Saw the trailer in the theater. Had no thoughts about it except "Holy cow! Was that Tom Hanks!?"
Anyone see the pics in that recent issue of Newsweek?
The New York Post gave this pic four stars. Also, it runs two and a half hours. Opens worldwide this Friday, 5/19.
It was panned in Cannes.
But liked by Mike!
HowStuffWorks nitpicks The Da Vinci Code.
Wikipedia has lists of problems with the book, and links to other sites filled with them. I find such nitpicking interesting, obviously, but what I find somewhat Straw Man-ish about some of these sites is that the note in the beginning of the novel only states that the art, architecture, documents and rituals in the novel are accurate, yet so many perceive a gauntlet to have been thrown down concerning all other elements in the book and film as well. I'm not saying, of course, that I have a problem with nitpicking the other elements, becasue naturally, I'm a nitpicker too, but I get the sense that people who would not normally engage in such activity with other films are doing so with this one concerning its totality. To be fair, of course, How Stuff Works appears to be consistent in this regard, because there are links to other films as well.
Things like the small GPS transmitter and bar soap seem like legit instances of artistic license, as opposed to the inaccuracies of albinism, which is slightly more fundamental to the story.
Pretty good movie. More or less as good as the book, and in some respects perhaps better. Like the book, the characters were not particularly deep, nor the story very original; the strength of it lies in the construction of the series of codes and clues, and in the fascinating nature of the quest's underlying premise, in part because at least some of it has some basis in real-life fact.
I noticed that Hanks' hair didn't look as goofy as it did in the first full trailer or posters, which is good.
Did Langdon show as much skepticism toward Teabing's theories when first meeting with him at Chateau Villet in the book? I don't recall it, which would make the movie an improvement. Not only is the conflict good for drama, but by making Langdon the skeptic, the central good guy gets to be the voice of the novel's critics, while the most uncritical and credulous proponent of its theories is the Spoiler Warning crackpot main villain. End Spoiler Warning.
I seem to recall two codexes in the novel, one inside the other. The one in the movie was, given the correct key word, was the second one in the novel, though I can't remember what the first one's key word was.
Spoiler Nit
I didn't care for the fact that the ending had all those Priory people show up with the grandmother at the end. I preferred the novel, which had the grandmother and brother living at the house next to Rosalyn Chapel. What happened to the brother? Did I understand correctly that the movie indicated that he died in the car crash? There was also no document chamber in the novel in that chapel. In the movie, that chamer appears to be the end of the quest, and the next scene with Langdon something of an addendum. But in the novel, IIRC, what they found at Rosalyn led directly to that final scene. Also, I don't seem to recall the revelation in the novel that Sauniere was not Sophie's grandfather. Is my memory playing tricks here?
SPOILER...
You've been warned...
Have not read the book, but just saw the movie.
It was entertaining. The codes were the real stars of the movie. On to the nits:
Is it normal to invite a murder suspect to the scene of the crime & drop him off?
If you were the Teacher & wanted to reveal the 'truth', would you pretend to be on the other side, find an extremist to murder those who know the 'truth', and hope that someone escapes & avoids police and either come to you for help or expose the 'truth' on their own?
I found it ironic that someone who wanted the 'truth' exposed almost killed the person was was living proof. Those who believe that a descendant of Jesus is alive should avoid killing anyone cause ya never know who the descendant is.
Even if the remains of Mary M. were found & if DNA test proved that there is a living descendant, it still can't prove that Mary had the child of Jesus. Even with documents listing names. In the end, the movie suggests that it's a matter of faith for each person. The people who believed Mary M. was with Jesus seemed just as religious as others. (Their faith was not shattered.)
In my opinion, the book / movie "The Da Vinci Code" is nothing more than a retalitory response by the Liberals to the movie "The Passion of the Christ".
"Passion" made Christ look good, powerful and it glorified Him.
"Da Vinci" made Christ look bad, weak and tore Him down.
Except "Da Vinci" was written before "Passon"; it's been on the bestseller list for like 5 years now. The movie was inevitable.
John, if you're going to make an accusation against Dan Brown, particularly one that alleges his intent, then you are obligated to provide evidence for it. You can't just assume what his intent is. Fiction involving shadowy members of powerful groups is common.
Other differences that I think I recall from the book:
-I don't recall Bezu Fache being a member of Opus Dei, and I'm positive that Aringarosa did not make up a story about Langon confessing a murder to him. Because Fache eventually realizes that Aringarosa manipulated him, this also serves to reinforce Aringarosa as a rogue member of Opus Dei, and to vindicate the organzation as a whole, since it presents yet another postive character, Fache, as a member of it.
My evidence:
To suggest (or hint) that Jesus & Mary Magdalene were married & had kids is sacrilegious and blasphemous.
Jesus came not to seek a Earthly bride,
He came to seek and to save that which was lost.
His "bride" is the Church...the ones that follow Him & His teachings.
But that does not mean that you know his intent.
In the first place, what is considered blasphemous and sacreligous varies from person to person. For example, if you have photographs in your house or on your computer (which I assume you do), then in their eyes, you're guilty of blasphemy. That doesn't mean that they can gauge your intent.
Second, there are many aspects of Jesus about which different believers (or even non-believers) have different interpretations. Many, perhaps most, would agree with you that he did not come to seek an Earthly bride. Others, such as those who give credence to the non-canonical Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Gospel of Thomas may feel that Jesus was married. Some experts on 1st Century Palestine, for example, have asserted that for a Jewish man to not be married back then was (IIRC) scandalous, and that his being married was not only quite plausible, but that his chastity may have been something written into his story by early Biblical writers.
In any event, we do not have any evidence that Brown had The Passion of the Christ in mind when he wrote the book, that he was at all offended by it, etc., and Brian flat-out asserted that he wrote the book before Gibson's movie was made. Personal feelings about blasphemy do not serve as evidence that he wrote a book in reaction to a movie that had not yet been made.
Then Brown should've made the "Da Vinci Code" movie before "Passion of Christ" movie came out. It just seems rather suspicious that he made the movie after the success of "Passion".
John, Dan Brown does not make movies; he writes books. If the books becomes a big enough hit, or someone in Hollywood really likes it than someone may look into buying the rights to adapt it into a movie/tv movie/whatever. His book "The Da Vinci Code" was released Mar 18, 2003; almost 11 months before "The Passion. And with the way books are published that means Brown started writing it some time before that since first you have to write the book, than they have to print it and all the rest of it.
As for why that one was adaped by Hollywood and not one of his other 3 books. Probably because his first 3 books were only modest hits with around 10,00 copies in the first printing while "The DaVinci Code has sold 60,500,000 copies in 3 years and topped the bestseller list for years.
Not to mention that the novel has become something of a pop culture icon. The only connection I can see with The Passion of the Christ is that 20th Century Fox made a butt load of money off that film and Columbia Pictures figures they can make themselves buku dinero off a Jesus movie. It doesn't matter to Columbia if the film is pro or anti Jesus. Just that it involves Jesus. They're gambling the public will go see another religiously inspired movie. Especially one based another bestseller. And that's the only link I see.
Very well. I concede.
I hope you don't feel like we're ganging up on you, John. But it's just that Hollywood, as a general rule, goes out of its way to avoiding offending anyone. It just isn't good business. This doesn't mean you can't be offended by The Da Vinci Code, or that you don't have the right to be. It just means most of us don't think the film was made with the intent to offend.
This does, however, gives me an opportunity to step on the soapbox briefly and note that people who protest movies such as this one and The Last Temptation of Christ do little more than provide the films with free publicity. This usually results in piquing the public's curiousity and getting them into the theaters to see a film that might not have been that good (Last Temptation). This will make the flick more of a box office success than it might have been in the first place without the free publicity provided by the protesters. The best protest, really, is to simply not support the offensive material and don't fork over your hard earneds for it.
Not a bad movie. Very faithful adaptation, which makes it harder for the movie to stand on its own. For example, without reading the book, the denoument after Teabing's arrest probably seems drawn out. Even after reading the book and knowing what happens it seemed a little long.
I didn't like that they seemed to hint Fache would turn the bishop in. Yeah, he deserved it, but I liked in the book that Aringarosa got off without much trouble. The book indicated that losing Silas was his punishment. Or maybe I'm remembering it incorrectly.
Luigi Novi: Did Langdon show as much skepticism toward Teabing's theories when first meeting with him at Chateau Villet in the book? I don't recall it, which would make the movie an improvement.
I don't think that he did in the book. I also liked the change, giving us both sides of the argument rather than Langdon just going along with Teabing. Makes me wonder how many of the protesters actually saw the movie.
Luigi Novi: I seem to recall two codexes in the novel, one inside the other. The one in the movie was, given the correct key word, was the second one in the novel, though I can't remember what the first one's key word was.
I believe that the first code word is "Sofia". I was disappointed that they didn't include this in the movie since it proved to be such a poignant moment for Sophie's feelings about her grandfather in the book.
I also didn't like the changes at the end. Especially the lack of mention of the brother.
Benn: But it's just that Hollywood, as a general rule, goes out of its way to avoiding offending anyone.
That is, until awards season.
I reviewed the scene in the book last night when posting on Peter David's blog, and indeed, Langdon nods and agrees with Teabing's statements about the Nycean Council and Jesus' divinity.
Well, I finally got around to seeing this film. It was much better than I'd heard, I enjoyed it more than many of the movies I've seen so far this summer (MI:3, Poseidon, X-Men 3). Most of the criticism I'd heard spoke of the film being too slow and confusing. My girlfriend and I had no trouble following the story, although neither of us had read the book. And I'm a really bad Catholic, so I won't pretend to have heard of a fraction of the religious references they discuss in the film.
A nit- after they land in London, Longdon and Sofia flee the Temple Church. Sofia falls and scrapes her right knee, which is shown in close-up when they ride on a London bus. The following full-body scenes of her omit the bloody knee, unit Sofia and Longdon part, at which time her knee is injured again.
Funny that they should do that, when the self-inflicted injuries on Silas' body seemed to be consistently applied in the scenes where he bared his body. Most likely they were shot at one time.
Sorry to ask a question in a conceded topic but how can Jesus' "bride" be the church when there were no churches in the first century? I'm no theologist but wasn't one of the reasons Jesus was crucified was for preaching when he wasn't, for lack of a better word, a member of the clergy?
I could be mistaken, but part of the issue as well was that he was teaching a different belief than what the Jewish faith at that time would have wanted (I'm sorry if I'm unintentionally offending anyone, but I am going somewhere with this), and also that Jerusalem and Rome felt threatened by Christ's popularity.
(odd how little some things change in two thousand years...)
Luigi Novi: There was also no document chamber in the novel in that chapel... Also, I don't seem to recall the revelation in the novel that Sauniere was not Sophie's grandfather.
I'm fairly certain there were documents in the chapel's basement. Maybe not to the same degree as in the movie, imagine that Hollywood exaggerating, but I do remember Langdon going through some of it in the book. Not sure about Sauniere though, I think he really was her grandfather.
LN: I don't recall Bezu Fache being a member of Opus Dei, and I'm positive that Aringarosa did not make up a story about Langon confessing a murder to him.
In the book, when both Fache and Langdon were in the elevator at the Louvre, Robert notices the Opus Dei pin on his lapel and I think he comments on it.
After finally seeing this movie a second time on HBO I think I liked it more than the first. I still didn't much care for the Roslyn Chapel scene, and for somebody who hasn't read the book you had some good points Terik Q, but overall it was pretty good.
After finally seeing this movie a second time on HBO...
Who nitpicks the nitpickers? You couldn't have seen this pic on HBO. It was produced by Sony/Columbia, and the "Starz/Encore" channels have exclusive pay-cable rights to Sony's film output released from 2005-11. And, they've been playing it to death since June 2007.
Who nitpicks the nitpickers?
Why the Nitpicker-nit pickers, of course! 
The Dull-Vinci Code (sorry, but I tried to watch this on Starz, and found it to be a crashing bore) makes its "broadcast" premiere this Friday night, October 31, on TNT.
These movies are, IMO, pure rubbish.
@Tim all a matter of taste.
You like these movies, Scott?
Just curious.
No, but clearly a lot of people do. Just like a ton of people went to go see 50 shades, or people go to slasher films (I can't stand slasher films), etc....
Well, I did say it was only my opinion that these movies are rubbish 