http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=davincicode.htm
Not too shabby for a film with bad reviews. 224 million worldwide since May 19th.
Not too shabby for a film with bad reviews. 224 million worldwide since May 19th.
Da Vinci Code-I saw it today.
- Thread starter Slimothy
- Start date
Brandon Rice
Distributed Producer
I wasn't surprised by the numbers... I doubt it'll keep it up though... since most people who I've talked to who saw it, thought it was just.... there.
I went to the movie resentfully. I say "resentfully" because friends and I just wanted to see a movie last night and we looked at ALL the listings (like 50 movies at least) and didn't see ANYTHING getting expecially good reviews that we wanted to see. So we opted for DaVinci Code, and I thought damn, those guys are gonna get my money even though I heard it was a bad film. So we get there, the theatre is SOLD OUT...and dammit if I don't actually sorta like the movie. I read the book, and it's a good adaptation of the book. What more do ya want? I didn't think it was bad at all. Entertained from start to finish. Worth my $12. I think it will make a fortune because it does exactly what it's supposed to do for a mainstream, popular flick.
Rasquachemedia
Well-known member
yeah i stilll look forward to seeing it. i might wait to later in the week, when the lines are not so big.
Saw the movie yesterday. Never read the book, knowing there was a film version coming up. Here's what I tought of it:
Good cinematography. Ron Howard and his DP came with a very nice looking and framed movie. Well directed, with interesting change of pace with occasional "I never saw it coming" "Booh's". Good pacing, and it feels like a complete movie. There where, however, some interior church shots that looked a bit "studio"- was this movie entirely shot on location? If so, my mistake.
Good acting from the "Wimbledon" lead and the "2 blockbusters in a row" Sir . Bellow expectation performances from Hanks and "Amelie". Jean Reno did what he could from such small screen time- good performance from him.
Good, but still very much "trimmed" script- Two and a half hours where not enough. I wanted more info. I felt entertained all the time, however. Bad corny dialogue in some parts, with unbelievable "Arnie level" cheesiness- "Godspeed"... However, just a small part of it, tough.
All in all, a very entertaining movie that came beyond my expectations. I was expecting Hanks and "Amelie" to save the movie, but it was the story and the supporting acts that brought it home. All in all, a good movie experience.
As for the story and all the politics and controversy behind it... The movie is not that controversial, in my P.O.V. It is indeed a testament of tolerance and maturity for a religious community to embrace this sort of movie with comprehension and critical ( as in "debatable") manner.
Anyway, I strongly recommend a view for everyone that didn't read the book. Just take the story with a grain of salt, and enjoy the ride.
Good cinematography. Ron Howard and his DP came with a very nice looking and framed movie. Well directed, with interesting change of pace with occasional "I never saw it coming" "Booh's". Good pacing, and it feels like a complete movie. There where, however, some interior church shots that looked a bit "studio"- was this movie entirely shot on location? If so, my mistake.
Good acting from the "Wimbledon" lead and the "2 blockbusters in a row" Sir . Bellow expectation performances from Hanks and "Amelie". Jean Reno did what he could from such small screen time- good performance from him.
Good, but still very much "trimmed" script- Two and a half hours where not enough. I wanted more info. I felt entertained all the time, however. Bad corny dialogue in some parts, with unbelievable "Arnie level" cheesiness- "Godspeed"... However, just a small part of it, tough.
All in all, a very entertaining movie that came beyond my expectations. I was expecting Hanks and "Amelie" to save the movie, but it was the story and the supporting acts that brought it home. All in all, a good movie experience.
As for the story and all the politics and controversy behind it... The movie is not that controversial, in my P.O.V. It is indeed a testament of tolerance and maturity for a religious community to embrace this sort of movie with comprehension and critical ( as in "debatable") manner.
Anyway, I strongly recommend a view for everyone that didn't read the book. Just take the story with a grain of salt, and enjoy the ride.
Z
Active member
another **spoiler**
I'm sorry but did I miss something in this movie... may have been the part i fell asleep. If they knew who Sophie was (which they did from the newspapers) why didn't they find her? She didn't know who she was but her grandmother apparently did and knew her name. Looks like her grandmother just didn't want to tell her? Whats so hard about picking up the telephone and dialing 411?
Or would this spoil all the magic of the film? Someone please explain this one to me... thanks
I'm sorry but did I miss something in this movie... may have been the part i fell asleep. If they knew who Sophie was (which they did from the newspapers) why didn't they find her? She didn't know who she was but her grandmother apparently did and knew her name. Looks like her grandmother just didn't want to tell her? Whats so hard about picking up the telephone and dialing 411?
Or would this spoil all the magic of the film? Someone please explain this one to me... thanks
Z said:
SPOILER
Because her grandfather just died, and she immediately went for the crime scene. Her grand father was the "grand master" (or something like that). Do you want better protection than that? Who's to say she wasn't living with people that wanted to protect her?
END SPOILER
The main quiry with the logic in the movie lies on the "proof" part, but I believe we should only discuss this maybe a week later, after the majority of the people have seen the movie... (Or Start a separate thread called "SPOILER FILLED ANALYSIS OF THE DA VINCI CODE"
Batutta
Major Contributor
I saw this movie. Overall I thought it was okay, a near perfect adaptation of the book, and I think therein lies the problem for a lot of critics and audiences. This film is being marketed as a thriller, and the book and movie is devoid of any big thrills. Sure, there's a chase here, a killing there, and so on, but on this level it's fairly generic. What made the book compelling is the conspiracy elements and the code breaking, intellectual content that is fascinating to read because we're reading the characters thoughts and how, step by step, they go about breaking the codes. On screen, this stuff is much less interesting because the audience is limited to only what they can see. Ron Howard does his best by visualizing some of it with fancy graphics and re-creations, but the bottom line is that code breaking is not that viscerally exciting. What we're left with is some marginally suspenseful action. A lot of critics are bagging Tom Hanks, but I thought he did a solid job. I think the problem is that a lot of the "action" this character does is in his head, breaking codes, so other than that he just gets chased and beaten up a lot. This makes him a less compelling hero to watch on screen than he is in the book, where we have the benefit of hearing his internal dialogue. Again, an okay, but flawed movie.
Last edited:
Rasquachemedia
Well-known member
i was stoked when i heard they were going to make this a movie, went to see it today and am very dissappointed. i knew it wouldn't be as good as the book, but i thought it would be gripping. and it was really a yawn.
acting: weak all around. but the woman was the worse and the x-men guy was the best. tom hanks didn't do too well. don't know if it was howard's directing or hanks himself, but was not so good.
Paris image wise was too fuzzy and soft for me, England was sharper and more saturated, which i liked a lot more.
maybe the book was too complex to make into a movie, all those flashbacks got on my nerves.
the effects with that scene where hanks tossess the thing in the air in the temple, i thought was cheesy and unnessecary, as were a few others.
by far not a horrible film, but i sure don't want to ever see it again. and i here they pretty much ok'd the sequel.
might be ron's weakest film. can't recall a weaker than that for him.
acting: weak all around. but the woman was the worse and the x-men guy was the best. tom hanks didn't do too well. don't know if it was howard's directing or hanks himself, but was not so good.
Paris image wise was too fuzzy and soft for me, England was sharper and more saturated, which i liked a lot more.
maybe the book was too complex to make into a movie, all those flashbacks got on my nerves.
the effects with that scene where hanks tossess the thing in the air in the temple, i thought was cheesy and unnessecary, as were a few others.
by far not a horrible film, but i sure don't want to ever see it again. and i here they pretty much ok'd the sequel.
might be ron's weakest film. can't recall a weaker than that for him.
Yas Kassana
Well-known member
This movie sucks! And no, i'm not going to justify why it sucks, it just does. Saw it, and i have never hated a movie more than this.
i felt the same, didnt hate it but wasnt wowed by it. i felt it lacked the detail the book had, and that tom hanks and audrey tautou lacked chemistry. so for the first bit it really dragged. but once Ian mckellen came in the acting dynamic picked up drastically. but once he was out of the picture it seemed to drag again. well thats my two cents
Rasquachemedia
Well-known member
okay, this is how bad it was. i went to bathroom on purpose twice, just so i wouldn't have to see the bad acting and horrible dialogue. I don't think i've ever done that be fore in my life at a movie theatre. Well, the only reason i didn't do that during Solaris was because the person who bought my ticket was sitting next to me.
The biggest problem with this movie, that people seem to miss, is that The DaVinci Code is basically a feminist book (and with good reason). The main character in the book is -not- Tom Hanks's character, but Audrey Tatou's. She's the one who cracks all the codes, she's the one that gets Langdon out of trouble. She's the one that makes active decisions. Langdon is along for the ride. In the book.
In order to make the movie suitable for Tom Hanks, and in turn make sure it is internationally commercially viable, they changed a movie which is basically about the strength of women, and the historical minimization of women, by WEAKENING women, and minimizing the woman. It's almost laughable, really. There were scenes where they discussed how Sophie was being "primed to be senechaux" because she'd been taught how to crack codes/cryptex's since she was a child, but she couldn't figure out the anagrams from the very beginning, where langdon could. (in the book, guess who figured them out)
This sort of nonsense is just horrible. It'd be like making a film about Martin Luther King, but inserting lots of scenes where he does gunplay in order to keep people in the theaters. WTF were they thinking?
And then on top of it. It was poorly paced. Overly scored, and a very bland adaptation. Yuck.
This movie was a misfire before they rolled the first second of film.
M
In order to make the movie suitable for Tom Hanks, and in turn make sure it is internationally commercially viable, they changed a movie which is basically about the strength of women, and the historical minimization of women, by WEAKENING women, and minimizing the woman. It's almost laughable, really. There were scenes where they discussed how Sophie was being "primed to be senechaux" because she'd been taught how to crack codes/cryptex's since she was a child, but she couldn't figure out the anagrams from the very beginning, where langdon could. (in the book, guess who figured them out)
This sort of nonsense is just horrible. It'd be like making a film about Martin Luther King, but inserting lots of scenes where he does gunplay in order to keep people in the theaters. WTF were they thinking?
And then on top of it. It was poorly paced. Overly scored, and a very bland adaptation. Yuck.
This movie was a misfire before they rolled the first second of film.
M
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
What are you talking about ?
That's not true.
Langdon's character solves a multitude of problems and clues in the book. In fact, I believe he solves the majority of them. I have the novel in front of me; but would hate to have to go through it
That's not true.
Langdon's character solves a multitude of problems and clues in the book. In fact, I believe he solves the majority of them. I have the novel in front of me; but would hate to have to go through it
Slimothy
Veteran
That's what I was thinking.John_Hudson said:What are you talking about ?
That's not true.
Langdon's character solves a multitude of problems and clues in the book. In fact, I believe he solves the majority of them. I have the novel in front of me; but would hate to have to go through it
Not to be rude.
Not to be rude.
You were right about him cracking that first code, that was my bad, I was reacting mostly to the impression that Langdon was sort of dead weight for the novel, whereas Sophie was the real deal. Here's why I felt this, in the book:
The first major decision, is in the Louvre, when they make a run for it. Robert Langdon has nothing to do with this. He's just sitting htere stunned.
p80 "Nonetheless, Sophie made her decision. Robert Langdon was about to escape the Louvre, whether he wanted to or not."
Then when the guards make a run for it, it's Sophie who makes the call about the emergency stairwell.
p87 "Langdon decided not to say another word all evening. Sophie Neveu was clearly a hell of a lot smarter than he was."
Langdon doesn't make a real decision in this novel for another 20 pages, when he decides to go BACK into the louvre, after discovering the P.S. thing. This after Sophie TOLD him to go outside.
But then the guards catch them and once again Sophie saves the day, hiding behind the picture, then she figures out the madonna of the Rocks anagram, she does the escape driving in the car, langdon can't even drive stick...
I still believe, that based on the characterization of Langdon and Neveu in the novel, that Hanks and Tatou were not the right cast. Hanks is a strong, confident character. Even when he fakes otherwise. Langdon, much much less so.
The novel is filled with comments about certain characters being misogynist, or sexist, and of course, is about the slur campaign against Mary Magdalene, and ends (in the movie anyway) with Sophie Neveu (spoiler spoiler) being the descendant of Christ. Why make her character so lame in the movie? Makes no sense.
M
Not to be rude.
You were right about him cracking that first code, that was my bad, I was reacting mostly to the impression that Langdon was sort of dead weight for the novel, whereas Sophie was the real deal. Here's why I felt this, in the book:
The first major decision, is in the Louvre, when they make a run for it. Robert Langdon has nothing to do with this. He's just sitting htere stunned.
p80 "Nonetheless, Sophie made her decision. Robert Langdon was about to escape the Louvre, whether he wanted to or not."
Then when the guards make a run for it, it's Sophie who makes the call about the emergency stairwell.
p87 "Langdon decided not to say another word all evening. Sophie Neveu was clearly a hell of a lot smarter than he was."
Langdon doesn't make a real decision in this novel for another 20 pages, when he decides to go BACK into the louvre, after discovering the P.S. thing. This after Sophie TOLD him to go outside.
But then the guards catch them and once again Sophie saves the day, hiding behind the picture, then she figures out the madonna of the Rocks anagram, she does the escape driving in the car, langdon can't even drive stick...
I still believe, that based on the characterization of Langdon and Neveu in the novel, that Hanks and Tatou were not the right cast. Hanks is a strong, confident character. Even when he fakes otherwise. Langdon, much much less so.
The novel is filled with comments about certain characters being misogynist, or sexist, and of course, is about the slur campaign against Mary Magdalene, and ends (in the movie anyway) with Sophie Neveu (spoiler spoiler) being the descendant of Christ. Why make her character so lame in the movie? Makes no sense.
M
MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
Honestly I could care less about any of the accusations of sacriledge and all that crap... I don't even understand what the big outrage is (or was... did that blow over?)
About all I can say about it (saw it last night) is... 's alright.
I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. I was bored and I felt like I was sitting in a class that was beneath me... I almost had to yell "GIMME' A BREAK!" when they showed the flashback of how they avoided capture in the private jet... jeez, like I couldn't have just filled in that hole on my own?
Another pet peeve is the trailer shown on TV... they show the 1 second snippets of action as if it's a "real" part of the story and then it's just the same 1 second snippet within the movie! (Think falling down a well.)
It's like if a total chick flick love story came out... and within it the girl says "love is like war" and they show a quick flash of a battle scene... then on the trailer you see that battle scene as if it's somehow part of the story! (I'm laughing my ass off here)
Yeah... the movie?... 's alright. I coulda' seen this on DVD... but had I been on my own couch I may have nodded off.
About all I can say about it (saw it last night) is... 's alright.
I'd give it a 6.5 out of 10. I was bored and I felt like I was sitting in a class that was beneath me... I almost had to yell "GIMME' A BREAK!" when they showed the flashback of how they avoided capture in the private jet... jeez, like I couldn't have just filled in that hole on my own?
Another pet peeve is the trailer shown on TV... they show the 1 second snippets of action as if it's a "real" part of the story and then it's just the same 1 second snippet within the movie! (Think falling down a well.)
It's like if a total chick flick love story came out... and within it the girl says "love is like war" and they show a quick flash of a battle scene... then on the trailer you see that battle scene as if it's somehow part of the story! (I'm laughing my ass off here)
Yeah... the movie?... 's alright. I coulda' seen this on DVD... but had I been on my own couch I may have nodded off.