The Da Vinci Code

Post by **Mike** » Mon May 22, 2006 7:39 am

Mundane. Poorly written imitation of the book and sooooo very slow.

Watachable, barely.

Lizzie · Post by **Lizzie** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:25 am

It was ok which is a shame when the book is so good !! I think the film sufferred from being too hastilly made, so as to jump on the band wagon created by the book. All in all it was a poor adatptation- and a little bit boring !!

I have to admit I was very dissappointed by Tom Hanks performance as he is usually a very good actor- but it was entertaining for a couple of hours !!

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Mon May 22, 2006 4:44 pm

A GOOD BOOK?!? dan brown couldn't string an interesting paragraph together let alone a book - he's the literal equivelant of prozak!

Post by **Mike** » Mon May 22, 2006 6:07 pm

Fez wrote:A GOOD BOOK?!? dan brown couldn't string an interesting paragraph together let alone a book - he's the literal equivelant of prozak!

You mean that he makes us all feel cheerful and happy. I cant think of a weirder comparison. I thought that his book was entertaining, it was a very easy read and the story was interesting.

It is deffinately not a literary great but like Mr Williams singing it is entertaining.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:13 pm

I tried to read Dan Brown's ''Da Vinci Code'' and gave up after two chapters. His style of writing is not to my taste - I think it is more suited to a holiday or a long train journey. Not my cup of tea. However, I wish I had written it, must be raking in the cash right now.

Post by **Mike** » Mon May 22, 2006 8:31 pm

Funny you should mention holiday reads. I think I read it whilst on holiday. Makes you very easy on the author when you are sitting on the beach in the sun. . . .

Fez · Post by **Fez** » Tue May 23, 2006 5:08 pm

Mike wrote:You mean that he makes us all feel cheerful and happy. I cant think of a weirder comparison.

no, he's an artificial stimulant for people who can't except the grimness of reality

Post by **Mike** » Wed May 24, 2006 7:40 am

touche!
LOL

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Tue May 30, 2006 9:53 am

I went to see this last night and I felt it was a story that was written by a first year - extremely complicated plot, tonnes of stuff that could be called ''waffle'' and characters that are very 1-Dimensional.

I'll admit that the ideas behind the book were interesting. I liked the bit about the symbols and the artefacts of history. I couldn't stand certain bits but I still fail to see how this film could annoy Christians the way it has done - it's fiction for goodness sake!

Overall, a fairly obvious plot with too many twists and turns and not enough action

One that I won't be bothering about watching/renting on the small screen.

Claire · Post by **Claire** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 6:45 pm

Still undecided whether or not to go and see this film. my expectations are very high given the calibre of those involved, especially Ron Howard who has never disappointed (Happy Days included!) I thoroughly enjoyed the book and incidentally read it on holiday, in Amsterdam. Read Angels and Demons on holiday, appropriately enough in Italy. From opinions passed here, it seems the movie lacks the thriller pace which the book certainly has and when i'm paying over a fiver i don't want it to be crap! For a more prosaic and masterful read, may i recommend Oliver Twist. just finished it for teaching purposes and Dickens is indeed a master. Dan Brown is formulaic, especially when you read a second book by him.

Andy · Post by **Andy** » Mon Jun 05, 2006 8:56 pm

Claire wrote:For a more prosaic and masterful read, may i recommend Oliver Twist. just finished it for teaching purposes and Dickens is indeed a master. Dan Brown is formulaic, especially when you read a second book by him.

I liked the new Oliver Twist film directed by Roman Polanski - a shameful past but a wonderful director. I do the opening chapter of Great Expectations and how it contains ''fear, mystery and suspense''.

Anyway, enough of teaching, I thought the cast was good but the cast of the 1970s one were far superior. Bill Sykes is just a part made for Olly Reed. Nancy in this one was good though - she was more realistic - i.e. a bit more bruised and battered and not supermodelish.

I'd pay the fiver to go and see the film only if everyone is still talking about it because it will drive you nuts otherwise not knowing what they are talking about visually!

Claire · Post by **Claire** » Wed Jun 07, 2006 6:44 pm

I don't rate the Polanski adaptation at all (technically this is still cinema talk, you none-English teachers out there!); it glosses over far too many details. what about monks? what about his mother and father? i don't seem to remember it all knitting together at the end like the book does. i do the opening of it too, but for Dickens attitude to society shown in style, setting blah blah blah.
think i will see DVC.