Good movie, I really liked it except for the seating, I will have to see it again, sitting in the second row because you have no choice is not fun <_<

You get to see every new movie.

I hear it was frustrating and nothing compared to the book

it was more like the book than i was meant to believe, my parents thought so too as well as my uncle and my brother well he never read the book

5/10.for Tom Hanks because he must have tried so hard to fit the role.For Paul Bettany because he was simply amazing and fit the role perfectly.I couldn't imagine anyone else.And for the looovely Louvre Museum.

It'll be a succes regardless of the reviews.

I dont know what the church was so worried about. honestly i think it was done quite tastefully, like it didnt just sock it to the church the whole time.

total agreement with llama

The best movies to compare the Da Vinci Code to are the Tom Clancy movies, believe it or not. Replace the military/intelligence theme with a symbology/religious theme and the rest is basically the same. Except the Clancy movies have better villains.

My problem with the movie (which isn't as much of a big deal in book form) is that 95% of the time its just a bunch of guys standing around talking. It's all exposition, all the time.

The best movies to compare the Da Vinci Code to are the Tom Clancy movies, believe it or not. Replace the military/intelligence theme with a symbology/religious theme and the rest is basically the same. Except the Clancy movies have better villains.

My problem with the movie (which isn't as much of a big deal in book form) is that 95% of the time its just a bunch of guys standing around talking. It's all exposition, all the time.

I haven't read it, but isn't the book basically nothing but people standing around talking most of the time as well?

I think with this type of movie, you really have to enjoy history, if you go in there looking for an action flick then yes, you will be sorely dissapointed.

I haven't read it, but isn't the book basically nothing but people standing around talking most of the time as well?

Yes, but in book form it doesn't bother me. Pacing in a film, especially a thriller, is very important.

I think with this type of movie, you really have to enjoy history, if you go in there looking for an action flick then yes, you will be sorely dissapointed.

I love history. But there's a difference between being in a history class with a good teacher and being in one with a bad teacher. Same goes for movies, there are good historical fiction movies and bad ones - and this one, a thriller, is paced like a drama - but too silly to be dramatic.

/heck, I took the AP History tests without the classes

//i liked the parts where they used CGI to blend in the history... I just didnt like watching a movie that was basically the characters standing around reading from the book

i reckon that a lot of time had to be 'wasted' establishing a background, history and explanations of what they were talking about because anyone who hadnt read the book would be left annoyed and confused if they didnt. as you said, great in book form but it does definatley slow the pace.

Ron Howard said that he made the movie for the people who hadn't read the book (at Peter Jackson's suggestion). Maybe that's what bothers people who see it and have read it, maybe they get too much background information they don't need.

Which goes back to my original point from my review; The DaVinci Code wouldn't make a good movie because it's all exposition and people standing around explaining stuff. You can't get rid of the exposition because that's all the book really is. Angels and Demons doesn't have as much of that, and would transition more effectively to the movie format - even if the overall story is weaker.

The best novel adaptation coming to theaters this year is Casino Royale. Book it

Edited May 20, 200618 yr by tdpatriots12

well didnt Ron Howard buy the rights for Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons? I read somewhere he was acquiring both

well didnt Ron Howard buy the rights for Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons? I read somewhere he was acquiring both

With the reviews this is getting... Well, if it makes money, he might make another. Ron Howard isn't known for doing sequels (or in this case, prequels)

I rather enjoyed it. The debate over whether the chalice really appears in The Last Supper is especially intriguing:

da vinci grail

Some are convinced that is intended to be the holy grail, others think it's just a torch mounted on the wall. Da Vinci was known to be a bit of a trickster so, it's up to your speculation.

I dont know what the church was so worried about. honestly i think it was done quite tastefully, like it didnt just sock it to the church the whole time.

I was wondering that too. Here's what one Christian had to say about it:

What

guys, i downloaded the movie. and i can't find any subtitles in english ! if some of you find it please send it to me ! thanks