Da Vinci reviews

Reading the book is an advantage to seeing the film. My friend who hasn't read it found many parts quite confusing and I had to explain some of the plot holes.
He quite rightly spotted the areas which had been cut out by asking things like how did they know to do that? why did they decide to go there? etc etc

I need to re read the end of the book as I'm sure it went off quite a bit from the book (although it roughly ended up in the same place) I don't quite understand the point of this as their version made quite a few people watching laugh.

The acting is quite weak. Sophie was quite shocking and didn't portry the strong and intelligent woman she is in the book. I also felt Tom Hanks was quite wooden. I just didn't warm to them on screen.

Also, is Silas' motives different from the book?

Overall it's average but I think it's a hard book to adapt to the big screen and perhaps some more time should have been taken on it.
 
I agree, it is a hard one to adapt. I thought they did quite a good job of the exposition. It can be very static just to have facts and information reeled off by the characters, which is what happens a lot in the book.
 
I was watching This Morning yesterday and the Presenter they had in Cannes said that the Director was still editing the movie three days before the screening in Cannes. Also the press were not given any food when they went to the after show party, where none of the cast turned up. It was just execs in the vip area - where they did have food and $4000 goodie bags.
 
well I watched it last night. I didnt read the book.
I enjoyed it - thought it was good but not excellent. It was a bit dull in parts but overall was good.

You have to really pay attention/concentrate to it all though because if you miss something or dont understand it then your wondering whats going on.

I would give it 7/10
You should go and see it
 
I went to see it last night i thought it was quite good although not the best film i've seen this year! i'm thinking about buying the book now. Tom Hanks was a bit crap, though. I enjoyed the soundtrack!
 
The book is badly written, and I read it 2 years ago before all the hype! I thought the character was downwritten, she seemed like a typical holywood useless female who neeRAB a man help save her. The church is very blurred who is who, how they link together. The changes at the end (filmed near me at Roslin), I thought were unnecessary, but very holywood! If you haven't read the book, don't let that stop you, but the film may be confusing in places (as with any book-to-film adaption). As for it being contraversal, wellok the idea of the central plot is, but its based on a work of fiction, by over reacting the church makes people read more into this that they should! Overall it was patchy, I was not swept away by it, but did pass the time amiabley...I would give it 4/10.
 
Ill see if i can download it first. Iv just bought the book & im going to Spain next week & its gonna take about 5hours to get to the airport so ill read it then.
 
Well I saw it last night.

I thought it was dull, slow, poorly scripted, over and under acted (except for Ian McKellen who was marvellous as usual), and the flashbacks made me laugh.

Oh and yes! Stick Sophie in a tartan shawl so we remember she's in Scotland!

And it was on a Friday. And it was the 13th. *gasps* Friday the 13th!

The best bit about it was the girl in the loo afterwarRAB talking to her mate on the phone saying it was too confusing, she didn't understand it, and that you'd have to be smarter to get it *dies laughing*

It was a bad bad adaptation of a fairly exciting, if not literary, book...
 
Big disapointment in my opinion. Whilst reading the book it felt like reading a movie, so I thought it would make the transition to screen quite easily... shame it didn't.

Can't help but feel the whole movie was cast wrongly! Tom Planks was his usual wooden self, Audrey Tatou had no screen presence (and she's a good actress) and Jean Reno looked like he was going through the motions. Thank goodness for Bettany & McKellan though!

No doubt they will now look at Angels & Demons to turn into a movie... just hope they make a better hash of it than this.

Having said all of that, it's not a bad movie... just a little long. And having watched it with people who have NOT read the book, they found it a tad confusing.

7/10
 
I went to see it last night and wasn't disappointed as I had low expectations. I read the book and really enjoyed it for what it is - just a trashy piece of fiction. It is difficult to condense a fairly intricate story into 2 and half hours. I think if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have had a clue what was going on. Infact I am probably more confused now than I was when I finished the book - but it doesn't take much to confuse me. People did leave the cinema before it had finished, and I must admit it didn't engage me.
 
why do people watch movies once they've read the book? a) you know everything that's going to happen (unless poetic licence has been used), and b) 95% of the time it tarnishes the person's memory of the book.

i try and steer clear where possible
 
It a bad movie, Silas isn't played well at all, and Sophie is wooden and 1 dimensional. It starts off decent, but quickly desenRAB into chaos. I very nearly did walk out, and thats something I've never done.
It was for me, very much of a case of when will this toryure end!? Oh and the flashbacks to their own pasts and history is incredibly naff!
At best, its a 5/10
 
"Jacques Sauniere wasn't your grandfather." Could have sworn he was, and I had a flick through the back of the book today to check and it looked like he was...
 
Swirlygirl and Snoop good posts. I agree with the both of you.

Terrible film.

Agony to watch apart from the old fruit Sir Ian who was fab as per usual :)
 
Back
Top