The Da Vinci Code

Hello,

Didnt know whether I wanted to add this in rant section or not.

I read Dan Browns books Angels and Demons and the Da Vinci code and I thought they were brilliant, especially the unexpected plot twists that were intermingled with the references to history etc.

I then saw the film.........

oh deary, deary me........

*********************
*** Spoiler coming up ***
*********************

If I was Dan Brown I would be hunting Ron Howard down with a shotgun and a pack of dogs for basically ruining one of my lifes masterpeices in this very poor and in some places ridiculous adaptation of the book.


Not only does the film not even start off how it does in the book but it also completely changes not only the ending of the story but perhaps one of the best plot twists in the entire story.

The twist being that the meeting between aringarosa at the popes residence at the begining of the story seems to be indicating that the church has paid opus dei money to destroy the priory of sion and the holy grail.

When in actual fact the church is actually kicking opus dei out of the roman catholic church and the money is a refund for opus dei funding to the vatican bank in the early 80's.

Apart from that what really got me mad was the film seemed to rush through the storyline (which it altered heavily ill get back to that in a moment) touching on certain major events in the book.

There was no character build up, people just appeared and then disapeared with no explanation whatsoever as to their actions, history or persona.

A classic example is the bank manager that helps Sophie and Langdon escape the French police, without being asked and then attacks them later on when they are in the countryside.

There is no explanation of this scene and even better, what the hell happened to the guy! The book explains this, it explains his reason for helping them, it explains his history and character and it explains the reason he attacks them and then it later explains what happens to him.

The film appears to make him out to be an agent of the church, this is not true.

Another thing was the whole affair with Silas, one of the main characters, you have no explanation as to who he is or anything till one point in the film were you see a flashback of his past.

Sophies own history flashbacks were incorrect and not very clear and even the relationship between teabing and Langdon was scewed.

In the book Langdon explains alongside teabing about the holy grail and what it is to Sophie, in the film Langdon is virtually argueing every point Teabing makes, in complete controversy to his own sodding book!!!!!

One of the best things about the book is the explanations given to the meaning of words and symbols in the film you end up with a sesame street show highlighting the symbollogys meaning as you would expect big bird to explain the alphabet.

I mean at one stage I was expecting Count Count to jump out and start off saying "Von, Two, Tree".


The casting was great but the acting wasn't very good. The french girl cast as Sophie was not at all suited to the role in my opinion her accent was far too deep and I found myself saying "what the hell did she just say?"

I am very disapointed in this film and like I say if I was Dan Brown I would be castrating Ron "the dick" Howard about his exceptional poor attempt at the film.

__________________
Thanks Cep

Gatchamania.net Administrator

I thought the movie was so so. I will keep in mind what you have said about the book and may venture off to read it, so I could possibly understand the movie better. Or realize more how crappy it is in comparison.

__________________
" No gratitude needs to be voiced, your mind speaks to us!"


Racer by day, Feather Thrower all the time!

My mother has the Da Vinca Code book but not too sure if she seen the movie. Me personally, not interested in either but will watch the film when it comes to the telly.

I did buy a book called The Magdalene Society which had a similar idea but with a secreat society trying to make the Second Coming happening by making people in mirciles and UFOs and cow mutilations, etc and also trying to cover up their own society and so forth.

The problem with films that are based on books is that they can't make the films follow the book precisely, eg Tom Clancy's books, Red October, Patriot Games and Clear And Present Danger, which I have read and seen the films. With the last 2 films, they changed things, which I didn't like.

With the sequal to Clear And Present Danger, The Sum Of All Fears, the film was totally unlike the book. Okay, so they didn't want to offend the Muslims, because MUslin terrorists bomed an American city with a nuke and instead they used right wing Russians. That's okay by me, but hte rest of the storyline was totally unlike the book, which I hated (the film, not the book)

The Lord Of The Rings films were very, very good and I had to admire Peter Jackson for what he tryid to do.

In other words, some films that are based on books, can carry it out but the majority of films won't be any good or are just cack.

__________________
Eagle in Residence
Tempory Frisker

Youve been suckered big time.

Everyone in the know knew this movie was going to be crap. It was a boring and pretensious book, with nothing new in it, and it was well nigh unfilmable.

(says she who knows more about the occult than she cares to admit)