bob monkhouse
Hmmmm........
Thinking of going to see The Da Vinci Code today - Anyone seen it yet - Is it worth seeing ?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
The Da Vinci Code - Worth watching ?
- Thread starter bob monkhouse
- Start date
Redhead
New member
I thought it was pretty good although possibly a little bit too long.
Brixtaan
New member
I know i won't be going to see that shower of shite.Aparently if you haven't read the book don't bother.If you HAVE read the book aren't you tired of it by now?
Trufflehound
Re-enfranchised
Saw it on Saturday, dragged in against my will.
Ron Howard doesn't have a clue how to direct a film in terms of editing, pacing, or style, or anything else needed to maintain any semblance of tension.
Very poor acting by Tom Hanks and (especially) Audrey Tatou, meaning you don't give a flying f**k about their characters. And they go through the whole movie apparently with a dry cleaner, shoe shiner and hairdresser in tow, as they both manage to look immaculate in every scene, despite getting into scrape after scrape...
The script clunks so much it either makes you cringe or laugh at its banality. The plot "twists" are telegraphed a mile off (I haven't read the book and it was still gobsmackingly obvious).
Oh, and the "flashbacks" are completely unecessary for anyone with an IQ over 15, and frankly just f*cking irritating.
Pile of shite in other words.
Ron Howard doesn't have a clue how to direct a film in terms of editing, pacing, or style, or anything else needed to maintain any semblance of tension.
Very poor acting by Tom Hanks and (especially) Audrey Tatou, meaning you don't give a flying f**k about their characters. And they go through the whole movie apparently with a dry cleaner, shoe shiner and hairdresser in tow, as they both manage to look immaculate in every scene, despite getting into scrape after scrape...
The script clunks so much it either makes you cringe or laugh at its banality. The plot "twists" are telegraphed a mile off (I haven't read the book and it was still gobsmackingly obvious).
Oh, and the "flashbacks" are completely unecessary for anyone with an IQ over 15, and frankly just f*cking irritating.
Pile of shite in other words.
Last edited:
Publius Ovidius
Well-known member
that good eh?
I think we will go tonight
I think we will go tonight
I enjoyed it
bob monkhouse
Hmmmm........
- Thread starter
- #7
What a waste of time that was ! Have not read the book and I'm now wondering what all the fuss is about.
Don't waste 2 and a half hours of your life watching this !
Don't waste 2 and a half hours of your life watching this !
Giant Seagull
That was textbook
absolute GASH
that is all
that is all
Grizz
Well-known member
- Jul 5, 2003
- 1,253
Its an average film, nothing special which is a real shame as it could've been so much better.
Tom Hanks was just wrong to be cast in the role of Richard Langdon, he was very bland and didn't have any presence in a film where he was the lead. I would've much preferred to see Harrison Ford in that role even if he is 15-20 years too old for it. He would've added that Fugitive/Clear and Present Danger style to the film which is what it sorely needed.
Audrey Tatou was again quite poor for a leading lady. She had some great moments, such as the stare me down contest with the monk on the plane and I sat there and though, if only you'd played the whole film with that passion you would've shone!
Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany are fantastic really played their roles well and were about the only bright spark.
The film follows the book quite closely from what i can remember of it. Agree with Trufflehound the flashbacks were exceedingly annoying and way too bright for a cinema. The film on the whole is very dark for the first half as its at night and the flashbacks actually hurt my eyes as they were very quick and intensive.
On the whole, disappointed..........
As to the book being overhyped shit, i beg to differ. It depends what you're looking for. As a page turning thriller is a stonking read, i couldn't put it down, but anything else than that and yes you're wanting too much. It did get me thinking though and i spent plenty of time on the net reading a lot more about Da Vinci and the Catholic Church, so it enabled me to expand my knowledge that way and so that's a big plus in my book.
Grizz
Tom Hanks was just wrong to be cast in the role of Richard Langdon, he was very bland and didn't have any presence in a film where he was the lead. I would've much preferred to see Harrison Ford in that role even if he is 15-20 years too old for it. He would've added that Fugitive/Clear and Present Danger style to the film which is what it sorely needed.
Audrey Tatou was again quite poor for a leading lady. She had some great moments, such as the stare me down contest with the monk on the plane and I sat there and though, if only you'd played the whole film with that passion you would've shone!
Ian McKellen and Paul Bettany are fantastic really played their roles well and were about the only bright spark.
The film follows the book quite closely from what i can remember of it. Agree with Trufflehound the flashbacks were exceedingly annoying and way too bright for a cinema. The film on the whole is very dark for the first half as its at night and the flashbacks actually hurt my eyes as they were very quick and intensive.
On the whole, disappointed..........
As to the book being overhyped shit, i beg to differ. It depends what you're looking for. As a page turning thriller is a stonking read, i couldn't put it down, but anything else than that and yes you're wanting too much. It did get me thinking though and i spent plenty of time on the net reading a lot more about Da Vinci and the Catholic Church, so it enabled me to expand my knowledge that way and so that's a big plus in my book.
Grizz