| Author |
Message |
lzrman
Member
|
# Posted: 16 Jun 2006 14:22
Reply
Who has seen this movie?
What did you think about it?
Is it worth watching again?
What did you guys think of this movie, I just went to see it last night and I thought the storyline was freak'in wicked.
Trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/
Do you believe in the whole Code of DaVinci?
Lzrman
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Jun 2006 20:05
Reply
I saw it...finally. As soon as the movie ended, I drove to Walmart and bouth the book and also Angels & Demons which is the sequel/prequel.
Everyone told me what good books they were, but I wasn't motivated to read them before I watched the movie. Now, I'm dying for all the little details that the movie had to cut out.
As controversial as this movie is within the historical and religious societies/sects, I can't believe this thread hasn't generated more discussion. Where is everone? 
|
lzrman
Member
|
# Posted: 27 Jun 2006 21:22
Reply
There in the dark with that old man lying on the floor. Or sitting in the back of that transport truck 
|
missmaul
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2006 13:54
Reply
Hate to break the raving here, but I didn't think to highly of this movie. I've read the book before I saw it, so I knew the story. (As a book it's okay, but no more than that really, anyhow this is not about the book).
The movie was longwinded, there was too much talking. They should have cut it shorter somewhat and then maybe it would have been better. People should figure out that books and movies are two different media with different conventions. You cannot translate from one to the other literally, it doesn't work. That is the mistake they made with the Da Vinci Code I believe.
As for the acting, not great either. Only Ian McKellen and Jean Reno wowed me, both Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou (who I love as Amelie) were a bit wooded and completely lacked chemistry.
The filming was a bit static. Straight cutting, some nice editing tricks every now and then, but nothing wild.
So no, not impressed.
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2006 20:51
Reply
I adore Tom Hanks. One day he will come to his senses and leave his wife for me....and we will wed and live happily ever after. Amen. Un Finis. The End.
Though, he looked to grizzly for me in this movie and I do admit that Hanks didn't have onset chemistry with Tatou.....but that's just because Hanks is saving himself for me.
I'm still disheartened that no one is delving deeper into the plot line and the concept of symbology in general. There are people in the world who devote their lives to studying symbology. What about the artwork of DaVinci himself and the inclusion of Opus Dei? The DaVinci Code boasts to be historically accurate, is this the case?
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 28 Jun 2006 21:14
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--missmaul+June 28 2006,13:54--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (missmaul @ June 28 2006,13:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->The movie was longwinded, there was too much talking. They should have cut it shorter somewhat and then maybe it would have been better.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>A valid point.. Has Hollywood conditioned us to the action packed and fluff filled movies that we no longer have the attention spans or focus to sit through movies that force us to follow dialogue and think with the characters? <br><br>I, for one, liked the fact, that I had to solve the mysteries along with the characters. It reminded me of National Treasure, which I also adored because it was a historical based mystery.....though, I'm nearly certain that this film had many critics as well.<br><br>I just felt like I left The Da Vinci Code feeling more intelligent than many movies that I've had to sit through....
|
missmaul
Member
|
# Posted: 29 Jun 2006 14:05
Reply
I am not conditioned to action packed movies, for one they are not my favorites, I'm not really a Hollywood fan anyway. I can very easily sit through a 3,5 hour Serv movie, because its great. It's not the lenght and the lack of action that bothered me. It's the fact that the story didn't have a decent pace, it didn't flow. I don't mind dialogue, I don't mind lenghty films, but they should have a good reason to have both elements in them. The Da Vinci Code didn't have a good reason, only that the book was such. Translation problem.
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 13:48
Reply
Once more . . .
his name was Leonardo. NOT Da Vinci. As for the 'code'? It's a load of hogwash. A good yarn, maybe, but no more than that.
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 15:41
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--babel+June 30 2006,13:48--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (babel @ June 30 2006,13:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->Once more . . .<br><br>his name was Leonardo. NOT Da Vinci. As for the 'code'? It's a load of hogwash. A good yarn, maybe, but no more than that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Thanks for the tip...I'm not sure what I would have done without your infinite wisdom on this one.<br><br>And OBVIOUSLY the "code", as you call it, is a work of fiction generated by a brilliant writer, but what about the actual historical references and the use of symbols in art? I own books dedicated to symbology in art. There is an actual study of it.
<br><br><!--EDIT|kady|June 30 2006,15:45-->
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 16:00
Reply
I was responding to the original post. I'm not competent to discuss the use of symbols in art in this context.
And thankyou for your recognition of my wisdom. It's never happened before. 
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 16:19
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--babel+June 30 2006,16:00--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> (babel @ June 30 2006,16:00)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I was responding to the original post. I'm not competent to discuss the use of symbols in art in this context. <br><br>And thankyou for your recognition of my wisdom. It's never happened before. <!--emo&;)--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/win.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=';)'><!--endemo--><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Sorry, if I sound rude. I'm still frustrated from my day at work. <!--emo&:(--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':('><!--endemo-->
|
babel
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 17:03
Reply
Kady, I've had a crap week and I am testy right now. I'm sorry if I seemed patronising in my original post. I'd be happy to post something a bit more intelligent tomorrow after I've had a good night's sleep 
|
kady
Member
|
# Posted: 30 Jun 2006 18:06
Reply
Behold the powers of the Kady. She can resolve an argument and get an apology out of a testy senior officer.
Ummmm.....I mean, intelligent is good. I'm looking forward to reading your posts. 
|
lzrman
Member
|
# Posted: 1 Jul 2006 15:28
Reply
Good Job Kadio! Its all about testing this olde TimeLord
|
skevington
Member
|
# Posted: 4 Jul 2006 09:17
Reply
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td><b>Quote</b> </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->What about the artwork of DaVinci himself and the inclusion of Opus Dei? The DaVinci Code boasts to be historically accurate, is this the case?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><br>Weeeell, it is a story and naturally a dramatisation *lol* Yes, Opus Dei exists, no, it isn't some evil secret organisation. Brown would say it was accurate wouldn't he, to give his work more attention and publicity, and credibility? Which conveniently mean more money for him. <!--emo&:P--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ton.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':P'><!--endemo--> <br><br>They also covered self-moritification in the movie... with the cilice, for example. You know, that sharp metal thingy the dude wore? That's the cilice. An example of dramatisation, in the movie, it made the bloke bleed and caused him great pain, it wouldn't cause someone to bleed. <!--emo&:P--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ton.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':P'><!--endemo--> But yeah, it is typical of a member Opus Dei to cause themself pain to make themself feel closer to God, which seems odd to us... and it is odd, but i suppose i can see where they are coming from. That doesn't mean i agree with it. <br><br>There is a lot of stuff in the movie too about Knights Templar which was historically accurate. They were 'warrior monks' and they were burnt at the stake and persecuted. <br><br>As for Da Vinci's last supper, it is in fact a woman in the picture and not a man. This has only recently came about because the painting has not been long restored to its original condition. It was hidden under hundreds of years of filth. <br><br>As for Da Vinci's involvement in Opus Dei? I haven't a clue. It is possible. He was born in Italy, Opus Dei follows the teachings of the Catholic church to the letter. Naturally he would have been a Catholic.<br><br>But it is a book and a movie, a dramatisation of reality for entertainment purposes, it ain't all true. <!--emo&:P--><img src="http://www.outpost10f.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/ton.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=':P'><!--endemo--><br><br>Dmitri
|
