That 2006 Movie with a Long-Haired Tom Hanks and Amelie
 

The Da Vinci Code film comes out this week. I heard it got panned at Cannes. All you need to know is that Ian McKellan is the standout performance there and, more importantly and the reason why I made this thread, there is ONE melodramatic line that Hanks utters that got the Cannes crowd catcalling and whatnot for a good while. Maybe it'll be obvious enough, but viewers, speculate on what line that could've been! GOOD DAY.

Dammit, I wish I had read the book a bit more recently so I would remember possible lines for hilarity.

Personally, I loved the book so I can't wait to see the movie, but I'm not looking forward to dealing with all the fucking protests when I'm at work. I swear to god I'll get those Jesus freaks arrested if they fuck with my theater.

Well I haven't read the book, and I don't know if I will see the film...however I think it is..so retarded that the religious people are getting so hurt and angry over this movie. Now I haven't read the book, my mom has though and in the book it the only thing that IS real is and I quote: "artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals" Other than that...everything is fictional, yet this movie is blasphemous? Oh please, the bottom line is..the Catholic Church doesn't want to be looked even more as a 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.

Audrey Tautou is one sexy, sexy lady, and for that I cannot fully dismiss this film. And Ron Howard, for the most part, makes very good films.

Hopefully this will not be a stinker.

Book was a page turner, but poorly written. I do not have much hope for this film. Great cast though.

FACT: The Philippines gave the movie an X rating. That little tidbit gave me a chuckle.

FACT: Audrey Tautou is a goddess and any she is the primary reason that I will see the film. Anything beyond her that is good is simply a bonus.

Guess you saw Dirty Pretty Things and A Very Long Engagement then?

No, I saw Amelie.

I still haven't read the book, and i'm currently fighting a feirce fight in my head whether or not i should go see the movie or not. I really want to read the book first, but i also really want to see the movie.

It's a pickle for sure.

I dunno if even the power of Audrey will compel me to see this. The book was awful and the movie looks worse.

Oh, but Paul Bettany whipping, nay, PUNISHING himself? HOTNESS.

Most likely, I'll go see the movie. I never got around to reading the book, but judging about how much 'ballyhoo' was raised after its release and subsequent time on the bestseller list (like what, a year or something), people will be talking about it. A lot, I imagine.

Dirty Pretty Things was a really good movie that lots of people ignored for some reason (I never remember it getting much press). She did a really good job in that, from what I remember.

And of course Amelie was a great fun movie. It's a shame to see this film go down in flames when the cast is so good.

I don't have high hopes for this at all, to be honest.

I read the book, and it was bloody awesome, but then the ending was like.....the intense build up to an extreme orgasm that will never come.

Regardless, I'm going to see it tonight.

I'm not expecting that much either, but it'll at least be interesting to see it acted out. I liked the book (and I also thought the ending was shit), so I'd just like to see their take on it.

A film version of Angels And Demons would rock ten times more, but of course they'd also have ten times the crap coming from the Vatican etc. Shame. D:

I'm interested to see the movie, simply because I think the book lends itself more to a theatrical setting than a literary one. Dan Brown is a bad writer. A bad, bad writer. The code aspect was fun, but the character development was poor, to say the least. I was hoping that the script for the movie wouldn't borrow too much from the book, but it seems like these hopes will be fruitless.

As for making a movie version of Angels and Demons, ew. Just plain ew. That book has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. I slogged my way through it out of boredom and shock. "No, seriously. Are you really wiritng this? Is this happening? Are people BUYING this book? omfg." Nevermind the bad character development for this one. The plot was so ridiculous that I felt like I was getting dumber with every passing page.

Yeah, so I kind of vented a little there. In conclusion, I hope the Da Vinci Code is a better movie than it was a book, and I hope Angels and Demons gets erased from the face of the planet and the memory of mankind.

Good book, bad movie, what else is new? This movie was overhyped from the get-go, I'm just a little disappointed because I hate seeing yet another movie with Jean Reno getting axed by the critics.

Thats not really true. The whole thing with Mary and her being the grail is just another view on history, not fiction. For as we all know, the Bible isn't exactly the most factual thing around. Relgious people just call the story a work of fiction to justify them seeing/reading it.

Also, I'm not looking forward to the movie at all. It wasn't that good of a book and here in AUstralia, there is an advertisement or TV tie-in every 2 seconds. I've never see a moving promoted this much before.

Never read the book, but my francophile of a sister worships Audrey Tautou so I'll probably go see the movie with her. Plus I kind of love Ian McKellan.

What I'm mostly interested in is the possible amount of protests that different churches are going to hold. I hate that so many people make such a big deal out of this book. It doesn't say anything that historians haven't already said.

Sure it does. It makes up a lot more shit than the historians EVER said. But it's FICTION. MADE UP. I'm tired of people treating this book like fact. Gnostic gospels. Read them.

Obviously I was referring the historical theories as mentioned by VitaPup, not the fictional bits. Of course the book isn't fact. It's classified as a work of fiction, and I didn't infer otherwise.

You guys should see the boards at imdb for this movie. That place is turning into a religious board. People find every single excuse to make religious debates about it.

What did you expect? People have an intrinsic need to prove themselves right... and everyone else wrong.

The Catholica are up in arms about this movie. Ron Howard directed it. The catholics shouldn't be suprised. In one episode of the Andy Griffith show, Opie has a line...which if played backwards Opie can be heard saying "Satan rules"..its freaky...Opie the omen.

Meh, it was intriguing enough (I haven't read the book), but it dragged a lot. The plot was very convulted, and every time there was a new clue I checked my watch.

The first half was great though, very exciting. I just wish Da Vinci had more do do with it. I was expecting a semi Rambaldi type thing, but apparently not.

Tom Hanks looked almost as bored as I was.

I thought the movie was so-so. Having not read the book, I didn't particularly know how it ended. The funny part is I predicted the end fairly well within the first 30min of the movie.

Not horrible. Not good. Just passable. Like not a D+ or D-, just a D.

hmmm. for those of you who actually enjoyed the book, is this movie a watchable rendition of it in movie form?

If you put aside all every detail in the book, well, yes, it was ok. But again, they could never put every single detail from the book. It would have become a 6+ hours movie. and they change some little unsignificant things. but anyway, a movie is always based on, never the perfect rendition of a book or... video game.

I've never read the book but I found the movie pretty good. 7/10ish. Theater was packed and nobody walked out or laughed except at the parts that were trying to elicit it. I didn't find it "slow" I guess because it felt like it kept moving enough. Acting was decent all around, with McKellen and Bettany leading the way, and Hanks a bit poorer than usual. From my experience the critics seemed way off with 18% positive ratings. I didn't think a movie of this stature (Howard, Hanks, etc) could really be (or was) THAT bad, so I pretty much disregarded it and with a $30M opening day it seems the general populous didn't care either. I thought this was gonna be the hit of the summer and outgross everything else...would be funny if that happened even with the critics totally ganging up on it.

This movie was an overall dissapointment for me. I didn't understand the hype this book and movie was receiving, and making me wait in a bloody line to watch it was I hoping for something big. The ending was a let down, and I even predicted what was going to happen. I just wish it was something spectactular like Jesus being a hermaphidite or something to that effect.

Another thing that bugged me were all the damn double crosses going on. Every 10 minutes, granted some of them were predictable, but it seemed like everyone changed sides had a hidden agenda or something invovled with the Code. I wouldn't have been surprised if a Welsh terrier was really the mastermind of everything.

This movie, is mildly entertaining, but the cast and director have done other great movies and they're certainly not at the top of their game here. I haven't read the book and really don't plan to. Another 'controversal' movie that is blown out of proportion.

I read the book last year and was massively disappointed because it turned out to be so clumsily written. It was an intriguing concept and story, but as a written thriller it was awkward and fanfiction quality.

I seemed to have gotten past that since the movie turned out to be a pleasant surprise because everyone had slammed it so much. Sure, it was still just as silly as the book was, but now they'd slightly improved on the clumsiest "intense" moments which was enough for me. Where I had expected the book to be intelligent and wellwritten, I had no such expectations for the film and was thus more entertained, I guess. Any problem with the original story was already in the book and didn't really bother me so much.

They'd turned Sophie's character into a pretty useless damsel in distress though, and since some of the background info was missing, some of the appeal that the book had wasn't quite there, but as a thriller it was alright.
I don't get why anyone would call it dull. Silly in parts perhaps, but dull?

I was thoroughly bored but I found Sophie to be a fairly attractive character. If not for her this movie would have had zero appeal IMO.

Absolutely terrible. I wanted to scratch my eyes out during the flashback sequence where Sophie runs away through that field of roses or whatever. It looked like it was shot by some 2nd unit losers on a GL-1. Dialogue was terrible, and even Hans Zimmer seemed mediocre.

Hanks' hair looked like Bill Maher on a bad hair day.

Frankly I don't understand all the animosity for this movie. It's not nearly as bad or boring as people are making it out to be.

Is it fairly straightforward and paint-by-numbers? Oh god yes. Is the entire premise absolutely ridiculous and should no way be attributed to being fact? Absolutely. Does it have some pretty bad diologue? Yes (I need to get to a library!).

However, is it an entertaining popcorn movie? Is it a resonably good thriller? Is Ian McKelllan more over the top than an arm wrestling Stallone? Yes. If you go into it expecting a serious religious conspiracy story that will change the foundation of the Catholic Church you will be disappointed. As a good way to fill the gap between MI:3 and X-Men on the summer blockbuster checklist, it works just fine. People are being far too hard on it, expecting it to be something that it is not.

When the biggest criticism of the movie is that the lead actor's hair is different from how he usually wears it you know that really, it's not that bad.

The thing that made an impact to me, was how a large part of the movie was about someone walking somewhere.

Although the part where Leigh Teabing and Robert Langdon were talking in Chateau Villette was mildly entertaining and interesting.

Also, the puzzle solving parts just reminds me of National Treasure, although the puzzles themselves (the cryptex was nice)..

I have to agree with acid, this movie was nowhere near as bad as people made it out to be. The premise was ridiculous from the beginning, so anyone going in expecting otherwise was setting themselves up for disappointment.

The only thing that really irritates me is that Temple Church is just off of Fleet Street, and Fleet Street has a HUMUNGOUS library on it. Chelsea library? Wtf. They just wanted an excuse to irritate a passenger on a bus and then ring the bell repetitively (which will cause nothing but animosity from the driver.) That entire scene really bothered me.

The best bit was by far the trailers - X Men 3, Casino Royale, Superman and Pirates of the Caribbean. Yum.

Considering that it has a very well known and star studded cast, as well as an excellent director, this movie had enormous potential but Ron Howard did a poor job with adapting the script to his will, though the source material wasn't very strong character wise.

I don't think people are being too hard on it. It was hyped beyond belief and failed to meet critial expectations though it just slayed the box office with a $77 million opening.

It would be more entertaining if it wrapped up sooner.

Funnily enough, where I would agree with you for any other Zimmer score in the alst decade, I felt that his score was one of the strongest points of the film. It was very subtle and worked very well; omnipresent but not overbearing. The best parts were easily the opening titles and the finale.

i thought the score had parts blatantly ripped off some of his "batman begins" tracks. but the music definately was probably the high point of the film. though, imho the film was satisfactory, not great though.

It was okay, just very predictable. There was no suspense or edge-of-your seat moments, and the "big shocking secret" was a snore.

Considering Batman Begins is a rip-off of about eighty other Zimmer scores, I don't see that as a point of criticism.