UKC

Don't suppose anyone here has seen it yet, but the critic in todays Herald didn't think much of the film, seems its no improvement over the book
eg
"Director Ron Howard has, however, conspicuously failed to alchemise page-turning novel into compelling film. The story of The Da Vinci Code (a lurid mishmash of murder, religious conspiracy and hokey goddess-worship mumbo-jumbo, for the three people out there who haven't read it) relies too much on prolonged verbal exposition to operate satisfactorily as a thriller, and Howard's version doesn't compensate as it might have by beefing up the action"

& so on ( http://www.theherald.co.uk/goingout/62227.html )

In reply to Doug: Aparently stays completly true to the book. So really really dull then.

In reply to Doug:

Hard to find any film that matches the book its based on though...

that said I thought the book was weak and only the twisting of previously accepting theories was its strongest point. I hadnt heard alot of these theories and these were interesting.

In reply to Doug:

critics in Demark said it was poor aswell.

In reply to Doug: I haven't seen the film or the book so can't really comment, however I have watched the programmes this week on More4 called Decoding Da Vinci, very interesting and the outcome seems to be that it is entirely fiction. Still in two minds whether to read the book or see the film. I don't generally read fiction so is there any point?

In reply to Doug:

The BBC critic says it's even worse than the book:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4989710.stm

The review was quite prominent half an hour ago, but is now quite difficult to find on the BBC website - probably a row going on with the film's producers!

In reply to Gordon Stainforth: There does seem some sort of inverse relationship between hype pre release & 'quality'(how ever defined) of a film. Quite ironic if after all the press coverage its a flop

Think I'll wait till its on the TV

In reply to Doug: Good idea. Wait till it's on TV then go down the pub.

In reply to Doug:

Think I might find something else to do!

I was in Waterstones last night, and the Da Vinci Code does seem to have spawned a whole industry with the number of spin-offs and related titles. There's even a Rough Guide to the Da Vinci Code!

In reply to dougair: Did read a comment on the book that said the shock at the end of the book is that you will never regain the 37 minutes you have wasted reading it.

In reply to Doug:

I enjoyed the book. I enjoy a Double Whopper Cheese every now and then too.

In reply to Doug:

I think I'm the only one who (a) hasn't read it (b) doesn't give a shit about it. There are much more important and/or interesting books for me to read out there.

Just wonder why everyone went on about it. I guess it was because it's poking a large, established organisation and saying things people don't mind hearing?

In reply to Doug: The book was terrible, but I remember thinking as I read it, "this is more like a comic-book outline for a film script", so thought it might make an OK film. Apparently some cinema audiences laughed at some of the unintentionally amusing implausibilities.

In reply to Doug:
I haven't read the book and have no intention of doing so. I wasn't going to see the film either, and the reviews aren't exactly encouraging. However, according to some religious folk on Radio 4 this morning (proposing a boycott, of course), the film is deeply damaging and will have a negative impact on Christianity and other religions. So on that basis I feel I should show my support by seeing it, several times.

In reply to darren-surrey:


Nope.

Then again I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books either.

Radio 4 was outstandingly rude about the film yesterday on the NewsPod - their critic says if you haven't read the book the film really doesn't make any sense.

In reply to Marc C: the Guardian critic wasn't impressed either
"Most Cannes-goers found themselves thoroughly bemused by this two-dimensional thriller which, for an awful lot of the time, neglected to thrill. It didn't have the punch of something like The Boys From Brazil, nor the seriousness of The Last Temptation. It was like Spamalot without the jokes, though the revelation at the end got a storm of incredulous laughter and the owl-like hooting that French audiences use to express derision. It was a very bizarre, very silly beginning to the festival."
(http://film.guardian.co.uk/cannes2006/story/0,,1777462,00.html )

In reply to darren-surrey:

Nope, I read one Dan Brown book and the standard of writing was so crap that I vowed never to put another penny in his pocket.


Dunno. If Da Vinci Code's as badly written as Digital Fortress then I'm astonished that it's sold so well, whatever it pokes holes in.

In reply to TobyA:

should I read DVC? I haven't read any of the Harry Potter books either (on the basis that they're children's books and there's already so many books that I want to read, that I'll wait till i've got kids to read them with) - but am I missing out? am I being senselessly bigoted? has my finger slipped from the cultural pulse of the nation?

In reply to Doug:

I don't care much for critics, as I usually don't agree with them.
I enjoyed the book and like Tom Hanks as an actor, so will watch it and decide for myself.

In reply to TobyA:


Why not read them in Finnish ? I've read a couple in French in my attempt to improve my French (& yes I do read books written for adults as well)

In reply to CJD:

At risk of being labelled elitist, or a literary snob... I did what I always do in bookshops, picked up the book and read a page at random. I say "read a page" but in fact I'd snorted derisively and put it back down before getting to the foot of the page. It was howlingly, laughably badly-written.

In reply to KeithW:

it's not the sort of book I'd normally read, and I don't like to be told what to read, but the hype is tempting me.

In reply to TobyA:

That's a pain, I can't be bothered to read the book first. I was hoping to get by with having read "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail".

In reply to KeithW:

In your mind! (and mine really). BUT remember that different people like completely different styles and find some more accessible.
Having worked in a small local bookshop and recommended books for repeat customers over years, I saw how varied peoples tastes are - writing style as much as content.

In reply to CJD:

Well, try it and see what you think. I'll bet you'll find the same as I did; it's literally unreadable.

In reply to KeithW:

I think I'll get through the huge pile of more interesting looking stuff sitting by my bed and on my 'books to read' shelf first.

In reply to Doug:

Sounds like a documentary of its premiere at Cannes (i.e with a camera pointed away from the screen, observing audience reactions) would have been a lot more entertaining than the film itself.

In reply to Doug:

The book has the typical American 'sugar coated' crap which lets everyone off the hook in the end.

What the book did do was to raise awareness of certain issues and to question the teachings of the Bible as gospel and raise the issue that the Bible was written by men who had political agendas.

In reply to Removed User:

Problem is that it is so full of inaccuracies about the issues it raises! Don't have a problem with the issues being raised, but if only he'd done some research. Saw a programme the other night ripping it apart for all the Christian history references it had got wrong (and it was a "non-christian" programme.
For example, the canon had been decided before Constantine was around which Brown gets embarassingly wrong.

In reply to Removed User:

What, and no other books have done that previously? There are dozens!

In reply to Castleman:

A bit like the Bible then

Having heard about the campaign to have an official 'warning' included with the film stating that it is mostly fiction, I was thinking about launching my own campaign for a similar warning to be given to anyone attending a church service...

In reply to brothersoulshine:

yes i thought the book was a superb easy light hearted read , not keen on the cheese.

I recon a lot of pople who rubbish the book are doing it because they now realise that its fiction and not true.

In reply to anonymous1: Disagree, I am incredulous that anybody actually ever believed that it is not fiction.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Hmmm, difference being that historically, the Bible stands up where we are able to check it, possible situations where we aren't sure on the exact meaning of the scripture or the exact (eg) archaelogical findings mean that small differences arise. Brown gets it completely wrong!
Not to mention the fact, that you'll find most Church services are about what people believe and how that affects lifestyle rather than getting history wrong (which could be checked by doing basic research). It's hard to say that theology or philosophy are incorrect or fiction, easier to dispute someone trying to claim historical accuracy.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Cool profile pic by the way! That is one HUGE grin!

In reply to Doug: R4 yesterday wondered why the book and film refer to the man by his address. Took me a moment then...

In reply to Doug:

A glacial reception with a few whistles and laughs at the end when screened in front of 2000 journalists at Cannes according to the french press (but I quite enjoyed the book as a light-weight "holiday read" )

In reply to Doug:

i've only just started to read it...well on chapter 2

the grammar is crap

In reply to kms:

cos it's written by an American! Send him a copy of "Eats Shoots and leaves" or whatever it's called (no apologies for my grammar, I've got enough to do coping with speaking french)

In reply to Doug:

I quite liked the book, easy to read and understand and you don't get lost with too many characters or confusing plotline. As far as the film goes I never listen to critics as they like the sound of their own voice too much and many are just bad actors who are bitter bacause it's not them on the silver screen.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

I like your thinking!!!

In reply to beermonkey:

While I think it's a good idea not to pay too much attention to film critics, there has to be a limit where you can almost guarantee that a film is going to be crap. On Rottentomatoes.com it has a rating of 17%, which is pretty terrible. When you take a large cross-section of critics like that, and the words "underwhelming", "dull", "monotonous" crop up again and again, I know I'm happy to take it off my films to see list.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Nah, it won't have a damaging effect on christianity as it is so clearly inaccurate. As I said above, he should have at least got his facts straight before opening into what could be useful/interesting discussions. This is less of a threat to christianity than hundreds of other things (the dead sea scrolls were a bigger issue and expected to disprove the modern (at the time) translations of the bible. As it was they proved them more than 99% accurate).

In reply to Castleman:

Why, it's a story, not a documentary. A bit like the B... hang on I've already done that one.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Well there we go then! Thats what I mean - its a story with incorrect facts so therefore no threat to christianity or any other religion. When people start considering it fact then we get into dubious ground.

Interestingly I met someone who is a member of Opus Dei recently. Had some very interesting conversations over indian sweets and chai tea!

In reply to Castleman:

Sorry, are we talking about the film here, or about Chrstianity?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Come on, get a grip. Read the posts above. Many facts in the Christian "story" that can be verified, have been. The book/film, has "facts" (as the author claims) that have been proved false.
If you have a bee in your bonnet about Christianity, spit it out, give an example, rather than just being vague.

In reply to Castleman:
Not about Christianity, no. All religions are just as bad

In reply to Doug:

Really sharp, devastating review by Mark Kermode on the BBC. He is angry because the film is just so boring, nothing else (mind you, the clips and trailers I have seen are inane, almost beyond words). And he is withering when he says that at the most boring points, with a whole lot of people just standing around speaking mumbo jumbo, most of the scene is typically played in the dark. He pleads, please just turn on the lights so that we can see what's going on, and understand what's happening.

Sorry, can't give you the URL, because it all depends on your partic player, but you'll find it quite easily.

Still, it's already sounding like one of the biggest bombs since Revolution.

In reply to Doug:
Went to see it earlier and it was ok. The thing about the book was it kept you reading because no matter how badly written you wanted to find out what happened next (or it is just me who's inquisative to how the fantisy was going to play out). The problem with the film was having already read the book it was hard to get any form of suspence going cause you new what was going to happen next. This left you analising all of the obvious plot holes that everyone points out. Overall though it was entertaining and reasonably well acted. Gave me a nice break from revision. I'd give it 6.5 out of 10.