adapt a long book than a short one though.

Saw Da Vinci last night, it was fine, nothing special but still fun, a bit too long.
 
Back
Top