Did The Da Vinci Code Film Stay True to the Book?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hootenanny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Code Film
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around opinions on the film adaptation of "The Da Vinci Code." Initial reactions highlight a mix of skepticism due to poor critical reviews, yet many viewers found the film enjoyable, particularly praising Ian McKellen's performance. Some noted that the film remained fairly true to the book, despite a few deviations. Tom Hanks' casting as Robert Langdon received mixed reviews, with some feeling he was a poor choice. Viewers appreciated the film's ability to maintain tension, though some described it as slow and predictable. The soundtrack, particularly by Hans Zimmer, was recognized as a strong point. The film sparked discussions about its themes and the historical accuracy of its content, with some expressing concern over its portrayal of religious topics. Overall, while opinions varied, many agreed that the film was better than recent Hollywood offerings, and it generated significant post-viewing conversation.

The Da Vinci Code

  • Excellent

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Very Good

    Votes: 7 21.2%
  • Good

    Votes: 12 36.4%
  • Average

    Votes: 5 15.2%
  • Poor

    Votes: 3 9.1%
  • Very Poor

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Terrible

    Votes: 3 9.1%

  • Total voters
    33
  • #31
[quote-GCT]actually, I meant incredulous.[/quote]

Then you should have said you were incredulous, not that "it" was. Incredulousness (inability to believe) is an emotion, people have it, things don't.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
selfAdjoint said:
Then you should have said you were incredulous, not that "it" was. Incredulousness (inability to believe) is an emotion, people have it, things don't.

I see, thanks for the correction.
 
  • #33
GCT said:
I'm not a catholic, but I think that Dan Brown is an ass.
I don't see why. All he did was take Baigent's semiaccurate (and largely unverifiable) theory and build a storyline around it.
 
  • #34
I was going to see it on June 2nd, before it was banned, this time by the state government.

Freedom of expression, they said.
 
  • #35
siddharth said:
I was going to see it on June 2nd, before it was banned, this time by the state government.

Freedom of expression, they said.
I was just going to post about it. If it was not for that one exam on the 3rd, I would've probably watched it last weekend. What's the use of banning a movie that has been running for a week, and for two weeks around the world. I'm thinking that this a plot by the greymarket to boost their business.
 
  • #36
neutrino said:
What's the use of banning a movie that has been running for a week, and for two weeks around the world.

Politics my friend, Politics. (poli- many, tics- bloodsuckers)
 
  • #37
siddharth said:
Politics my friend, Politics. (poli- many, tics- bloodsuckers)
Apart from the "pirates" who's going to gain from this ban?
 
  • #38
Very good movie, mainly because I didn't have high expectations of it. I jumped out of my chair twice and found the story catching. Although the part that 'everyone should believe what they want' broke down the conclusion of the story, which I thought was typical.

I didn't understand the part where the butler and the monk were stuck in the car and the lord and the couple were researching a church and all of a sudden the monk appeared out of nowhere. Did he escape by himself from the car or did the butler let him loose? And why did the butler then hold a gun to Hanks?

And why did they give the monk (the albino person) blue lenses. To make the eyes look normal? The lenses actually made him look extra creepy.
 
Last edited:
  • #39
Monique said:
I didn't understand the part where the butler and the monk were stuck in the church and the lord and the couple were researching a church and all of a sudden the monk appeared out of nowhere. Did he escape by himself from the car or did the butler let him loose? And why did the butler then hold a gun to Hanks?
If I remember the story correctly, the butler let's Silas loose from the back of the limousine(?).Teabing's the one who employs him, althuogh he doesn't reveal himself. I could be wrong.
 
  • #40
arildno said:
Not at all, but I knew that Alexander Pope attended Newton's funeral.
From IMDB.com
"Factual errors: Alexander Pope never delivered a eulogy or did anything for Sir Isaac Newton's funereal. He did at one point write a poem about him."
 
  • #41
I too thought Pope was at Newton's funeral. Maybe it was a subconscious connection from the epitaph...
 
Last edited:
  • #42
Now they've started banning the film in neighbouring states, too. I was under the false impression that they had released it last weekend, but actually they were about to do that tomorrow.
 
  • #43
Monique said:
From IMDB.com
"Factual errors: Alexander Pope never delivered a eulogy or did anything for Sir Isaac Newton's funereal. He did at one point write a poem about him."
I never said he held a eulogy. I said he attended the funeral, as just about anyone of importance in Britain did at the time.
 
  • #44
After the two year hiatus from cinemas...

IT was very good. THough, I found Opus Dei's dependence on cell phones very humorous: speaking via modern technologies in a dead language, does it get any better?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
10K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
6K
Replies
9
Views
6K