Saw it today. I thought it was a pretentious, overlong chase film. Gave it B-. And oh, yeah, this old Catholic school fella saw it was =stone= anti-Catholic. The music was servicable, not inspired. Acting was OK. Ditto for the directing. I found the script weak: too many things predictable.
SPOILER

SPOILER




SPOILER


SPOILER



For example, when Silas invaded Lee's =very= well-appointed home, didn't you =know= the cripple was going to make savage play with his crutches? There were a couple of scenes like that. The flick was mildly entertaining, not as bad as I'd heard. No desire to see it again, though. (Badman Dan suggests I mention that since he and his wife--birthday girl today!--paid for my viewing, I might have found it more palatable than otherwise. Y'know, I think he's right. )

Saw TDC twice. Enjoyed better the second time, as I understood more of that "incoherent mumbling." Much of the movie is predictable, but the flashbacks are worth the price of admission. Made me want to see "Kingdom of Heaven" again. Loved the part where Jesus said, "Let's roll."

AC

P.S. Okay now, gang, let's turn this into a political thread.

Saw the film last night. Having never read the book I was entertained. It wasn't surprising who was the heir and figured it out maybe 20 minutes in. Was it a perfect movie? No. But it was fun.

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.

ROTFL!!! OMG, Tony!! Once again you delivered a highly entertaining review. I read the book and saw the movie. Thought the story was great fun in the book, but it was poorly written. I think Dan Brown's editor should be shot.

I was prepared for the movie to be really, really bad, but found it just okay. Although reading your review did point out some of the crappiness I'd forgotten. Then again, how often do you get a chance to see a naked albino monk? Not many, Mister!

I thought Tom Hanks was boring as hell and miscast.

Since I've read the book, the element of surprise was gone. I wonder if I would have been so underwhelmed with the movie if I hadn't read the book.

Susan

Whatup wit Hanks hair?



I haven't seen the movie yet but I gotta ask.

MINOR SPOILER below!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11










Did it have that one scene where the main character throws that artifact in the air so the 'bad guy' has to let go of the girl/gun whatever the F it was and catch it?

That part of the book made me laugh oud it was so dumb. I was like WTF? Is this the Marx brothers or something?

MINOR SPOILER below!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









Did it have that one scene where the main character throws that artifact in the air so the 'bad guy' has to let go of the girl/gun whatever the F it was and catch it?

Yep. It's in there.

I thought Tom Hanks was boring as hell and miscast.

Susan

Boring? Because he is professor.

My cell group at church just watched the movie en masse last Saturday. I wasn't terribly impressed by the movie: there was little, if any, fluidity between the different scenes. I did enjoy some parts though, such as the museum-anagram scene, the apple scene and the finale. Overall, though, it didn't live up to its hype for me.

Sidenote: What tickles me most is that some Christians claim they gave up their faith because they believed what was written in the book. IMHO, these former Christians weren't convinced by Dan Brown; they were already looking for an excuse to bail out and DVC just happened to come along.

I felt like seeing a movie today, and "The Da Vinci Code" fit into my schedule.

I enjoyed it more than I thought I would. It cleaves to the book, and having slogged my way through that drivel, I knew what to expect.

Hanks played the role no worse than it was written. Given the rotten reviews he's been receiving on this thread, I figured he'd be atrocious. He wasn't. He was low key and restrained and didn't really have much to do. But that's Dan Brown's fault. The character didn't have much to do in the book, either.

Ian McKellan is a joy to watch in anything, and he was here, too.

Paul Bettany was a waste as the Bizzaro albino monk. (He does bear a resemblance to folks in Superman's Bizarro Land.) This character is a farce. It was as if Brown couldn't develop a fully fleshed human being as a character (he can't), so he makes his predator albino and a flagellation freak.

I've not a big fan of Audrey Tautou, though I did enjoy her in "Dirty Pretty Things" and "He Loves Me, He Loves Me Not." If the camera adds 10 lbs, she must reside in an alternate reality where negative weight counts. I was continually distracted by how thin her legs are.

Let's face it. Ron Howard was saddled with an awful book, read by a bazillion people around the world. He had no choice but to make a talkie movie. The people continually talk at one another while trying to decipher the millions of clues. He couldn't take liberties; he had to be faithful to the god-awful story, you should pardon the pun. All in all, he did a credible job with a sack of poo.

All in all, he did a credible job with a sack of poo.

LOL! That cracks me up! I've had a long day and needed a laugh. And why not at the expense of Dan Brown or his book?!