Da Vinci Code on film

WayneLigon

Adventurer
Bront said:
Honestly, my biggest problem is the issue of what does being the decendant of Mary Magdolin prove? ... Even then, I don't see how the revelation ruins the church if he did have a sun.

I can explain it, if you want to join CircvsMaximvs and start a thread on it with your question.

McKellen's character spells it out in the movie, but it was a little disjointed if you didn't listen to every single word he says. Now, things may not go down as he says; he's an obsessive looney-tune willing to go to tremendous lengths and murder to cause what he thinks will happen. Probably what would happen is that the proof would just be ignored after all this long a time. It might change the minds of some of the undecided or the especially dogmatic but I don't see things going down as he seemed to think they would.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


Laurel

First Post
I thought it was okay, but then again I thought the book was okay too. It has the plot and tries to give all the background the book does. It tries to keep the action high paced. It tries to appeal to all.

I think it did what it set out to do, and with the hindrance of screen play to book explanations it succeeded. I liked the little pieces they put in for those who loved the book- ex. the Mickey Mouse watch. It's not one I will recommend to lots of people to go and watch, but will still recommend the book.

I will say I liked Angels & Demons the book much more, but realize it probably would be that much harder to capture an audience on the screen.
 

Jdvn1

Hanging in there. Better than the alternative.
Mistwell said:
Han Solo was just an ordinary smuggler who could navigate a meteor shower.
Indiana Jones was just an archeologist who could crawl below a moving truck and survive.
The hobbits were just ordinary hobbits, who could do extraordinary things they never even dreamed about.
I don't think Han Solo or Indiana Jones were ever portrayed as anything less than exceptional at their jobs. With the hobbits, you might have a point. They were supposed to have extraordinary character and it was a big epic-like story. I didn't get quite that feel from Da Vinci Code, but then again maybe it just didn't do it for me.
Mistwell said:
And yet this one single POLICE INVESTIGATOR (which is what she is - someone in a profession that generally includes emergency driving in the general instruction course) was a fantastic driver in an emergency situation, and you find it so unbelievable as to call it insane?
Was she ever portrayed as good at her job? I honestly wasn't sure if the police investigator thing was a ruse to save the guy's life or not. For a police investigator, she sure seemed lost most of the time. Are you just going to blame it on bad exposition? I think there wasn't enough of that, certainly.
 

fanboy2000

Adventurer
I enjoyed the movie, two stars. Of course, you have to do a lot go below one star. I gave the first Star Trek movie a pulsar for it's low signal to noise ratio. ;) Pulsar isn't the lowest rating I give to a movie.

The movie telegraphed it's ending, and had some plot points that just didn't make much sense in the context of movie itself.

What I liked was the incorporation of real artifacts and semi-real historical figures. It makes the movie fascinating to me.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top