Reply With Quote
What crowds? I went for a 9:30 showing, and the place wasn't even packed.
I'm waiting for the crowds to die down. I'm re-reading both Angels & Demons and DVC before I go. I think everyone should read A&D first because it sets up the idea of code breaking in the art etc. I've looked into the Illuminati mentioned in A&D and that's a big story of its own right.
What crowds? I went for a 9:30 showing, and the place wasn't even packed.
Really? My sister and I checked it out yesterday afternoon and it was tight. We prefer the middle of the room with no beehive hairdos in front of us. We don't go to late shows because we have to wake up at o'dark:30 for work.
^that could be why.Less people at night.
Yeah, too many people out on Sunday after brunch. Maybe some random Wednesday, right after work. But, I do want to re-read them anyway. It has been 2 years. I didn't realize that until just now.
I have the illustrated DVC. I read the plain jane one, then got this as a gift.
I thought it was a good movie, not a great one. The book was excellent and if you read the book you get kind of annoyed by some of the stuff they left out of the movie. However, the movie would have been four hours if they explained everything. I thought Ron Howard did as a good a job as he could because there was no way the movie could live up to the book. I also don't understand why everyone is calling Tom Hanks "boring" in the movie, that was the character he was playing, an intellectual, not Indiana Jones.
I wanted to see it because of the controversy...I wish I spent my day doing something more useful like looking for Big-Foot or flying saucers....
I can’t believe that Ron Howard was involved in this non-sense....I stayed to watch the end credits fully expecting to see "Special Consultant Oliver Stone"....
I'm going to finally give in and read the book but I think I'll read the book Jekka recommends first. Now I just need to find them at half-price books.
I enjoyed the movie and so did my husband. I was worried about they would explain all the little nuances to people who hadn't read the book and still get it in to 2 hours. But they did a pretty good job. They found a way but I won't spoil it. They way they did the visualization with the artwork from the last supper was pretty cool.
I had read the book and my husband had not. He's pretty religious and attends mass with me every Sunday although he is not catholic (non-denominational). It didn't seem to offend his religious sensibilities. He thought the movie was entertaining and even watched a lot of the History channel specials yesterday on the Knights of Templar and the DVC.
I watched those specials on THC yesterday too.
so did I. Very good.
I think if you take it as the fiction that it is, it's pretty good.
The Knights Templar was great stuff. I watched THC for hours the other night. Really good stuff. I teach English and History so this really gets me jazzed.
I read about 1/3 of Angels & Demons today. Yes, I know the ending, but I was looking for more of the hidden meanings and looking up the art/monuments mentioned. All in all, it's a great thought experiment. I love to have my brain engaged while reading. I read the who-done-it books, but this is far more fun. It leads one off to explore new areas, be it art, secret societies, the Church as a whole, codes....I love it.
Last edited by McKenzie; 05-24-2006 at 03:41 PM.
Harry Potter has nothing on me.
Ok, that's my 1st laugh since we went fishin'.
Don't the Knights Templar (not Knights of Templar) have some small part in the film? I haven't watched it, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD. I'm caving in and going to read the novel though. But yeah, I find the Knights Templar quite fascinating. At least the historical Knights Templar, people try to e them up with gnosticism and occult practices, but I feel that backfires. I find real history quite interesting thank you, which is part of the reason I'm not buying into the Da Vinci Code hype.
I'm so so on it. I enjoyed the book, but it did have major gaping holes. Movie is much the same. If you go into it in order to enjoy some entertainment, it's great. Even a little thought provoking, because although much of the evidence in support of sang real is su ious at best, the idea of Jesus being married is not a new one. Exploring the implications of that idea (and the one thing with some support via the apocryphal scriptures of the Dead Sea scrolls) can be provoking enough without the major cover up by the Church. In fact it's the far more interesting of the 'scandals' as far as I am concerned.
As for the movie - I largely enjoyed it, though I agree with JT that the book read like a movie in the first place. You do NOT have to read Angels and Demons first - the movie does not refer to that at all, the backstory may complicate things if you've not read the DVC beforehand. They altered parts of the story, did a good job of toeing the line with the Church/Opus Dei (less antagonistic or judgmental than the book, imo). I thought the acting was pretty good, and I was impressed with what Ron Howard did visually to try and jam in as much explanation as he could.
For as much as I thought Tom Hanks was pretty good - I was too distracted by his hair and the wrinkly skin on his neck (it looked to me as if he'd had a face lift, and they hadn't drawn up or taken out any skin on his throat, thus highlighting it's wrinkliness) to give much thought to his performance.
I was disappointed with the end - it felt to me like it was going, going, going and BOOM sitting, dragging at the last 20 minutes or so, and the ending in Roslin I found absurd, unrealistic and disappointing. I vastly preferred the book there, it was more satisfying.
I'm not sorry we spent the money to see the movie, put it that way. Don't think I'll be adding it to my DVD collection, but worth seeing.
DVC the book is amazing. I loved it ever since I first read it and its so descriptive and detailed that you create the movie in your head itself. So watching the movie was good but the book was much better. I think that the hype and expectancy of the film really killed it for me.
HORRIBLY OVERRATED MOVIE. I can't even begin to tell you how much the book was better. Tom Hanks, I love him, but his acting was just average in this film. That's 2.5 hours of my life I'll never get back
My boyfriend literally FELL ASLEEP. Now I gotta go see MI 3 with him to make up for it...
Don't people always say the book was better than the movie???
It really isn't a surprise in this case. How long did it take you to read the book, and how long did it take to watch the movie???
will always get left out.
You're right, the book is usually better. However, I just didn't see this movie made out the way it could have been. There really wasn't anything special about it that usually gives movies made from books an edge: the acting was so-so, the cinematography was so-so, the writing was so-so. The only thing I give credit for was that the casting director picked an obsolutely perfect guy to play the monk Silas. That guy is going to give me nightmares tonight.
I didn't really like it. I didn't realy like the book all that much either though. So much hype for what?
It has hype because people keep talking about it after they see it constantly mentioned on TV, see a Da Vinci Code Revealed special on history channel, or a Da Vinci Code DeCoded on Discovery, or read a comment about how the movie is being boycotted, etc
etc
etc
etc
You're right. My friends who saw it, hadn't read the book, and I think a lot of people misinterpreted what the film was truly about. I think they expected more action/suspense/drama etc. The secrets and codes were not built up enough in the movie, IMO, to warrant shocking/surprising the audience--which is what I think the average viewer was expecting.
Don't the Knights Templar (not Knights of Templar) have some small part in the film? I haven't watched it, I'll wait until it comes out on DVD. I'm caving in and going to read the novel though. But yeah, I find the Knights Templar quite fascinating. At least the historical Knights Templar, people try to e them up with gnosticism and occult practices, but I feel that backfires. I find real history quite interesting thank you, which is part of the reason I'm not buying into the Da Vinci Code hype.
Yes, there is a big part of the entire theory that centers on the Knights Templar. Earlier, someone said that reading Angels&Demons wasn't needed to see DVC. However, going back and getting background about the entire plot against the Church is suggested. A&D deals with the Illuminati, the Hassassian who is Illuminati and kills 4 Cardinals, thus setting up the entire idea of why Mary would flee, if in fact she was The Holy Grail.
I have 2 copies of A&D. In the second one, put out by Pocket Books. I quote, "What do you think I intend? I'm a descendant of Hassassain."
Langdon felt a shiver. He knew the name well. The church had made some deadly enemies through the years--the Hassassain, the Knights Templar, armies that had either been either hunted by the Vatican or betrayed by them" (Brown, 194).
It may not seem like you'll find valuable information in A&D, but you will. The plots are not tied, just the scheme of code breaking and the problems the Vatican had with secret societies.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
