Ok, I know this is a bit old but...

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

I just saw the movie of THe DaVinci Code.

Ok first off, the movie came accross as horribly cheesy. The only thing that I can say I really liked about was Ian Mcellen as the old historian, He even managed to pull off the whole switch from good-to-bad guy quite well, and even made it almost believeable.

One thing that quite surprised me was how they toned down much of what was in the book, not only by cutting out things like their 'comparsons' to Mithra and Isis(which were all false anyway) but also things like Tom Hanks pointing out that more recent estimates of witch trials point to less than 100,000 'victims' as well as correcting the book's misquote of the Gospel of Phillip(ablit only by having Tom Hanks stop him before he got to the missing word).

As a Christian I can say that, quite frankly I didnt care much for these changes. For one thing it's painfully obvious that they were only made becasue the writer/director wanted to appeal to Christians who saw/wanted to see the movie. Also, while the changes make the theme of the movie less harsh, they dont eleminate it, in fact they made the movie overall weaker by making it look like what they are supposed to be looking for might be wrong. Also, they only pointed out that there were other opinions, rather than explaining why(for example) estimates of 'millions' of women killed to witch hunts are wrong. Of course I didnt expect a detailed analyis of such things in a movie, but I dont think simply pointing out dissenting opinions dose much to further the Christian cause.

So, yea, overall this is a strong contender for worse movie of the year. If it wernt for Ian Mcellen there would be no redeeming features about it.

[NJon]

If it wernt for Ian Mcellen there would be no redeeming features about it.

Interestingly enough, Ian Mckellen is the most anti-theistic person in the cast. Hanks and director Ron Howard both claim to be born again.

[Minnesota]

When a novel has a lot of exposition it usually doesn't translate well to the screen. Most movie goers don't like to listen to a lot of explanation, they'd rather see action, or at least action-reaction between the movie's elements. Sometimes it can be deftly woven into the plot, but even so, there is a limit beyond which it starts to bore, or interfer with the pace, or length of the movie.

[Tickle Me Goody]

When a novel has a lot of exposition it usually doesn't translate well to the screen. Most movie goers don't like to listen to a lot of explanation, they'd rather see action, or at least action-reaction between the movie's elements. Sometimes it can be deftly woven into the plot, but even so, there is a limit beyond which it starts to bore, or interfer with the pace, or length of the movie.

So the best idea is to read boks and flush movies.:yes:

:thumb:

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

So the best idea is to read boks and flush movies.:yes:

:thumb:

Or, in the case of The Davinci Code, dont bother with either, since they both suck.

[Minnesota]

Or, in the case of The Davinci Code, dont bother with either, since they both suck.
Let me get this straight. You read The DaVinci Code and thought it sucked, yet you chose to spend money to see the movie version of this sucking story and are now disappointed that it too sucked.

Humans never cease to amaze.

[Sir-Think-A-Lot]

Let me get this straight. You read The DaVinci Code and thought it sucked, yet you chose to spend money to see the movie version of this sucking story and are now disappointed that it too sucked.

Humans never cease to amaze.

Actually I mostly saw the movie because my g/f wanted to. Plus by now its at the cheap theaters so its not like it cost me that much.

Also my sister(who also hated the book) saw the movie when it first came out and said she actually liked it.

[Minnesota]

Ah! The G/F Factor. No need to explain any further.