The Da Vinci Code (2006) (SPOILERS possible - but use spoiler space)

  • Thread starter Thread starter S.A.S.H.A.
  • Start date Start date
I cant wait to see it again! Im so buying the dvd when it comes out too!

edt- i was just reading back in this thread and seeing how people complained about Audrey being wrong 4 sophie...i thought this too..until i saw the movie!!

Man, how wrong were we!!!!!

As for Tom I think he did really well not to overshadow the subject matter by being 'Tom Hanks' i hardly noticed him at all...lol
 
i agree with you Tiger. i think some of the people that are against this movie have forgotton that although it talks about 2 real societies, you find The DaVinci Code in the fiction section,not non-fiction.
 
Or rather the other reviews are a let down.

About Harison Ford being cast instead. I think that derives from the fact that Dan Brown himself said he was thinking of Harison as Indiana Jones while creating Robert Langdon's character. If only we could go back in time and get him.
 
Hmm, somehow I can't get out the image of Gregory Peck out of my mind. While reading the book I had always envisioned Langdon as something of Gregory Peck in To Kill a Mockingbird. Which, yes, I know is practically impossible to achieve in this matter. The next choice for me is probably Colin Firth or Ralph Fiennes. I mean, Tom Hanks is fabulous. But he's not really fit to be Robert Langdong.

And neither is Audrey Tattou. I loved her in Amelie. She was absolutely adorable. But Sophie (the character, not Marceau) is much more serious and deep. I was thinking along the lines of Shannen Doherty or Winona Ryder then yes, I remembered that Sophie is french, heh :D

Also for Leigh Teabing. That guy in Vanity Fair and P.S, don't know his name.
 
I'm happy someone agrees with me about Dan Brown's bland writing abilities. He doesn't have a way of letting things happen, he forces them to happen and the dialogue can be so utterly painful.... :lol: Not to mention choppy editing.

But it IS a good subject and he knows how to entertain by manipulating facts. He knows WHAT to write about, I just wish he could do it better.
 
yes ~Kasia~. I was happy about that too.[sp]the kissing on the forehead was more than enough. I was exstatic that they didn't go the romance route with them[/sp]

And thanks for clearing the grandfather thing up. I knew it was different. Why on earth would the feel the need to change it. That made no sense?

[sp]It was more compelling to find out that her grandparents had to live apart to protect the grandkids. And it was really comforting to know at the end her brother survived too. Perhaps it was more dramatic to conclude that Sophie was the one and only. Whatever.[/sp]
 
A minor detailed that they nailed: His micky mouse wrist watch. Very happy to see that.

Having Sophie 'heal' his nervousness: overdone. I guess that was the whole Jesus connection :rolleyes:
 
I know he's a bit to young to play the part but I think Gary Oldman would make a good Leigh Teabing. Or even maybe Patrick Stuart would be intersting.

I just don't see Tom Hanks in the role. When I was reading the book I saw someone more like a Russel Crowe type, heavy with a beard, but I don't like Russel and wouldn't want to see him in the role.
 
I hate the movie poster with Robert and Sophie as in "hey folks, yes, there's romance, come see this." :rolleyes: I KNOW the book has the "couple" as one super important aspect but the poster rubbed me the wrong way.

Anyway. I'm just nervous because I want it to be good. :lol: Don't pay any attention to me. ;)
 
Yeah, the teaser doesn't have any clips of the film in it because they haven't even started filming it yet. It's just this cool effects/design thingy.
 
I agree with you 100% :)

Tom Hanks would portray the Robert Langdon character well, except he doesn't really possess the look I pictured when I read the novel. However, I do think that Kate Beckinsale would fit the female character pretty well.

I don't think this novel really lived up to the all the hype it received, although the background info was pretty interesting. I hope those Hollywood big-shots will keep that kinda stuff in the film.

Last thought: I keep thinking that this film won't do too well since it's kinda similiar to the recent National Treasure film. Does anyone else agree with this? To me, it seems like that film ripped off Da Vinci's action and archaeological feel. :look:
 
I wonder if they will re-do the sexual acts discussed in the book. That could be a little...disturbing. I thought the book was alright, a little far-fetched, but it was a page turner and I think it will translate into a movie pretty well.
 
I know who they are, but I am not familiar with either one's performance. :)

Sasha
1062.gif
 
Jean Reno Cracks The Da Vinci Code

Jean Reno has joined Tom Hanks in director Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown bestseller The Da Vinci Code, produced by Brian Grazer and John Calley at Columbia Pictures.

renodavinci.jpg


The French star will play gruff detective Bezu Fache in the thriller, which begins filming this year for a May 19, 2006 releaese.

Akiva Goldsman wrote the script. Reno will next be seen starring opposite Steve Martin in MGM's The Pink Panther.

Sasha
1062.gif
 
Tom Hanks is a great actor, but not good for the role. To be blunt he is too old and 'heavy'. IMO you need an actor 'slightly' younger and who can pull off being an 'Indiana Jones type with a bit more brains'.
And whats with all the 'it should be an American actor'. Actors are actors, they pretend, its not real, and if they can pull it off, who cares where they come from?
 
I had pretty low expectations going into the film because of all the bad reviews, but I can honestly say I enjoyed the film. It wasn't perfect by any stretch, but it was a decent adaptation and remained faithful to the book. I think the reason why people called the movie boring is because so much of it is all explanations. If you've read the book, the suspense is taken away (which is pretty much what kept the book going) so all you're basically left with are the explanations. It's in no fault of the screenplay adapters or the director. I don't think they could have made it any more interesting or exciting unless they totally reworked the story to make it more "Hollywood". I for one don't want that and am glad they took the faithful route.

As for the acting... I enjoyed Ian McKellen immensely. He made the movie, imo. While I adore Tom Hanks, I don't he was the right person to play Langdon. Throughout the movie, I just saw Tom Hanks on the screen and not Langdon. They should have gotten a relatively unknown actor to play Langdon. I think for all popular fictional characters (eg. Harry Potter), a cast of unknowns is the only way to go. As for Audrey Tautou, I didn't like her so much at the beginning of the movie (the washroom scene was way overacted, same for Hanks in that scene), but she slowly grew on me and won me over by the end of the film. Paul Bettany was great as Silas. I have so much pity for that character. So misguided.

My only complaint is that they didn't explain the Vatican's role enough in the movie. The priest (I forget his name) and him getting those bonds were totally lost on me. It seemed totally detached from the rest of the movie.

All and all, a decent movie. I give it a B.
 
Back
Top