|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Seen the film/going to see the film?
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
Last night a friend was asking me if I was going to see the film. I wasn't planning to as I had been so annoyed with the book. It was very badly written and had many inaccurancies (facts as opposed to matters of belief). I didn't get beyond the first few pages.
However, my friend was of the opinion that she would rather take the chance and waste 2 hours of her life on the film rather than the many hours it would take to read the book.
Given what people have been saying here I haven't changed my mind about going to the cinema.
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
Babybear, the movie, at 2.5 hours, wasted more minutes of my life than reading the book did; I think I finished it in about two hours, on a flight with nothing better to do.
I still begrudge those minutes, too.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
How on earth can you read a book so quickly?
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by babybear:
How on earth can you read a book so quickly?
I'm a fast reader, with high comprehension. (That's how I survived college.)
But "DVC" is designed to be a fast read -- that page-turner thing....
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
I've just come back from having seen it - I hadn't read the book, but I understand from some of the people I was with who had read it that it was basically pretty faithful to the book (with one or two minor things that didn't really make that much difference). I went in with low expectations, guessed many of the plot twists ages before they happened, picked my brain up again on the way out - what can I say, it wasn't earth-shattering or life-changing, but I didn't mind it as bit of mindless silliness for a couple of hours. A couple of bits did make me jump, but then I'm an arch-wuss so that's no big surprise, I always jump out of my skin in the cinema.
I just came out though amazed that anyone could take something so corny at all seriously. As one of my friends said at the end: "I could have knitted it myself".
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
I'm also just back from seeing it and hadn't read it, and interestingly my party felt it was quite significantly not true to the book in a few areas!
I guessed a lot of it very early on too, despite not knowing much about it - still, thought it was a good film, for what it was.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
I saw it today. I'm still processing it, so for now I'll just say:
--DO NOT TAKE KIDS!!!
Someone mentioned earlier planning to take a 10 yr. old. Don't do it!!! There are things in the movie (and the book) that a child shouldn't know about, much less see.
--It's worth seeing.
--Take whatever preconceptions you have, and put them aside when you see the movie.
Disclosure: I loved the book, for reasons I've stated on other threads.
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vikki Pollard
Shipmate
# 5548
|
Posted
...and so far the Christian Church is still surviving?
Phew! ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"I don't get all this fuss about global warming, Miss. Why doesn't the Government just knock down all the f**king greenhouses?" (One of my slightly less bright 15 year old pupils)
Posts: 5695 | From: The Far Side | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
tammierene
Apprentice
# 11405
|
Posted
I was the one who mentioned taking my 10 year old, but am rethinking it. Actually Im rethinking going at all. I havent heard one good review. Ive heard "Its okay" and "Its not too bad" but that doesnt count as good. I enjoyed the book, but there has seldom been a movie made from a book that really works. Joel Segal, movie critic from Good Morning America said that all the movie's naysayers should have just waited because the movie is so bad that it will ban itself. ha!
Perhaps Ill save my $8.50 and spend it on X-men next week. My ten year old will appreciate that movie more, I'm sure. It doesnt matter if X-men is good or not....it's all about gazing longingly at Wolverine. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Tam
--------------------
Don't sweat the small stuff.
Posts: 6 | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jack the Lass
Ship's airhead
# 3415
|
Posted
I totally agree a 10 year old would prefer to see X-Men 3. I remarked as I left the cinema last night that as a 12 year old (DVC has a 12A certificate here which means that under-12s can only see it if accompanied by an adult) there were a few bits which would have really freaked me out. Admittedly that was over 20 years ago and I was pretty sheltered and sensitive, and it may well be that many 12 year olds these days would find it tame considering some of the other stuff they're exposed to, but I'm sure there are still plenty of sensitive kids who would find parts of the film quite disturbing. And the other bits they'd probably just find boring, I think.
--------------------
"My body is a temple - it's big and doesn't move." (Jo Brand)
wiblog blipfoto blog
Posts: 5767 | From: the land of the deep-fried Mars Bar | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tammierene:
I was the one who mentioned taking my 10 year old, but am rethinking it.
Let's put it this way...everything that Silas does is shown in full, gory detail. Then there's the ritual. And a few other things.
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
For a wide range of critical opinions, check out RottenTomatoes.com. As of this moment, only 18% of professional critics have much good to say about DVC -- and some of the reviews are an absolute hoot.
Ross
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Oh come on, lighten up, folks. It was a good evening's entertainment, voilà tout.
Making Paris police behave like American ones and giving them weaponry to match were by far the most irritating aspects to my mind. Plus the incredible inability of ace symbiologist and police cryptologist to grasp anagrams quickly - but that was in the book already.
Also wondering why Sophie's Smart was registered in the Morbihan. Maybe something to do with the Arthurian legend.
I think there would be far better ways of extrapolating to matters of faith than attempting to debunk the pseudohistory of the plot as most christian publications aimed at it seem to be doing.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh come on, lighten up, folks. It was a good evening's entertainment, voilà tout. ...
.... ![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
It should be re-named The Da Vinci Coma.
As Rossweisse says '... one of the worst films I've seen recently -- boring, pretentious, poorly acted, poorly written, poorly directed....have I left out anything?'
You have, R. Through the blessed Dan Brown we learn the answer to the vexed question 'What Would Jesus Drive?'
A Smart, at tyre-screeching speed - in reverse.
But that's about it.
[ 21. May 2006, 09:39: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliff
Apprentice
# 326
|
Posted
I agree that this was a bad, and beyond that, a stupid movie. People who lose their faith because of this movie, have lost their brains long ago. If Jesus was only human, then why all of the spiritual compulsion to pray at his wife's tomb? This movie attempts to sweep away centuries of belief through a complicated web of stupid anagrams reminiscent of "National Treasure" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and to replace it with "All that really matters, Sophie, is what you believe." Truly brainless. Ron Howard should stick to demented mathematicians.
Posts: 1 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Qoheleth.
Semi-Sagacious One
# 9265
|
Posted
From Ian McKellen, at a Cannes press conference:
quote:
"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married. I know the Catholic church has problems with gay people, and I thought this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay.
Q.
--------------------
The Benedictine Community at Alton Abbey offers a friendly, personal service for the exclusive supply of Rosa Mystica incense.
Posts: 2532 | From: the radiator of life | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rossweisse
High Church Valkyrie
# 2349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ancient Mariner:
...You have, R. Through the blessed Dan Brown we learn the answer to the vexed question 'What Would Jesus Drive?'
A Smart, at tyre-screeching speed - in reverse. ...
Ay-min, brother, ay-min! Pray-uz the Lard!
--------------------
I'm not dead yet.
Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tammierene:
Perhaps Ill save my $8.50 and spend it on X-men next week. My ten year old will appreciate that movie more, I'm sure. It doesnt matter if X-men is good or not....it's all about gazing longingly at Wolverine.
Without even having the excuse of being able to take along a 10-year-old, I will definitely be seeing X-Men 3 rather than DVC. Tom Hanks, not buff, apparently having been encouraged to phone in the role, and sporting a bad haircut vs. Hugh Jackman, very buff, chewing up the screen, and sporting -- okay, a bad haircut. Still, an easy choice!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner
Sip the ship
# 4
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliff:
I agree that this was a bad, and beyond that, a stupid movie. People who lose their faith because of this movie, have lost their brains long ago. If Jesus was only human, then why all of the spiritual compulsion to pray at his wife's tomb? This movie attempts to sweep away centuries of belief through a complicated web of stupid anagrams reminiscent of "National Treasure" or "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and to replace it with "All that really matters, Sophie, is what you believe." Truly brainless. Ron Howard should stick to demented mathematicians.
Cliff, this is your first post, FIVE YEARS after registering.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
An unbeatable record?
--------------------
Ship of Fools' first novel, Rattles & Rosettes, is the tale of two football (soccer) fans: 16-year-old Tom in 1914 and Dan in 2010. More at www.rattlesandrosettes.com
Posts: 2582 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
Flipping 'ec, it was DULL...
I expected something in the same style as the book - a couple of hours of pappy entertainment with an interesting ish story. But definitely one of those occasions when the book as far better than the film.
ETA: ages since I read the book - but even if you can prove through DNA testing that you're Mary Mag's offspring, how does that prove that Christ was married?
[ 22. May 2006, 08:33: Message edited by: Ferijen ]
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Athrawes
Ship's parrot
# 9594
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ferijen:
ETA: ages since I read the book - but even if you can prove through DNA testing that you're Mary Mag's offspring, how does that prove that Christ was married?
How would they know, anyway? Who has some of MM's DNA to compare it to?? And, again, how would you *know* who the father was?? Wouldn't you need his DNA as well? Are these questions answered in either the movie or book?
--------------------
Explaining why is going to need a moment, since along the way we must take in the Ancient Greeks, the study of birds, witchcraft, 19thC Vaudeville and the history of baseball. Michael Quinion.
Posts: 2966 | From: somewhere with a book shop | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
starbelly
but you can call me Neil
# 25
|
Posted
Saw it yesterday afternoon, was a welcome relief from the rain! I thought it was fun, it was fine, not worth the hype, but for 2 and a half hours a fun bit of escapism. of the 15 films I have seen in the cinema this year it ranks about 13th, but still, I had a good experience, the audience laughed when it was cringeworthily bad, but some bits were really creepy and atmospheric. It is always nice to see Paris on the big screen, Audrey looked great, and that is the first cinematic Smart car chase I have seen.
Far from the worse, most dull film of the year (Memiors of a Geisha anywone?), but yes, no masterpiece either.
Posts: 6009 | From: High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ferijen:
ETA: ages since I read the book - but even if you can prove through DNA testing that you're Mary Mag's offspring, how does that prove that Christ was married?
How would they know, anyway? Who has some of MM's DNA to compare it to?? And, again, how would you *know* who the father was?? Wouldn't you need his DNA as well? Are these questions answered in either the movie or book?
I presumed that was the point of having the tomb.
I thought the 'zooming in' shot at the very end was particularly interesting.
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
I saw the film yesterday. Not as truly bad as some of the reviews had suggested. Sir Ian McKellen is far and away the best actor in the film. Alfred Molina, a fine actor, is totally wasted as the Opus Dei Bishop. He does the best he can with a role that was poorly written. Same with Jean Reno, another fine actor whose character in the book is much better that the film.
Silas, the mad monk, starts out being a little scary, and the corporal mortification scenes are gruesone, but he ends up looking like "Death" in Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.
I can't imagine Langdon and Sophie just walking into the crypt at Rosslyn Chapel and walking around a sign that says "Private" and there in front of them is the entire secret library of the Priory. Everyone knows that the Rosslyn crypts are sealed, and people have been diggin around and under the chapel for years and havent found anything.
It's not a great movie but it wasn't a bad way to spend a cool rainy Sunday afternoon.
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
I disagree about the McKellen comments. The part called for a great british eccentric - what we had was a cynical, obviously scheming, boring academic.
The film was far too plodding - and it seems to me that Ron Howard couldn't decide whether it was a whodunnit, a conspiracy thriller, or some other thing, and so it failed to be anything.
Alfred Molina made the least of his role, and Paul Bettany struggled to decide at times whether he was meant to be spanish, french or what sounded like polish!
The largest travesty with those two characters, for me, was that the film robbed them of any kind of sympathetic ending.
Hanks & Tatou - Razzies for them both i'm guessing. The whole movie for them was either 1) looking confused, 2) running, or 3)speaking in large blocks of exposition that flowed about as well as set concrete. Hanks' hair, however, deserves medals of merit for its fine performance.
The only good thing i can think of to say about the film is that actually managed to make the book seem less awful than i first appraised it to be...
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Athrawes:
quote:
Originally posted by Ferijen:
ETA: ages since I read the book - but even if you can prove through DNA testing that you're Mary Mag's offspring, how does that prove that Christ was married?
How would they know, anyway? Who has some of MM's DNA to compare it to?? And, again, how would you *know* who the father was?? Wouldn't you need his DNA as well? Are these questions answered in either the movie or book?
Even if you had MM DNA to compare, there's a numbers problem. You inherit 1/2 of your DNA from each parent who inherit 1/2 from each of theirs; so you inherit 1/4 from each grandparent and so 1/16 from each great-grandparent. If no branch of your family tree marries (or otherwise) another branch and assuming four generations per century, that's 2 raised to the fortieth power ancestors (about 1 trillion (US)), of which one was MM. Even with intermarrying you're unlikely to get more than a millionth of your DNA from any one person living in the first century. And I doubt DNA testing is that good.
Unless the Priory of Sion married brother to sister in a Pharaohesque manner ...
[If I'm talking numbers, it would be good to get them at least nearly right]
[ 22. May 2006, 15:52: Message edited by: Ann ]
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ann
Curious
# 94
|
Posted
It's even worse - I should have said 2 to the 80th (4 generations times twenty centuries) which is 1,208,925,819,614,629,174,706,176 ancestors.
--------------------
Ann
Posts: 3271 | From: IO 91 PI | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ORGANMEISTER
Shipmate
# 6621
|
Posted
If you're testing only for mitochondrial DNA which is inherited only from the matriarchial side you could cut that number in half.......but it's still an enormous number.
I saw a recent DV related show on the History Channel in which they located bones from several Merovingian queens and extracted some DNA fragments. The fragements were compaired with DNA from current populations in the middle east. Theoretically, if MM was an ancestor of the Merovingian royalty they should have been able to find genetic markers indicating descent from middle eastern ancestors. They did not. The Merovingian DNA indicated the these persons were descended from populations typical of Europeans. Interesting!
Posts: 3162 | From: Somerset, PA - USA | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bernard Mahler
Shipmate
# 10852
|
Posted
Ho! Ho! Ho! The film has been banned in Samoa (pop, c. 100,000). The censor was leaned on ny the RC Archbishop and a spokesman for the Congregational Union. Such unanimity! Such ecumenical co-operation! I must find out from local Samoan friends here in NZ how many have been to see it here, and whether others will not go. News seems to suggest an influx of pirated DVD's to Samoa to be likely.
--------------------
"What does it matter? All is grace" Georges Bernanos
Posts: 622 | From: Auckland New Zealand | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
I'd love to know how the film's going down in Utah - a few months ago I remember posting something on a thread about when the idea that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married first started. I said that the earliest reference I could find was in nineteenth century Mormonism (why did Jesus appear to her first after his resurrection? Because you'd naturally want to say hello to your wife...) and St Sebastian posted to say that his partner had assured him that Mormons still believe it today.
So are the cinemas of Utah full of smug Mormons delighted that Hollywood has caught up with them at last?
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I just saw it - having not read the book or anything.
It was ok - some wooden acting and a wildly meandering plot. Nothing particularly to write home about really.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Exiled Youth
Shipmate
# 8744
|
Posted
Fortunately, I had a willing accomplice who went to watch the film for me. Rossweisse gets closest, apparently!
Euty, my accomplice failed to notice the non-local registration plate, seems like a bit of a school-boy error.
I wanted to see the film to find out how the dealt with the poor grasp of Parisian geography in the book -- the car chase in particular. How were they going to represent the American embassy, which is quite literally across the road from the Louvre? Answer -- they used a building on place St Georges, a good half hour away. And which just happens to be the building in which said accomplice works. Problem solved, £6 saved, job done.
--------------------
Gold from Egypt is still gold -- St. Augustine of Hippo
Posts: 411 | From: Home Sweet Home | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
-lucy-
Shipmate
# 10465
|
Posted
Well I saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it. I thought it was a bit long and could have been cut down a lot but it didn't bore my friends which I was pleased about since they were moaning about it before we even got into the cinema.
Posts: 592 | From: East Yorkshire | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
croshtique
Shipmate
# 4721
|
Posted
Just got back from the cinema - think I may have annoyed fellow patrons by laughing somewhat throughout. Especially at the 'flashback' to the Council of Nicea, which was apparently conducted by rowdy bishops with outrageous beards throwing things at each other (in what looked like Santa Sabina in Rome?)
Still, there was a trailer for the new Bond movie beforehand, so that made it worth my while.
--------------------
"When man has finished he is just beginning, and when he stops he is still perplexed" - Sirach 18:7
Posts: 165 | From: Sarf Lahndon | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
noneen
Shipmate
# 11023
|
Posted
finally saw it - was ok - i think i'm not capable of being a neutral on this, as i spent the whole film going 'oh thats sooo made-up', instead of just watching the film!!! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
*spoiler*
When he knelt over MMs 'tomb' at the end, i was almost joining in his prayer, though ... while is a sign of my gullability in the face of the movies .. and listening to people coming out, they felt the same ... alot of the adults were sounding ponderous (!) 'yes, but the facts are there, this just lays it all out for us' etc etc !!!
--------------------
... 'but Father, Jesus drank wine at Cana and danced' ... 'Not in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, he didn't', Father replied
Posts: 472 | From: ireland | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
*Contains spoilers*
I went with an atheist friend of mine, basically she thought it was a not very good thriller. One basic problem being that she could not bring herself to care about the main motivation for the characters.
I didn't think it was very good, it is difficult to suspend your disbelief when they spout such rubbish. Like for example, 2000 years, who knows how many generations, and you only have one descendant ?
If the Priory of Sion couldn't be arsed to reveal the existence of the Grail it wouldn't be a threat to the RC church anyway. Also, the basic premise that the church would crumble if you could prove the existence of a bloodline is flawed. And why would those within the church who knew about the grail, care about keeping it secret - what is the point ? They could just revert to the historical model of a married priesthood.
Mohammed had descendants, their bickering and theological pronouncements led to some early schisms but nowadays they have little influence on the direction of most Islamic denominations. I've met some, you call them zaidy (soundalike spelling) and that's it really.
I think as a film and story idea it would have worked better if the priory were guarding the secret of the discovery of the bones of Christ - I have read a thriller on this basis - and the chruch wanted to destroy them because they thought they were a dangerously plausible fake.
I mean, if you want to film on something like it's own terms, you need to compare it with the Indiana Jones movies - and it is nothing like as a good.
[ 29. May 2006, 16:43: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
I watched it last week. Apart from enjoying the sweets I bought in the foyer, I thought Kevin Spacey was very entertaining as Lex Luthor (in the Superman trailer, that is).
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corpus cani
Ship's Anachronism
# 1663
|
Posted
Saw it this very evening.
It may, of course, be that the exciting bits of this "thriller" all crossed the screen in either of the two times during the evening when I fell asleep, but I'm minded to think not.
Sir Ian was good - he was supposed to be comedic relief, right? Tom Hanks, as always, played Tom Hanks perfectly. The French girl was a fine girly sidekick, with suitably bemused expression throughout (probably wondering how she ended up in this ridiculous film.) The guy playing Robbie-Coltrane-playing-a-Bishop looked splendidly uncomfortable in his clericals.
On the whole, it was not impressive. "Pedestrian" would be a kindness I think. Very nice coffee they serve there though.
Cc
--------------------
Bishop Lord Corpus Cani the Tremulous of Buzzing St Helens.
Posts: 4435 | From: Trumpton | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matrix
Shipmate
# 3452
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Corpus cani:
The guy playing Robbie-Coltrane-playing-a-Bishop looked splendidly uncomfortable in his clericals.
That's Alfred Molina - one of the UK's most underrated and most talented actors!
He was woefully underused. Alfred Molina in robes should have been camped up, and filled out. The sympathetic end that the character has int he book is completely voided in the movie.
What a waste of talent and time.
M
--------------------
Maybe that's all a family really is; a group of people who miss the same imaginary place. - Garden State
Posts: 3847 | From: The courts of the King | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Exegesis Fairy
Shipmate
# 9588
|
Posted
Welll...
For an advanced exercise in having your cake and eating it, it went off passably. There were two parts in which the rest of the audience jumped.
Not sure why I didn't, don't think I cared that much.
Spent most of the film wondering who Tom Hanks reminded me of.
I've seen a lot worse than this, though. But I've seen an awful lot better.
--------------------
I can only please one person a day.
Today is not your day.
Tomorrow doesn't look good either.
Posts: 500 | From: the clear blue sky | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
I took my son to see it recently and we both enjoyed it immensely. He wasn't too scared, but then he is 42 and I owed him the trip because he took me to see Amelie Poulain a while ago.
I don't remember much about Tom Hanks or Sir Ian
or the silly albino but I will look at Audrey Tatou until my eyes are as big as hers.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JillieRose:
Spent most of the film wondering who Tom Hanks reminded me of.
I thought the different hair made him look a bit like Bruce Dern, in the Sci-Fi ecology movie "Silent Running"? Which IMO was a better film, anyway ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
chive
Ship's nude
# 208
|
Posted
I liked it much more than I thought I would which frankly was at all. It entertained me - mostly by going 'uh huh' and 'erm im not sure that's correct'.
There are worse ways to spend an evening. And saw the new Bond trailer ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
'Edward was the kind of man who thought there was no such thing as a lesbian, just a woman who hadn't done one-to-one Bible study with him.' Catherine Fox, Love to the Lost
Posts: 3542 | From: the cupboard under the stairs | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I saw it. A friend really wanted to see it, so we went- and she just loved it! I think for her it was a combination of love of feminine spirituality and the comeuppance of those nasty, powerful misogynists; I'm not quite sure. My friend's a little odd.
I enjoyed the locations, Sir Ian, and some of the action scenes. I giggled at the hurry up! hurry up! STOP!- for expository scenes at regular intervals. I giggled at the deep, deep, unequivocal symbolism of -wait for it!- the fleur d'lis and the rose. One look at those two rare symbols and you knew you were knee deep in Grail esoterica; it could be nothing else. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
I was dragged to see it this weekend, and enjoyed it more than I thought I would (which isn't saying much). I thought it made a better film than a book, as is sometimes the case with lightweight books. And it had some nice visual moments, unlike the book where the description was so bad it was almost impossible to visualise the various locations.
I liked Ian MacKellan. I enjoyed the scene in the chateau (in the book an incredibly tedious bit of exposition) which was livened up by the two academics sniping at each other and making faces behind each other's backs, just like real historians.
The two unanswered questions from the book remain: 1) why does all this matter? and 2) why does it take two supposed experts so long to solve such simple puzzles? But some new ones arose:
- What was the business with the drug addict in the park in aid of? I'm sure that wasn't in the book. Was Sophie being set up as a saviour figure - if so, they could have tried a bit harder.
- Last time I was at Roslin Chapel it had a big metal hat on to protect the carvings from the weather - did they remove the hat, or edit it out with cunning CGI?
- Have centuries of searchers really been foiled by a rope and a sign saying 'private'? I didn't realise that determined seekers after truth were so law-abiding.
- And who on earth let Tom Hanks loose in that awful haircut?
Still, at least we know Tom can do confused. And he was impressively large and loomy, unless Audrey whatsit and Ian McKellan are excessively teensy people.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
A Random Ordinand
Shipmate
# 9444
|
Posted
I was at the first showing of DVC in Northern Ireland, and didn't think that much of it... the Church History portrayed is so so so so wrong, it's unbelieveable. And it was quite boring.
Posts: 87 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Margaret
Shipmate
# 283
|
Posted
I finally got round to seeing it yesterday, just before our local cinema's due to take it off (we were the only people in the auditorium at the late afternoon showing, so we could giggle at the sillier bits without disturbing anyone). It was mostly as boring as I was expecting - but I was ravished to discover that not only is Opus Dei a secret society which will stop at nothing to hide the darkest secrets of Christianity, but between bursts of self-flagellation its members talk to one another in Latin. Oh please please please can I join?
Posts: 2456 | From: West Midlands UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
SPOILERS
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I saw it. A friend really wanted to see it, so we went- and she just loved it! I think for her it was a combination of love of feminine spirituality and the comeuppance of those nasty, powerful misogynists; I'm not quite sure. My friend's a little odd.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
I saw the movie the first day it was here, and needed time to mull it over.
I loved the book. I usually like Ron Howard's work. The film was worth seeing...but as a representation of DVC, it was a confusing mess.
IMHO, DB did a great job of writing the book in a way that could be easily adapted to film. But RH mucked around with it in ways that don't even make sense.
When the film started, the feeling of it was so much like the M. Night Shyamalan trailer I'd just seen that I thought I was seeing the wrong movie.
I'd had a problem with the casting of Tom Hanks from the moment I'd heard about it. He's a very good actor--but wrong for the part. He did do short bursts of good acting in the film, but the rest of it seemed like a very early run-through. Same thing for the French actress who played Sophie. The rest of the actors were good, and seemed to more or less accurately portray the characters in the book.
I'd heard that RH was going to change or tone down some things...but there doesn't seem to be any logic to what he did. He got rid of the important info about the "Madonna of the Rocks" painting...which would make sense if he wanted to soften the overall ideas...but he wasn't systematic about that. He gave Langdon some lines at Rosslyn which I don't think were anywhere in the book...that maybe Jesus was with him in the well when he was little, and that what was important was what *Sophie* herself believed. RH also changed Teabing's last scene, and the endings for poor Silas and his bishop. And then there was making Sauniere not really Sophie's grandfather. What's up with that???
I'd decided before I saw the film that I could cope with whatever RH did with the story as long as he got the last scene right--the veneration of Mary Magdalene. I was floored when I saw the trailers for the film and found that they'd actually put that last scene in the trailers!!! But I did like the last scene, and the sarcophagus was beautiful.
ISTM that Ron Howard tried to make the story into an art film with spurts of action...and it didn't really work.
Pity. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
