8mm Forum: Da Vinci Code

This is topic Da Vinci Code in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=000319

Posted by Trevor Adams (Member # 42) on May 25, 2006, 05:14 PM:

Went to see this flick yesterday.Rather gentle entertainment I thought.Doesn't do justice to Brown's edge of seat page turning book. Towards the end I was working out how much time there was to go-not a good sign!No Oscars for this turkey... [Wink]

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on May 25, 2006, 08:21 PM:

hi Trev, I didn't read the book, so I had to pay attention during the entire film. A puzzling mystery wrapped in an enigma, but I enjoyed it very much!...especially Paul Bettany's performance...ouch!!!! [Big Grin]

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on May 25, 2006, 09:34 PM:

I truly didn't like the film. It was so slow...I fell asleep during the first 15 mintues. I didnt' read the book but my friend did. She nudged me and said it gets better. Than I awoke and it did get better. I turned to ask her a question about 3/4 of the way through and she had closed her eyes! Together over coffee we filled each other in on our respective missing scenes! [Smile]

I have to say that Audrey Tatou never looked more lovely however.

Posted by Barry Attwood (Member # 100) on May 26, 2006, 04:41 AM:

I too had never read the book, but must admit I enjoyed it, but who was the twat that made Tom Hanks wear that awful mullet wig, unless it was specified in the book that the leading character should look like a 70's reject, it truely is an awful hairstyle.

Posted by Sam James (Member # 477) on May 26, 2006, 05:23 AM:

I've not yet seen the film, but I have to speak for those of us who bought into the hype and thus bought the book only to find that, aside from the intriguing ideas that apparently "weren't" blatantly ripped from the results of years of research by Messrs Baigent, Leigh and Lincoln (Holy Blood & Holy Grail), the novel itself was appallingly written.
I'm no literary snob and I'll get down and dirty with the best of them, but sitting on the underground watching hoardes of commuters leafing through their copies took me back a couple of years to when the same adults were lapping up Harry Potter. It is only my opinion, but it does feel like a case of the Emporer's New Clothes. But of course, Dan Brown and J K Rowling are now extremely wealthy people and I'm not, so why should they care what I think!
I will be going to see the film because if only to watch Mckellern and the great Jean Reno out-hamming each other.
Sam

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on May 26, 2006, 05:38 PM:

A friendly 'Hello' to all,

Please keep in mind, that
The Da Vinci Code is fiction.

Enjoy it as a book and film,
but not as historical fact.

Michael

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 26, 2006, 07:51 PM:

Michael,

from what I understand that's precisely what's being discussed here... the movie's potential to be entertaining (or not). I think we're all in agreement already that it's a work of fiction, as is the book. [Wink]

On that note, I never saw what the big deal with the book was, and I can't say I even care enough to go see the film. [Eek!]

Posted by Trevor Adams (Member # 42) on May 26, 2006, 10:05 PM:

Blokes like Brown,Grisham and Clancy give us an entertaining mix of fact and fiction. It is a mix that appeals because by and large all the world loves a conspiratist-as opposed to a lover! [Smile]

Brown's style is simple,he hits with compelling staccato sentences.Like it or no,one must find out what happens on the next page!
On Tom Hanks hairstyle,I'm at a loss to explain it.Robert Langdon is supposed to be"a Harrison Ford in tweed"(so says the book)
I reckon the trio I've mentioned above are first class entertainers! Trev

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on May 30, 2006, 06:41 AM:

Hi,

I really enjoyed the film, too: great actors, great performance, nice special effects, ... .
Before going to the cinema I saw a kind of "making of" on TV that showed that all "facts" in the book (and hence in the film) are completely non-sense. This ruined the film's surprise-effects a little bit, but I'm not sure whether I would have enjoyed it without that "documentation" or not: IMHO there are too many "facts" in the film that you normally don't care about (different grail-theories, strange lines, ...). For me this would have been too much information in a short time. Hence I would have had a too hard time to follow the film's main story. So I guess that I wouldn't have enjoyed the film without this prior information.

Jörg
P.S.: No, I didn't read the book yet.

Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on May 30, 2006, 10:19 AM:

I would encourage everyone, fans of the book/movie or not, to read Anthony Lane's review of the film in last week's New Yorker Magazine. He is always entertaining and this review is no exception:

Review of THE DA VINCI CODE in the New Yorker Magazine

SGB

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on May 30, 2006, 10:38 AM:

Scott: excellent reading, thanks for the link.
I've read all of Brown's 4 books. Perfect vacation reading. But they're all the same, exact same plot, exact same characters (only the names change), exact same twists... I still don't understand what' the fuss is around Da Vinci Code.

And no one, I insist NO ONE in France could be called Bezu Fache. Where the hell did he picked that name up ? Oh, yeah, there was that obscure comedian on tv many years ago. Would you believe if a Frenchman had written a similar novel set in the US if he had used a policeman character named, say... Carrot Top?

I Won't go to see the movie as I don't like Ron Howard's work. I'm not a Tom Hanks fan either.

Oh, and I saw The Omen this morning. What a bore. It's the exact carbon copy (bar a few details) of the 76 film (same writer). Give me back Richard Donner and Jerry Goldsmith anytime... The original was such a great film.

Posted by Scott G. Bruce (Member # 384) on May 30, 2006, 12:29 PM:

Glad that you liked the review, Jean-Marc.

Say, could "Bezu Fache" be Quebecois?

SGB

Posted by Joerg Polzfusz (Member # 602) on May 30, 2006, 12:49 PM:

"fâché" is French for "angry"

"Bezu" is the name of a French castle (http://members.aol.com/renneschateau/bezu.htm) and part of the name of some small towns, of a music-group and the last name of the adidas' top-manager in Japan ;-)

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on May 30, 2006, 07:47 PM:

I saw "The Da Vinci Code" yesterday and thought it was fine. Not a classic, but a fun summer movie that kept me intrigued throughout. No fidgeting in my seat, no looking at my watch, no problem with Tom's hair!

Doug

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on May 30, 2006, 10:12 PM:

There's a remake of The Omen?

Then again, if there is then why am I surprised [Roll Eyes]

P.S.: I absolutely loved the review of Da Vinci Code. Brilliantly written and wonderfully humorous!

Posted by Joe Taffis (Member # 4) on June 01, 2006, 07:33 PM:

Alan Rik, I overestimated your intelligence...I rank you right up there with Roger Ebert [Razz]

. To Barry Attwood, it's not a "mullet" or a wig. To Sam James, Ian M. and Jean Reno were not hamming...it's called acting, and very well done!. Michael D., how do you REALLY know what is historical fact, and what isn't????... Jean-Marc, I hate Jerry Lewis movies! [Razz]

. Jan, go see it. [Smile]

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on June 01, 2006, 07:45 PM:

Watched the movie yesterday, it had a marked effect on me that no other has, it put me to zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. I started loosing it after watching Paul Bettany inflicting pain on himself, and thinking this guy desperately needs a new hobby [Confused]

I did regain full conscious near the end [Eek!]

and left

Graham.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on June 01, 2006, 09:15 PM:

Go see what? The remake of The Omen?

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 01, 2006, 09:18 PM:

Joe,

With one post I think you've destroyed all that good will you built up since June of 2003! [Big Grin]

Doug

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 01, 2006, 10:52 PM:

Joe,

Your statement has value.

So to not sound scolding to you or insulted
or hurt which I am not expressing -
I ask all here not to underestimate the value
in positive thought and healing.

What I do know, is that I am neither a historian or
theologian.

I do not have any degree in Theology, or branded with
a Doctor of Divinity Degree.

I do know that their are conspiracies in the world.
I do know that people are cynical.

I know that the Catholic Faith has created chaos for
some people and utter joy for others.

I also know that the power of positive prayer has been
studied by medical science, and that it has
medicinal value. It is a phenomenon that has
experts in the medical field baffled.
Thankfully, I am living testament to this virtue.

If the film is viewed as a summer flick - well then
it's OK.

But if people are going to tear themselves apart
and injure and destroy the value of Faith - based
on the greed of authors and filmmakers alike, then
I have a conscious to speak out.

If these powerful media personalities choose to dictate to our
senses - to overwhelm people’s consciousness into
destructive imagination, then I say
keep your movie and I will be richer for it.
Because it has an effect on all of us.

Not to sound carried away, some viewers can be made
or broken in taking this too literally. This is an ‘R’ rated movie,
And if it is as powerful as the Passion of the Christ,
people should be forewarned.

But if people can retain an open mind, and
Enjoy it as a film and reserve it for constructive
Chit-chat, then it serves a good purpose.

Interestingly, this film hit the market
and people are flocking to see it on
the opening weekend.

On the other hand, Flight 93 opened
about four weeks ago, and
not one person on this forum
has expressed any interest to see it.

I just have not had the guts to go
to the theater to relive history.

Flight 93, is more relevant to
us as citizens of Freedom, than
the Da Vinci Code is to conspiracy,
and the destruction of positive
value in Faith.

What has happened to our senses?

Respectfully submitted to you and to all on the forum.

Michael

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 02, 2006, 07:26 AM:

Michael,

Thank you for that wonderful commentary. In addition to your observations, your formatting always makes your posts akin to poetry whether discussing theology or GS metal input guides!

As to "Flight 93", I can't speak for others, but as a New Yorker and as a cameraman who spent a huge amount of time at Ground Zero I have no desire to see any fictional film based on 9/11. I cringed during the trailers of "93" and also Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center".

Doug

Posted by Alan Rik (Member # 73) on June 02, 2006, 08:54 AM:

Doug I am with you one this one. I know that the film is very well made from the reports I have seen but there is something about living through an experience like that which doesn't make me want to see either of those films. It was a very hard time for NY'ers and I'm not sure many of us would want to relive it.
And Joe, funny you should bring up Roger Ebert. I find that him and I DO share a lot of the same tastes in film! :)Him and James Berardinelli are my favorite critics. Sometimes I may not like a film that they do but after reading their reviews I can see the film a little differently and maybe appreciate it more. So does this mean we may see a 400ft Digest of "Davinci Code"? [Smile]

Posted by Sam James (Member # 477) on June 02, 2006, 09:56 AM:

It looks to me as though somebody's been a little bit naughty and dipped their inquisitive paws into the jar marked - "ANGRY TABLETS".

Sam

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 02, 2006, 12:09 PM:

Part of what bothers me about the Da Vinci Code is the feeling that either by accident or by plan it's riding a wave of hype, and even worse hype magnified by somebody being offended.

While I'm not saying this is (for certain, at least) specifically the case here, I can imagine a time when media marketers will intentionally choose to offend in order to generate this kind of buzz to sell their product. Bearing in mind that by the time you have your popcorn and large soda and take your seat you've already forked over the ticket price, you may just find in these cases that the hype is all there was. It's much cheaper than talent, creativity and quality.

Society is polarized enough without people stirring the pot just to turn a quick buck.

Speaking as a Christian, I also think that producing a fictional challenge to beliefs I've built my entire life around is kind of tacky as a form of entertainment, but don't intend to challenge anyone's right to see it, and get no more militant about protesting it than simply not going.

For Ron Howard to take on a project like this kind of surprises me at any rate! I mean, what would Aunt Bea say?

By the way, I agree on 911. While I think there is nothing wrong with doing respectful, historically accurate movies about the event, I think I'll be staying home. I remember that day like it was yesterday and can live without any reminders. I always remember about four days later I saw an airliner in the sky for the first time since, and even as somebody who has flown all over the world I felt a twinge of fear.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on June 02, 2006, 01:58 PM:

I'm with Steve.

Have you ever noticed how words like "national debate" or "controversy" always appear in the media? They just presume that's what it is (not just Da Vinci Code but many other things, all the time) and spoonfeed it to TV viewers and paper readers as "fact." It sickens me at times. [Mad]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 02, 2006, 10:32 PM:

Thanks for all of the wonderful
support regarding my post
to the topic: Da Vinci Code.

Doug / Alan: very well stated.
I have not been to lower
Manhattan since June '98.

In the past, I have taken many
class field trips, family and
out of state friends to visit
the observation deck.

If I took one look at that
gaping hole in the ground
as to where everything once
stood, I just might have
a break down.

Steve / Jan: the hype of the media,
and 'polarization' of citizens is
voiced extremely well in your
posts.

Kind regards,
Michael

Posted by Douglas Meltzer (Member # 28) on June 03, 2006, 09:38 AM:

Alan,

A 400' digest of "The Da Vinci Code"? That would be quite an edit job. Since the fim is released by Columbia, they'd probably have that hated Columbia narrator working overtime!

Doug

Good challenge, though.

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on June 03, 2006, 12:55 PM:

Now what about the remake of The Omen? C'mon now [Roll Eyes]

(This running gag is starting to wear out) [Wink]

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 03, 2006, 08:23 PM:

Ebert & Roper, film journalists
and critics reviewed the new
'Omen' on this evening's broadcast,
and they both praised it.

Mia Farrow as the sinister Nanny,
and Julia Stiles as Damian's Mother.

They even showed the scene that
leads to the build up of the mother
clinging onto the edge of the banister
before the fall.

Frankly, I just don't get it [Confused]

Besides, how do you replace Lee Remick
and Gregory Peck?

Check out this early review:

Omen 2006 review

Michael

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on June 03, 2006, 08:44 PM:

Well, that's what I thought. File it under "waste of 35mm film" and move on. Sigh [Razz]

Posted by Jean-Marc Toussaint (Member # 270) on June 04, 2006, 03:07 AM:

As I said in my previous post, the film is an almost exact copy (scenes, shots, cuts, dialogues) of the 1976 original. The scriptwriter is the same so he didn't have much to do.
Liev Shreiber had to finish paying for his own directorial effort (the charming 'Everything is Illuminated'), this is why he agreed to play the part of Robert Thorne.

Doing a cut-down of that would be dead easy, just follow the original Ken and Piccolo versions! [Big Grin]

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on June 04, 2006, 03:34 AM:

thanks mike,but are the music cues the same?.andy.

Posted by Andrew Wilson (Member # 538) on June 04, 2006, 03:36 AM:

thanks mike,but are the music cues the same?.andy.this is for the omen(2006).

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 04, 2006, 08:00 PM:

The shot and set-up was identical,
but I did not notice the chorus or
music cues in that one scene
during the film clip.

Michael

Posted by John Clancy (Member # 49) on June 06, 2006, 04:21 AM:

The remake of 'The Omen' was discussed on the Radio 4 'Today' programme this morning as the release date of 6/6/6 is upon us. When this item started I suggested that they should have just re-released the original movie. At the end the film critic on the programme stated exactly the same thing.

I suspect this film was remade because 6/6/2006 was approaching rather than for any artistic reason. After all, how can you remake a film that in its original incarnation had Gregory Peck, Lee Remick, Billie Whitelaw and Patrick Troughton in the lead roles? I have no intention of seeing the new film and suggest it will be as successful as the other recent horror remakes of 'The Fog' and 'The Amityville Horror'

And add me to the list of those who think 'The Da Vinci Code' is poor. I thought Tom Hanks performance was bad but it may not have been his fault. Sorry if this upsets anyone - I enjoyed it, it's just a bad film. Wouldn't be difficult to edit down to a 400ft reel... just put the end credits on it, that would fill the spool!

Posted by Jan Bister (Member # 332) on June 06, 2006, 08:34 PM:

This 666 nonsense is getting to me anyhow... I'd love to clobber people over the head and tell them it's 6/6/2006, not 6/6/6 which is just an overly loose interpretation of today's date [Roll Eyes]

As for the Omen remake, nope, not gonna go see it either... I saw the original and quite liked it... one interesting tidbit I learned, though: they casted Mia Farrow as Damien's overprotective nanny in the remake. Ironic when you consider her starring role in Rosemarie's Baby in which she gives birth to the devil - spooky!

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 06, 2006, 08:55 PM:

Yeah!

That doesn't play very well in our house at all! June 6th is our anniversary!

We prefer to not associate June 6th with "666", but rather with something more appropriate to a wedding anniversary: D-Day!

Bonus: We were engaged on December 7th, as in "Pearl Harbor"!

Posted by Michael De Angelis (Member # 91) on June 07, 2006, 05:23 PM:

Happy Anniversary Steve! [Smile]

Many more healthy and happy
years to you and and your wife
and family, even if they still think
that the film is video tape. [Big Grin]

Great we can laugh about
this, because we are all in
it together.

Michael

Posted by Steve Klare (Member # 12) on June 07, 2006, 08:22 PM:

Thanks Michael!

Fortunately the only one we have to explain that it's not video (and I mean repeatedly) is my Mother-in-Law, but she's a few reels short of a feature! (...If you know what I mean!)

I have good family involvement. On her own my wife designated Friday night as "Movie Night", and my 4 year old has dubbed himself "Light Man" (He's a wizard with that dimmer!)

Oh, yeah! Da Vinci code! #4 per the IMDB and getting ready to be run over by "Cars" this weekend. ( Seeya, bye!!)

That's one of the joys of controversy in our times: people generally have the attention span of a hummingbird, so if it's a big stink today, give it a week!

[ June 08, 2006, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Steve Klare ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2