To those of you that have read the book, is the movie any good?
Printable View
To those of you that have read the book, is the movie any good?
As always, I say the book was better. That being said, it is not necessary to read the book in order to understand the movie, as it is rather self-explanatory. Despite what the critics thought, I thought it to be rather interesting and entertainig, albeit a bit long. However, I did not understand what all the fuss was about, the movie seemed less controverstial than the book. But whatever, a very good movie, nonetheless
I liked the book better, but I will have to buy the movie when it comes out. The movie does explain itself rather well, but some points it takes reading the book to get (but those parts aren't plot critical). I actually found myself thinking "wait, that's not how it was in the book" several times, but I still enjoyed the movie.
My one real beef with the book and the movie, was that Brown claimed the information about the Priory of Sion as fact. Oh, it existed. But no in the 11th century. Try 20th century. Started in 1957 in France as a comittee to deal with... something, I forget what. It's been a while since I did my research project on it...
I hadn't read the book when my wife and I went to see it (she had). She said it de-railed from the book a lot toward the end but that it wasn't anything crucial. I absolutely loved the film. Thought it was very nicely done on a production scale and on a entertainment scale. I give it a strong 8 out of 10.
I have read the book and seen the movie, and my opinion is that both were good. Not excellent, just good. What made them excellent was the controversy that surrounded the book. As for the controversy itself, I find it funny. The very people that attack the story to cut it down instead make more controversy and thus more people are interested and read the book.
Besides the acting from Tom Hanks, the movie was great.
Tom Hanks wasn't all that bad. I really didn't think I would enjoy it once I saw he was playing the lead role but it seemed to work. Ian McKellen was good, as usual, and that french woman was pretty enough but was better looking in my head when I read the book.
It is one of those films where the book is not the same, like V for Vendetta. They took most of the book and it fits in theme but the events diverge and there is more emphasis on certain parts that were less explored, while other parts are glossed over which were more notable in the book.
The movie was okay. I loved the book though. That may just be me though. I'm more of a reader anyway.
People take this stuff WAY too seriously. I think this This Comic Sucks strip really says it all. Wayne Lozen is a genius.
The simple answer to your question is, in my opinion, yes. Although there are some points that differ from the book it is still a good film by itself.
(Spoilers) It follows the plot quite well, but i was surprised by a few points, like the fact that Langdon and Teabing argued about the Holy Grail and that they found the Grail documents in the basement of Roslin chapel.
Silas, played by Paul Bettany, is soooo cool, with the albinoness and the half-crazed look as well. He suits the role down to the ground. Also when i he was being interviewed on TV in England, he said that during the scene where Silas attacks Langdon he kept making involutary warning noises because he didn't want to hurt him. So in the first take after Tom Hanks had told him to stop, Paul Bettany grabbed Hanks, who let out a huge fart. Bettany, being a less prestigious actor was unsure what to do so he kept going, pretending nothing had happened, while HAnks fell about laughing.
I was expecting it to be a good film because the book was good and because the critics said it was really bad. In my limited experience of critic reviews i have found almost all to be wrong. As in, i completely disagree.
I found it quite enjoyable. It didn't diverge from the book so much that it was distracting.
Ian MacKellan nearly stole the film, but that's the case in almost any movie he's in.
Tom Hanks was serviceable as Langdon, but he's still not quite how I picture the character in my head. I always thought Clooney would have been a better choice.
or, well, anyone who you couldn't place anywhere in the movie saying "Life is like a box of chocolates"Quote:
Originally Posted by Rex Hondo
EDIT: This post is now typo free
I suppose its entertainment if you don't mind the complete historical inaccuracies involved in the Council of Nicaea, Knights Templar, Priory of Sion, and the gnostic gospels.
Thank you. Give yourself a cookie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ObadiahtheSlim
It's fiction! Give it a break!
Anyway, I loved the book, but have yet to see the movie...
See, this is why the movie gets a bad rap. Dan brown was very smart in the book by having the Teabing character (Ian McKellan) "reveal" most of these points. The truth is, there are avid pseudo-historians who have beliefs exactly in line with Teabing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ObadiahtheSlim
The movie simply revealed beliefs and didn't prove them or disprove them.
Truly, the only unfair characterization in the film and book is the Priory of Sion. To the best of my researching, this is not a well-known organization which spans back many 100's of years, but rather fairly clearly a 20th century invention which was obscure until a 1970's or 80's BBC special.
I found the movie mildly entertaining. It dragged at times, which was really surprising given that the book seemed to fly by, and I envisioned the book quite frequently as a movie while reading it... well, a movie with a lot of historical sidebars thrown in, I suppose.
The problem with it, however, is that even though Dan Brown says it's fiction, many people take it, if you'll pardon the expression, as Gospel. They actually take this work of fiction as the factual truth. The fact the Dan Brown writes: 'FACT' and goes on to describe the falacies about the Priory of Sion, which were later disproved. He clearly didn't do his homework nearly as well as he'd have the readers believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Sneak
I have no idea if you're right or wrong, but it makes a good book, so, quite frankly, I couldn't care less.
Working at a bookstore, you will not believe how many people believe that everything in the Da Vinci code IS fact and not a work of fiction. Even though the book says that it's a fiction novel.
Dan Brown started out by saying that it was just fiction based on theoretical research, but now that the money's rolling in, he's made himself believe his own work is true.
While I'm not religious, I do feel badly that Opus Dei, a charitable organization, has suffered so horrendously in terms of reduced donations as a direct result of people actually believing what was written in that book.
I read the book and honestly couldn't find what all the big fuss was about. Sure, the theories could be seen as controversial by the church, but there wouldn't have been all this fuss if they hadn't spent so much time denouncing it. By doing that, they basically guaranteed that it would become the huge bestseller that it is, just based off of hype alone.
Not to mention the blatant knock-offs. "The Magdalene Cipher", "The Lucifer Code", "The Diet Code"... Talk about jumping on the bandwagon. Anything for a quick buck I guess.
But yeah, it's because of all this that I'm not going to go and see the movie. I've read the book and that's as far into that hole as I'm doing to dig myself. I've heard the movie is good, but after dealing with the whole mess for the last three years, I'm sick of hearing about it. ;)
This just demonstrates how immensely stupid human beings can be. Dan Brown is just like anyone else. If enough people start to believe your lie, in time so will you. It's human nature. Knowing this, publishing the book was downright irresponsible. I wouldn't say evil though, as 'evil' is a word that's thrown around far too much in our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kahlan
Remind me again how publishing the book was irresponsible of him?
After all, people will believe what they will. I don't think it's any worse than, oh, say... Dianetics?
I think people need to take a step back and look at the 'Fiction' category printed right on the book. And if that doesn't do it, put some effort in your faith, do some research and figure it out for yourself!
Nobody got worked up over Holy Blood, Holy Grail, where Brown got most of his 'theory and research' from... and that was purporting to be a work of true research, not fiction... or at least, there's been more controversy surrounding The Da Vinci Code than there was with Holy Blood, Holy Grail, a book that deserved it more than Brown's work of fiction.
That's like getting worked up over The Passion of the Christ or The Last Temptation of Christ. Have more faith in your Faith, people.
My 2 yen,
Game on!
Akio