my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Da Vinci Code (Page 1)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: Da Vinci Code Justin Gorka Expert Film Handler Posts: 174 From: High Wycombe, England Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-18-2006 07:54 PM                     Well, having NOT read the book I quite enjoyed it. I'm not sure Tom Hanks was the right person and there were a few corny bits, but on the whole the time passed quickly (2hrs 28 mins)which to me is always a good bench mark. Oh, and for those religious members please try to remember it is a work of FICTION so lets not have any banner waving!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-18-2006 11:54 PM                     quote: Oh, and for those religious members please try to remember it is a work of FICTION so lets not have any banner waving! Humm.... I think Larry Miller's playing it here in SLC....  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-19-2006 01:37 AM                        Must not have any gay cowboys in it then, eh?  |  IP: Logged Robert John Jeromson Master Film Handler Posts: 264 From: Auckland, New Zealand Registered: Jul 2004 posted 05-19-2006 03:37 AM                     I had a conversation with someone today who was of the opinion that you would have to be on drugs, with a concussion, blind and with perforated ear drums to appreciate this film. Whilst I think that is unnecessarily harsh I do believe had I not seen it at 11:00pm in the evening and instead seen it during the day with an audience I might have thought more of but, as is so often the case it doesn't live up to its hype and is lukewarm at best. Sections of it are intriguing but overall I found it flat, Hans Zimmer score is impressive (as always though). 2.5 out of 5.  |  IP: Logged Phil Blake Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 558 From: esperance western australia Registered: Nov 2003 posted 05-19-2006 04:02 AM                        Also not having read the book I was not exactly sure what to expect. I also found it interesting , well acted and the flashback scenes were very impressive. The sound (in DTS) was very good but similar to MIP 3 the focus was not the best. The critics over here are bagging it big time giving it 1 star and saying its not worth the film it's printed on! Well, they gave Date Movie 2 stars and I am quite sure the Da Vinci code rates far higher than that! I guess this weekend will tell how successfull it will be. 3 out of 5 for me  |  IP: Logged Keith Peticolas Expert Film Handler Posts: 108 From: Eagle River, Alaska, USA Registered: Aug 2001 posted 05-19-2006 08:23 AM                     Just finished watching my print and really enjoyed it. Ian Mckellan (sp?) does steal the scenes he is in. But is over all real well casted pic. The weirdo focus thing had me making a few trips to the booth to check things, but got into story and it doesn't bug ya much. Joe Blow won't notice it. Decent sound, although not a big sound movie. Dialog was nice and clean. The book is a damn hard act to follow. Ron Howard did it justice. Won't break records but will do okay. Hanks final scene was very cool.  |  IP: Logged Justin Gorka Expert Film Handler Posts: 174 From: High Wycombe, England Registered: Apr 2006 posted 05-19-2006 08:46 AM                     Think the critics are panning it 'cos it's had so much hype. Seems to be the norm these days. Is better than the gay cowboy film though!  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 05-19-2006 11:45 AM                     I've actually read the book twice and enjoyed the film. Overall it was a pretty fathful adaptation with a few story changes here and there. The most interesting change is the Robert Langdon character being a bit wishy-washy about the whole history part as oppose to being compleatly steadfast in the novel. I also think that they should have tighting up the ending just a bit as it dragged pretty bad. I also have to say that I HATED the score in the beginning of the film (especially during the car chase scene) but it did get better near the end. Also the print that I screened had a LOT of negative dirt which I found really distracting. I wonder if dragging the print across the booth floor will cancel that out Anyway 2.5 out of 5 for me...  |  IP: Logged Michael Brown Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1522 From: Bradford, England Registered: May 2001 posted 05-19-2006 09:26 PM                     I saw the original rough cut of this film about a year ago. Nicolas Cage played the lead role instead of Tom Hanks and he was supported by Diane Kruger instead of Audrey Tautou. And the working title for the film was "National Treasure" (later changed to 'Da Vinci Code' when director Ron Howard took over) and it was much better back then...  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 05-21-2006 03:45 PM                        CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA AUDITORIUM: 10 PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Annoying woman with loud candy bag behind me RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four) Wife #1, who learned everything she needed to know from romance novels, read the book. She says it stayed pretty true to the book. A few differences here and there, but she thought it was very good overall. I kept replacing Robert and Sophie with Fred and Daphne in my mind. Therefore, I thought it was the most boring episode of Scooby Doo ever.  |  IP: Logged Frank Angel Film God Posts: 5305 From: Brooklyn NY USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 05-21-2006 06:00 PM                        Well, I had to pass a group of some 15 or so fairly nasty picketters shouting at everyone who was going to that show that this film was an attack on Chrisitanity and we shouldn't go see it. Problem is, at this 20plex, there were hords of movie-goers and the picketters seemed at a lost who to target. In fact, a few people who seemed quite annoyed at being yelled at yelled right back saying they weren't even going to see THE DA VINCI CODE. I was just wanting to get past them without any confrontation at all, but it was not to be. When the fellow in front of me said he wasn't going to the film, two of the plackard holders moved forward toward me and asking if I were going. I said yes I was. Then just as one of them was about to launch into the scripted speil, I added, "but I'd be happy to go to see some other movie instead, if you'd care to buy me a ticket." Seems they weren't all THAT concerned about the attack on Christianity. I was a little surprised that it had focus problems, but the DTS sound was excellent and I did like the score. Hanks will not be nominated for this role....it just seems like a job he's walking through. McCallen does seem to light up the screen much more than anyone else. As a mystery movie, it was ok; nothing special, though, and it CERTAINLY doesn't live up to the hype, but how could it? The hype was churned out full-force. As a so-called attach on humanity or christianity or whatever they were claiming, I didn't see it at all. I happend to come from a Catholic education (right up thru college) and from a theological point of view, even if this fictional "revelation" were true (Jesus being married), it wouldn't go against any actual doctrine. According to Catholic belief, Jesus was both God and man -- he had divinity and humanity. If part of Jesus's humanity was marriage (make no doubt about it, the real issue here isn't that he was married, but that means he would have "carnal knowledge," and THAT'S what sets them in a frenzy), that wouldn't deny his divinity and it would, at least for some, it would validate his humanity even more, so it wouldn't contradict any church tenent. So what's all the fuss about? And as Ian McCallen said, "If Jesus were married, at least it would prove that he wasn't gay." (which was another theory put forth some time ago.) And since I see conspiracy behind every tree, I could almost believe that the studio pays these "protesters" just to drum up business since I don't see how Christians can be even mildly threatened by this movie or the book. 3 out of 5  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 05-21-2006 07:21 PM                        Today @ 11:30AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #1, SR•D. Attendance around 60-70, not bad for an early matinee. OK presentation, nothing to get excited about either way. This is a moderately-entertaining muddled mess of a movie. As it moves along from scene to scene it's like there's a thread of connectivity missing. Stuff was thrown in from the book that was non-essential to moving the narrative forward. It held my interest but just barely, and I suspect if I hadn't read the book I would have liked it less. Tom Hanks is miscast in the role of Robert Langdon (at least as it's written and directed). Audrey Tautou is better. Ian McKellen seems to be having fun. I give this 3 stars out of 5 if you've read the book, otherwise 2 stars out of 5. This will not be remembered as one of Tom Hanks' or Ron Howard's better films. Why is there such a variation in the sharpness in this? Some of the present-day scenes are very soft, others are much sharper. The flashbacks are hyper-sharp. Way inconsistent.  |  IP: Logged Matt Fields Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 545 From: Ohio, United States Registered: Jun 2005 posted 05-21-2006 10:17 PM                     On the attacking Christianity thing, doesn't the book and movie deny that Jesus was divine? After all, Tom Hanks character says in the movie (near the end): "All history shows is that Jesus was a great man." By the way, this "Jesus wasn't really the Son of God but just a really great guy" theory doesn't hold water. Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter. If you don't believe in him, feel free, but that means you think he's a quack, because normal people don't go around and call themselves God. My 2 cents on the movie...way too long and frankly rather boring.  |  IP: Logged Kyle Anderson Film Handler Posts: 86 From: Tyler, TX, USA Registered: Dec 2005 posted 05-22-2006 01:27 AM                     I was actually relieved once I saw this movie ( I haven't read the book, but I understand the assertions made in it ) - NO ONE could even THINK this crap was true by the last 1/3 of the movie. Seriously... the first 100 minutes or so was actually believable stuff ( if you didn't come to the movie prepared), but once they started the typical 'oh this "normal" person isn't so normal after all ladidadida' routine bull I completely lost interest. How Lame. This movie actually reinforces the Christian version of historical events. And yup.. the camera focus was just wierd - no discernable pattern here at all that I could see. But the sound mix was better than MI3, so not so bad i suppose.  |  IP: Logged Paul Linfesty Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1383 From: Bakersfield, CA, USA Registered: Nov 1999 posted 05-22-2006 02:09 AM                     quote: Matt Fields Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter. Well, there is a THIRD option, but since we're not supposed to get into religious discussions, I won't mention what it is.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.