Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The DaVinci Code

Collapse

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The DaVinci Code

    I know y'all are dying to read my 75-word review from last night's screening:

    "Good movie, but I wonder if I wouldn’t have liked it better if I hadn’t read the book. Tom Hanks is a complete miscast, and the greatest asset of the book, its compelling pace, is lost here in sloggy exposition. Most (but definitely not all) of the plot is intact, but the movie seems much more focused on the religious implications than the book. For one reason or another, this WILL be Big Box Office."

    The lead should have been Harrison Ford . . . of 10 years ago - don't know who could have done it now, but Tom Hanks was NOT the one. And the hair?! When I read the book, the religious aspects seemed to be in the background of what really was just a good puzzle. The movie tried to be more ominous (and much slower) than the book. If you have NOT read the book, I think you'll be intrigued, and if you HAVE read the book, you know you're gonna go see it just to see how they did.

    I predict $200,000,000+ USA gross easy.

  • #2
    How bad is Hanks miscasted? As bad as Hanks starring in the next Indiana Jones movie. As bad as Ben Stiller in the title role of the next Prefontaine disaster?
    phsstt!

    Comment


    • #3
      In the book, the character was no-nonsense. Hanks always looks like he's about to crack wise. He's just not the reluctant hero-type that Harrison Ford perfected. The choices are Harrison Ford - 10 years ago, or Tom Cruise - 10 years from now.

      Comment


      • #4
        I was at the screening last night here in Indy.... friend won tickets over the radio, asked me to go with him. I had not read the book, plus I am a bit stupid. plus I have trouble understanding accented English, but I WAS LOST.

        IMHO entertaining, but not a blockbuster by any means. Most compelling character ( only one, really) was the blonde-haired killer. Talk about a BELIEVER in what he thinks and does !

        And Hanks and the lady slipped away from the police so easily a few times, you would have thought they had Jack Bauer with them. Hardly plausible.

        Comment


        • #5
          I read the book on a wee-small out and redeye back junket to the left coast yesterday.. It was a fast moving, intriguing, improbable yarn with, IMO, kind of a weak finish.. now I can't decide if I want to see the movie.. I am almost invariably disappointed in movies based on books I have read.. I have seen trailers of the movie and, after reading the book, I agree Tom Hanks was miscast..

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lonewolf
            I am almost invariably disappointed in movies based on books I have read
            Three movies that did the book proud: Catch-22, Deliverance and the best adaptation EVER: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.

            Comment


            • #7
              One flew over the cuckoos nest , top film , but the book was so much better
              the peanut butter in the toilet basin was hilarious :lol:
              Good old british common sense!

              Comment


              • #8
                it seems that hanks ruins all the book-to-movie transitions

                last "novel" i read was "bonfire of the vanities" ~ ?15y ago ( as you may have guessed, i don't read much fiction ! ) - that film was a disaster ! it totally destroyed what was a good novel

                when i heard he was doing this film, i suspected he'd destroy this as well ( haven't opened the book - borrowed it from my sister 3/12 ago & is sitting in front of me with a post-it attached to it "must read before film comes out" - i failed

                i don't know how this guy won 2 oscars - he never seemed to be anything better than "batchelor party" material

                Comment


                • #9
                  Best part of the Bonfire was when the guy was explaining how he couldn't get by on 2.6 million dollars a year. Great book.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by tafnut
                    Originally posted by lonewolf
                    I am almost invariably disappointed in movies based on books I have read
                    Three movies that did the book proud: Catch-22, Deliverance and the best adaptation EVER: One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
                    The Old Man and the Sea. The film was amazingly faithful to the language and the spirit and feel of the book. I was awed by the accomplishment.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I have found on rare occassion that it sometimes enhances the experience to see a movie, THEN read the book. I really enjoyed The Count of Monte Christo in the theaters. Then I thought I'd like to delve deeper into the story by reading the novel (the unabridged version naturally). One of my all-time favorite novels now! Had I read the book first, I may have been disappointed with the movie. But the movie was great and so was the book. And, yes, there were enough differences that I could really get into the book even though I already saw the film.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        While the movie isn't great, it's not as stinky as many of the reviews would
                        indicate. Tom Hanks being miscast isn't as much of a problem as
                        the weak screenplay. But there's an excellent supporting cast, great
                        location photography and the basic story held my interest. Roger Ebert
                        gave it three stars out of four and I'd tend to agree.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The original book version of "Shane" was on par with the movie that followed. As far as "The Da Vinci Code" is concerned, I saw the coming attractions and figured that the movie had to be better than the book which was quite mediocre, but, if the critics are correct, I was wrong! If anyone wants to read a summer beach reading page turning book that was light years better than the movie, read Carl Hiassen's "Striptease."

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MJD
                            Best part of the Bonfire was when the guy was explaining how he couldn't get by on 2.6 million dollars a year. Great book.
                            Agree. "A Man in Full" is also quite good but I'll rank it below Bonfire. But avoid "I am Charlotte Simmons" Wolfe totally off his game. Stupid book.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Per Andersen
                              "A Man in Full" is also quite good but I'll rank it below Bonfire..

                              Well below, at least in my opinion.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X