Da Vinci Code-I saw it today.

Clint is pretty good. Just too distinctive for a lot of parts.

He shares that with Austin Pendleton & Michael J. Pollard.

I'd love to do a film using all the "character actors" out there, leaving the bit roles to mainstream yahoos. :)
 
kimko said:
i remember clint in a star trek episode when he little, such a cute kid.......?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the first time I remember seeing him. He was also the serial killer in L.A. in the Seinfeld episode that saw Kramer accused of murder. :)
 
shoot i remember him in andy griffin show he was reall y little and he always had a cowboy outfit on, oh i remember ben and him
 
oh yeah that would make perfect sense why my father always said JESUS CHRIST ALMIGHTY when he hurt himself with the hammer
 
i think the biggest problem i had with the film was that it was shot and edited like a european film from like 10 years ago. silmiliar style of framing, which i find really annoying. and they have a film stock that always makes even new films look like the print has been sitting around for 20 years. kills me.

*spoiler*
i didnt understand the motivation behind ian mckelland's character. i know the actor took the role because as a homosexual he despises conventional christianity's stance on the subject (hes not bashful about that in public) and just oozed at the chance to take a stab at the church, but the character didnt have some sordid past, he wasnt abused by a priest or nearly murdered by opes dei or something. he was just there to boo hoo religion cause he felt like it. weak. poor story telling. and he didnt make the disctinction that langdon makes, jesus having a family doesnt automatically discredit his divinity.

and seriously...in renne la chateau, i think the priory of scion would have more than just a chain with a 'private' sign hanging to keep people out of thier crypt containing the secret history of priory members.

i could go on but now im ranting.
 
I saw this film on opening night and I didn't think Howard could really muck it up, but he did. Giving him credit, taking that book to the screen is a monumental task to make it good. Either way, Hanks pulled off Langdon, but didn't really fill the role up. The score was lackluster, at best. They did not pace it well with the tempo of the book. All in all it was watchable, but left me disappointed.

Here is my #1 gripe about the film, they dumbed it down too much!!! This part really annoys me...I don't know if it's the audiences or the filmmakers, but someone along the line is getting really stupid if movies need to explain every plot device in plain english in great detail so that somebody can understand them! I've been really annoyed by this since I saw it. I don't know if they're intended audience was for the small handful of people who didn't read the book or a five year old, but for someone who has read it, doesn't need every tidbit explained to them in detail.
 
I didn't read the book nor will I.

I kinda liked the film it was okay a little unnessesary CGI hear and there but it okay.

I did how ever know the ending if you can say that, I knew something just by watching suff from before, like telefon conversations and when they said something involving a girl and I knew someting more.
Akira got the Oscar just on good luck I say, I mean the guy wrote Batman Forever and made I,Robot more Will Smith like that oscar do not mean anything.

Plus when Robert trys to solve the codes it's just like A beautyfull mind.
 
IsraelHoudini said:
i think the biggest problem i had with the film was that it was shot and edited like a european film from like 10 years ago. silmiliar style of framing, which i find really annoying. and they have a film stock that always makes even new films look like the print has been sitting around for 20 years. kills me.

*spoiler*
i didnt understand the motivation behind ian mckelland's character. i know the actor took the role because as a homosexual he despises conventional christianity's stance on the subject (hes not bashful about that in public) and just oozed at the chance to take a stab at the church, but the character didnt have some sordid past, he wasnt abused by a priest or nearly murdered by opes dei or something. he was just there to boo hoo religion cause he felt like it. weak. poor story telling. and he didnt make the disctinction that langdon makes, jesus having a family doesnt automatically discredit his divinity.

and seriously...in renne la chateau, i think the priory of scion would have more than just a chain with a 'private' sign hanging to keep people out of thier crypt containing the secret history of priory members.

i could go on but now im ranting.
Click to expand...

i think there was a line in the movie (i could be wrong) that said why Teabing's character was the way he was... it's not that he hates the church it's that he is a conspiracy theorist (i think those were the words used in the line i'm referring too but again i could be wrong).
 
Man, you guys made my day with the Clint props. I'm always waiting for the Clint cameo when I watch a Ron Howard movie. It seems like Davinci will make it to my Netflix list, but it probably won't get my ten bucks at the theater.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top