Today I went to a theatre see The DaVinci Code(TDVC).

This is a well made mystery movie. I'm not Christian, and I'm not expert of Christianity. So I think I could take an objective view of TDVC. I think a lot of Christians say "THOSE ARE LIES!". Well, I know this is a lie too. This is a fiction. This story was written by Dan Brown. There is nothing to rave about.

And....I enjoyed this movie. Sometimes I confused. I've never heard about
Mary Magdalene, The Knights Templer,The Priory of Sion....I should have been learning about them before I saw movie. Tom Hanks is good choice. While I was reading book(but I still not finish reading it...), I thought this role is Kevin Costner. But...Tom Hanks is good actor and he played perfectly that role. Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Alfred Molina, Paul Bettany, and Jean Reno....what a awesome casting!

I also enjoyed European edifices. Very beautiful.

Kenji is correct. It is just fiction, meant to entertain. A plot, a conspiracy, a defamation............IMHO.......I think not. I've enjoyed Dan Brown's books.........yes I've read them all. Do I believe they are based in fact, no.......that's what fiction is for.....suppose this or that. I'm to go to this movie tonight.............I'll let you all know my impressions and how many protesters are there! :p

My wife and I saw it last night (a double-feature with "RV"). I was underwhelmed by the book, but I was pretty entertained by the movie. I think Brown wrote a better basis for a screenplay than he did a novel.

I wonder about something, though. As I said, I had a pretty good time watching it. But over at the Rotten Tomatoes site, the movie has, at this writing, a score of 18%. While I don't think the film is brilliant (it's still based on Brown's book, after all, so it's got a mark against it; sorry, but I just thought the book was horribly overrated), I find such low score to be out of proportion with the kind of film it is and the experience I had watching it. Heck, "RV" scored higher, and that seems ludicrous. ("RV" summary: very formulaic vacation comedy with Robin Williams instead of Chevy Chase. There are some moments that inspired giggling, but there's nothing hilarious, IMHO.)

Are critics biased against "The Da Vinci Code" due to the controversial content? Are those that aren't biased covering their asses? Does a large portion of the critic population not want to be seen liking this film? Even Roger Ebert, who gave the film a largely positive review, said the plot was "preposterous" and went out of the way to reiterate that it's "fiction". While I don't disagree, I think that's a gross oversimplification, and, yes, it sounds like ass-covering to me.

Kenji is correct. It is just fiction, meant to entertain. A plot, a conspiracy, a defamation............IMHO.......I think not. I've enjoyed Dan Brown's books.........yes I've read them all. Do I believe they are based in fact, no.......that's what fiction is for.....suppose this or that.

But again, that's really a gross oversimplification: The basic premise of the book comes from non-fiction research, primarily the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail. While many jump up and cry "fiction" and a variety of other defamatory things about that book--and I'd bet better than 99.99% of its critics have never read it--it's still presented as a challenge to the accuracy of the accepted historical record(s). That warrants discussion, and it seems like few are willing to really discuss it or even be seen willing to discuss it. And most of the criticism of it seems reactionary rather than reasoned and researched. Thus my question about critics above.

Speaking for myself, I'm most of the way through Holy Blood, Holy Grail. It's somewhat slow reading because it's written with about as much charm as a calculus textbook. I haven't completely gotten to the really juicy stuff yet (or at least what's considered the really juicy stuff here in the States: the issues relating directly to Jesus and his bloodline), but my own take so far is... that I'm pretty skeptical. The authors bring up a lot of compelling points and historical tidbits, but aside from the fact that some of those are up to debate (and the authors, to their credit, are often good at pointing this out themselves), I find that they often rely on material or make leaps in logic that I find questionable (though I also grant that I'm a layperson). That doesn't necessarily mean it's inaccurate, but it raises questions. And again, it just seems like people aren't willing to really discuss, just discount.

Blake

TDC is such a plague of stupidity that it needs to be handed over to the CDC. Not having been a huge fan of the novel on which this film is based I will concede that it was forces of darkness that made me shell out 6.00 matinee price to see this film.

I won't bore you with religious rhetoric because this film, like the book is a work of fiction and I am not a religious fanatic anyway.

Just like the book the faults are in your face and beg you to pet them like a rabid monkey.

This is just poor movie making just as the book was a prime example of how not to write. The director, the actors, the writer are so self aware that they are making something "momentous" that they let the title alone rope its viewers in. There is no story here, no grand movie, just a flimsy plot outlined by forgettable performances.

Tom Hanks sleepwalks through this film and mumbles to himself incoherently, Jean Reno who in his own right is a competent actor played his role so over the top and cliché that it belonged opposite Tori Spelling in any lifetime television movie.

The only saving grace of this film is the screen time occupied by Ian McKellan and given that his scenes were relatively short doesn't make this film worth the price of admission.

The scenery, and anyone who has read any review I have written knows that I am a fan of scenery as I feel it plays an integral part in moviemaking, simply didn't exist. If you are going to film a movie in some of the most beautiful places on Earth you would think that the camera would linger long enough for the viewer to enjoy the sights. Instead we get sweeping camera moves, poorly lit historical churches and an overall sense that this film could have been shot on a soundstage for a hell of a lot less than what it cost to shoot on location.

One would almost think that the filmmakers were filming kamikaze style without permission of the countries in which they shot this movie.

The music was lackluster and incessant. Would one scene where there wasn't the annoying background music playing been too much to ask?

The bible clearly states that Jesus wept. Well now the savior and I have something in common.

After 2 and a half hours in the theater praying this film would end I contemplated crucifying myself but couldn't figure out how to get that last nail in.

Tony,

I gather that you don't agree with Ebert & Roeper who gave "The DaVinci Code" Two Thumbs Up?

I finally have some time for my impressions of "The Davinci Code." Yes I read the book first, and I did some-what enjoy the movie. The movie did follow the book almost to the letter, so I did spoil it for myself. Should I have waited to get it from my local Blockbuster or Hollywood Video?.......you bet. Tom Hanks (for all his previous acting shinning moments.........Saving Private Ryan for one.) plodded thru his job this time. I did love the scenery, but then again I'm a sapp for that type of stuff. Yes the movie/book premise was based upon some contested "facts" into the blood line of Jesus, but again I say it...................It's a work of fiction, meant to entertain and OMG...........maybe get someone to............think! Cripes.....what a concept........thinking..........on a "forbidden" subject. There were a few leaflets handed out, my response, (again I say!!!!).........it's just a work of fiction. Would I recommend that you shell out your hard earned cash to see it in the theater...........no.......do what I SHOULD have done.......rent it.

P.S.
And thanks Blake, I should have said earlier that the book/movie did have a basis in disputed facts.

Wow. That's a seriously negative review. Perhaps I should add another alternative to what I listed above: that the film really is bad, and I had a reasonably good time because my expectations were so low after disliking the book. Maybe I'll make a repeat viewing and see what I think.

Blake

Tony,

I gather that you don't agree with Ebert & Roeper who gave "The DaVinci Code" Two Thumbs Up?

I only agree with them because it is in poor taste to argue with the mentally retarded.

I'm disappointed by the bad reviews I've been hearing, but I can't say I'm completely surprised. I did enjoy the book, personally, but I'm generally pretty good at suspension of disbelief. However, I've thought from day one that Tom Hanks was completely the wrong choice for the role. From what I've been hearing, I was right. Quite disappointing to hear that Jean Reno didn't deliver though; I like him a lot. :\

I'm disappointed by the bad reviews I've been hearing, but I can't say I'm completely surprised. I did enjoy the book, personally, but I'm generally pretty good at suspension of disbelief. However, I've thought from day one that Tom Hanks was completely the wrong choice for the role. From what I've been hearing, I was right. Quite disappointing to hear that Jean Reno didn't deliver though; I like him a lot. :\

I like Jean Reno a lot, have since his days in The Professional. I haven't been disappointed with him since until now. His acting was over the top, the character had no dimension or development and when you were supposed to feel sorry for him the viewer was left with a "so what" kind of mentality.

Sad really. Even more sad is Tom Hanks' acting. He was wonderful in Saving Private ryan, I am going to once again Blame Dan brown for the underdeveloped characters. Actors can only be as good as the material they are working with.