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

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Tom Hanks looked almost as bored as I was.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

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

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by booboocat

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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)..

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by acid

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.

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.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

and even Hans Zimmer seemed mediocre.

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by booboocat

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.

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

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.