Thread: Seen the film/going to see the film? Board: The Da Vinci Code / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=66;t=000029

---

Posted by alexamenos (# 11228) on :
 
On the trailers, on the posters, on the web site, the strap line reads 'Seek the Truth.' The day before the World Premiere at the Cannes Film Festival, on 17th May, I had the chance to watch the film's only UK press preview.

As a film, I think it's well made. The cast is excellent, headed Tom Hanks, Audrey Tatou and Sir Ian McKellen. Production and camera work are good, and there are some genuine 'jump out of your seats' moments. Most of the action takes place at night or in darkened buildings, and for me, this adds to the overall sinister and creepy tone of the film.

Its greatest weakness is that it doesn't know whether it's trying to be a thriller or a piece of propaganda for the worship of the sacred feminine. It is at its weakest when it loses its way as a thriller, and becomes propaganda.

The anti-Church propaganda, although still there, and still in your face, seems to have been watered down a bit from the book.

Something that I found more disturbing is the violence of the religiously obsessed monk Silas. There's a kind of kinkiness about this, which left me feeling uneasy. It's because of this violence, rather than because of the anti-Christian propaganda, that I wouldn't be too happy for children to see this film. The 12A certificate in the UK is on the generous side.

I'm sure it will be a huge blockbuster. Go and see it, but don't believe a word of it. It's a work of fiction. Seek the Truth.

There's a more detailed review on our web site at
Seek the Truth - pre-release review of The Da Vinci Code

[ 18. May 2006, 12:35: Message edited by: Louise ]
 

---

Posted by Mertseger (# 4534) on :
 
Most of the early reviews are not favorable so far it appears. Here's Defamer's roundup. And AICN has a bit on it which is euqally tepid despite Sony's barring of online reviewers from the press screenings.
 

---

Posted by tammierene (# 11405) on :
 
Movie doesn't come out in U.S. til Friday the 19th. If I can't find a babysitter, I'll have no problem taking my 10 year old daughter to see it. She loves mysteries and puzzles, but I fear she might be bored to tears by the movie. I doubt she would ever ask me if any of it is true. She knows the difference between a movie and a documentary. She has said to me "So what if Jesus was married; it doesnt change anything." If Silas does anything that bothers her, she will cover her own eyes!! I figure movies are never as good as the books they are based on anyway, so I might be disappointed in the end. *sigh*
 

---

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :
 
It's 3.30pm on Thursday 18 May, and I've just got home from an afternoon session,this being Great Opening Day.
I found the film far too long and the dialogue so subdued (perhaps in reverence to the churches in which so much was delivered) that it was almost inaudible at times. There were some clever little historical flashbacks in black and white, including a macabre bonfire of Knights Templar, and a scene of acrobatically indignant bishops at Nicea, most wearing anachronistic mitres.
I had read the book, but even then the plot was hard to follow.
As for being regarded as an anti-Christian polemic, I'd say - Mission Improbable.
 

---

Posted by da_musicman (# 1018) on :
 
Well all the early reviews so far are saying its tripe. I'm definitely waiting for video now. (Still know my friend is going to think its amazing. )
 

---

Posted by starbelly (# 25) on :
 
Heathen, you have to watch this sort of thing on the big screen.

Tickets booked for Sunday afternoon, for the space of one week there are pretty much only 2 films showing in Exeter!
 

---

Posted by MarkthePunk (# 683) on :
 
I am most definitely not going to see the film. I am not going to reward people for putting out crap like this. In any case, I've been boycotting Sony since it came out that they were screwing over buyers of their CDs by not letting them copy music to their computers and by planting spyware on computers.

And the consensus from reviewers is that the movie is boring crap.

I hope all you who go to see it suffer, SUFFER!
 

---

Posted by alkiwifromnz (# 11354) on :
 
I dont intend on seeing the film

a complete waste of time in my book

One thing the movie does do Is
draw attention Back to Jesus
How come one Man supposed to have been dead
for over 2000 years still commands sooooo
much attention ?
 

---

Posted by Zorro (# 9156) on :
 
I hear the critics in Cannes were actually laughing, during the premier.

Bearing that in mind, I can't see myself rushing off to the cinema.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
Not sure yet. Crits haven't been good here. And I never saw Amelie cos of Audrey Tatou so whether I can sit through TDVC is in question. Er... wasn't Silas supposed to be disturbing? He was in the book, if a little 2-dimensional.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
I attended a press screening yesterday, and I thought it was one of the worst films I've seen recently -- boring, pretentious, poorly acted, poorly written, poorly directed....have I left out anything?

And that's ignoring the risible source material, which I'm sure has been thoroughly discussed here.

I didn't know whether to snore, to cry, or to giggle through the whole thing. My advice is to save your money.

Ross

[ 19. May 2006, 03:57: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]
 

---

Posted by CraigS (# 11324) on :
 
I quite enjoyed the film - didn't find it boring at all. A couple of things surprised me. I've written a full review on my blog. ( click here )
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
Heard another negative crit today, re Tom Hanks. Comments, anyone?

I can't understand how it's got a 12A certificate if it's as violent as people say.
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by babybear (# 34) on :
 
How on earth can you read a book so quickly?
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
We take the words lightly. I skimmed a book by Dan Brown on a plane and I finished it too because I wasn't reading seriously. That may not be how Rossweisse reads quickly though. The one thousand page nonfiction book I'm reading now has taken me weeks (at the rate of 75 or so minutes of reading a day on the subway.)
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

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
 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
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".
 

---

Posted by Caz... (# 3026) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
...and so far the Christian Church is still surviving?

Phew!
 

---

Posted by tammierene (# 11405) on :
 
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.

Tam
 

---

Posted by Jack the Lass (# 3415) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by tammierene:
I was the one who mentioned taking my 10 year old, but am rethinking it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eutychus:
Oh come on, lighten up, folks. It was a good evening's entertainment, voilà tout. ...

---

....
 

---

Posted by Ancient Mariner (# 4) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by cliff (# 326) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Qoheleth. (# 9265) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 

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. ...

---

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.

---

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.



An unbeatable record?
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
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 ]
 

---

Posted by Athrawes (# 9594) on :
 

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?

---

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?

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Ann (# 94) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by Bernard Mahler (# 10852) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Exiled Youth (# 8744) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by -lucy- (# 10465) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by croshtique (# 4721) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by noneen (# 11023) on :
 
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!!!

*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 !!!
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
*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 ]
 

---

Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on :
 
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).
 

---

Posted by Corpus cani (# 1663) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Matrix (# 3452) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Corpus cani:
The guy playing Robbie-Coltrane-playing-a-Bishop looked splendidly uncomfortable in his clericals.

---

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 ...
 

---

Posted by chive (# 208) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Rat (# 3373) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by A Random Ordinand (# 9444) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Margaret (# 283) on :
 
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?
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
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.

---

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.
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0