Da Vinci Code only gets 2 & 1/2 stars...

[Frank Granovski]

out of 5. I was looking forward to seeing this movie, but now I'm going to pass. I wonder how big the budget was for the flop.

[Tim Goldman]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=davincicode.htm

[Leo Pepingco]

Australian reviews didnt rate this film very well. Overall, despite its controversy, it was a poorly made film... And if you didnt read the book, the plotline of the movie is ridiculous at best.

[Frank Granovski]

A budget of $125 Million, eh?

I like Tom Hanks---good actor. Too bad about the movie.

[Leo Pepingco]

i just feel sorry for Tom Hanks who now has to deal with the fact that he has lost a good portion of his fan base. (Did you notice that Tom Hanks' other film which currently being filmed has not made any adverts for its future release).

Its like when Russle Crowe threw that phone and no one went to see Cinderella Man, despite its Academy award wins.... A 70 million dollar movie only made 20 million back.... dissaster.

[Brian K Jones]

Have any of you actually seen the movie?

[Richard Zlamany]

I am reading the book which is good. It reminds me of a Shelock Holmes mystery which I love.

I will see the movie when I finish the book.

I don't see how the movie could be bad if you are interested in symbolism, religion, and mystery. I am excited to see it.

[Aaron Koolen]

I saw it two nights ago. It was terrible and I don't know what Ron Howard was smoking when he made it. In fact, before I went to see it I was like "Hmm, I liked the book, but I'm not sure the movie version will be as good" then I saw that Ron Howard was making it and thought "Ahh well, he'll probably do a good job of it, I'll give it a whirl"

I can only assume that he actually wanted to make a 3 1/2 hours film but got told to chop it down, because the pacing in this film is insane - not just fast, but erratic. The first 30 mins or so they do the usual introduction but they seemed to try and cover the book too literally, so it wasn't spending enough time on any characters to let you get into it before they chopped to some other characters. Another major pacing issue I found was that the emotional tension never got paid off, something would start (they'd find a puzzle, or they'd realise something was wrong) and then withing about 1/2 a page of script it was over. So you'd sit there going "oo, cool, something's going to happe......Oh, it's over"

It got itself together a little more toward the middle, but even then the characters had little personality and their skills (Cryptography, symbology etc) were really only touched on. When I go to see a film like this I like to see people struggling to work out puzzles and have the film spend a reasonably amount of time on them, and with the DaVinci code, obviously meld it with extreme religious mythology. In this film they would find a puzzle and then solve it almost immediately. This meant they had to get their tension from elsewhere, and seeing as the movie wasn't a high action film, they couldn't get it from there. They couldn't get it from the antagonists either, as they were rather hollow.

All in all I felt like I thoroughly wasted my money. In fact about 45 mins into it I almost suggested to my wife that we leave..Little did I know, she was thinking the same but didn't say anything cause she knew I'd read the book and that I had wanted to see the film!

I say 2 1/2 is too high. I give it 1 1/2 out of 5. Bad story, bad execution, bad casting.

[Tim Goldman]

I'll say one hting for the divnci code, the cable channels are having a ball with it.
Between a&e and discovery and history channel, it's almost a 2 week marathon.

[Boyd Ostroff]

Interesting article from the New Yorker... Sony created a website, " the Da Vinci Dialogue" to stir up controversy among Christians over the movie: http://www.newyorker.com/fact/conten.../060522fa_fact

(Barbara) Nicolosi felt that Christians had been sold out, as she proceeded to make clear on her blog. “Christians being coaxed into writing anti DVC pieces on a stupid web site . . . are meekly accepting that they are being given ‘a seat at the table’ in some grand cultural discussion,” she wrote. “Duped! There is no seat, folks. There is no discussion. What there is, is a few P.R. folks in Hollywood taking mondo big bucks from Sony Pictures, to deliver legions of well-meaning Christians into subsidizing a movie that makes their own Savior out to be a sham.”

[Wes Coughlin]

Originally Posted by Aaron Koolen

I saw it two nights ago. It was terrible and I don't know what Ron Howard was smoking when he made it. In fact, before I went to see it I was like "Hmm, I liked the book, but I'm not sure the movie version will be as good" then I saw that Ron Howard was making it and thought "Ahh well, he'll probably do a good job of it, I'll give it a whirl"

Just saw it last night and totally agree. I have no clue how they could take such a good idea and make it any worse.

[Leo Pepingco]

If anyone is a fan of books, or have done any literary study, you would realise that Dan Brown's style of writing is boring and pedestrian. The only thing he knows is how to make a plotline run, and thats why its such a quick read - the pacing is fast and its very very very easy to read.... I mean, my dad who hardly knows much engligh understood the story, and he has trouble understanding News Papers. Another good analogy is its the same style of writing in Harry Potter Books. Very simple language, no brainer dialogue....

I mean, the book itself didnt make Down Brown famous, its his controversy. I mean, none of his previous books sold well because his writng style sucked in the literary world. Only now hes just cashing in.

I saw the movie, and I've lost all respect for Ron Howard. In a review on DVD Talk, Eric D. Sinder writes about Ian Mckellen's acting.

[Ian] embraces the story's inherent outrageousness, rather than pretending it doesn't exist. I bet Ron Howard thinks it's a brilliant book, while McKellen read it on a plane once, smiled, and forgot all about it.

[Mike Moncrief]

Hi all,

I saw the movie on friday.. i mostly agree with Aaron Koolens review above..Particualrly the pacing of the movie was terrible.. and there was no payoff or climax for key scenes..and also you are 100 percent correct on the solving of puzzles.. there was no tension or mystery for the most part.. it would be like oh thats this symbol from this century.. and then they would just pull something out of their ass, and solve it.. boom.. move to next scene.. I am not sure Tom Hanks is at fault.. He was not particulary good, but i think any actor would have struggled with this.. Its dissappointing to me, because i like Ron Howards directing.. (Cinderella Man, Apollo 13...)
but it looks like the movie will still make a bunch of money.. at least on the first weekend.. we'll see if it has legs..

Mike M.

[Emre Safak]

Watch The Albino Code instead; I helped make it :)

[Leo Pepingco]

lol...

Bloody hilarious mate... Love the whay you guys injected the actual text into the movie... The Narrator is piss funny.