The Da Vinci Code

[Pandora (Premo)]

is out...

[DotTheEyes]

What a major disappointment! The Da Vinci Code novel was clever and thrilling. The film, dull and slow-paced. Ron Howard after a series of fantastic films, including A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man, has failed to deliver the goods here as he's made a thriller without a sense of urgency and a stupor-inducing pace. Even Tom Hanks, the actor who made watching people sit on deserted islands and in busy airport terminals for two hours electric entertainment, comes up short - delivering for the first time in a long time a film performance one could call dull. Ian McKellen (The Lord Of The Rings, X-Men) and Paul Bettany (Firewall, Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World) were far better in supporting roles as a Grail expert and an Opus Dei assassin. This isn't the wort film ever or anything, but I felt a crippling "Meh" sensation at the end and hope to never sit through it again.

[Bustem' Down]

Originally Posted by DotTheEyes

What a major disappointment! The Da Vinci Code novel was clever and thrilling. The film, dull and slow-paced. Ron Howard after a series of fantastic films, including A Beautiful Mind and Cinderella Man, has failed to deliver the goods here as he's made a thriller without a sense of urgency and a stupor-inducing pace. Even Tom Hanks, the actor who made watching people sit on deserted islands and in busy airport terminals for two hours electric entertainment, comes up short - delivering for the first time in a long time a film performance one could call dull. Ian McKellen (The Lord Of The Rings, X-Men) and Paul Bettany (Firewall, Master & Commander: The Far Side Of The World) were far better in supporting roles as a Grail expert and an Opus Dei assassin. This isn't the wort film ever or anything, but I felt a crippling "Meh" sensation at the end and hope to never sit through it again.

Good, maybe the Christians will shut up about it already.

[DotTheEyes]

I can't imagine this film offending many, unless they go in 'wanting' to be offended so they can make an even louder fuss. It's just too goofy and "Hollywood," if you will, to really offend, or so I would think. Getting offended by this would be like American History teachers being offended by National Treasure or French people being offended by The Pink Panther. None of them are malicious films and are just playful entertainment at heart (though National Treasure, surprisingly enough, is way more entertaining and effective than the bigger-budget, higher-profile Da Vinci Code).

However, I can understand it if Christians get mad over a flick called See No Evil that also came out last weekend. It stars WWE wrestler Kane as a hulking serial killer with a Jesus fixation who goes around murdering teens he sees as "sinners." All the murders are set to a jolly recording of Jesus Loves All The Little Children. Now, that might be something to get offended by. Not summer movie Da Vinci Code's little plot about Jesus maybe being more good man than divine superhero or whatever.

[Pandora (Premo)]

I didn't get to see this Friday as planned, because my best friend's father is in the hospital. I talked to her today and her and I have both heard reviews that have sounded just like yours Dot.

[Somdmommy]

Originally Posted by Pandora

I didn't get to see this Friday as planned, because my best friend's father is in the hospital. I talked to her today and her and I have both heard reviews that have sounded just like yours Dot.

I saw it last night. I thought it was great, It didnt have the punch that National Treasure had as far as the History and the fact finding went, but I still thought it was a good movie.

To Each His Own!!

[Tonio]

I saw it last weekend. I give it a B minus. DotTheEyes is right about Hanks--his performance was too muted. I liked him much better in "The Green Mile" and "Cast Away" and "Apollo 13." The movie was moody and atmospheric, which made it watchable, but it had little of the tension and pace of Brown's story. Reminded me of of the job Ron Howard did with "Apollo 13." I think Howard is just not a thriller-type director.

[Pandora (Premo)]

I agree with everything Roger Friedman had to say in his review that I posted prior. It was long, but entertaining. It does seem to shift in the dead center of the movie and that caused me to have to shift a bit in my seat and look at my watch until it was able to get back on track somewhat.

I don’t think it was the “total disappointment” Dot made it out to be. It was worth watching, even with the casting being off. I think Tom Hanks performed very well, and as well as to be expected considering this really wasn't a good role for him.

I will mention one thing I haven’t heard said before and that is the accents in the movie were difficult to understand in the beginning. I’m not sure if that was my hearing impairments, the sound at the theater or that the accents were just overly blended.