Are DaVinci's reviews changing your mind about seeing it?

[ford family]

I'm still surprised that they finally acquired the rights to film in the Louvre (it's one of those places that they've never been allowed to film, take pictures inside, etc.). Westminster Abbey (and Newton's grave, which was strange, yet beautiful up close) was fascinating as well.

Westminster Abbey came over all sanctimonious and wouldn't let them film there, so those scenes were shot in Lincoln Cathedral.

ford family

 

[DisneyStar006]

I could not really care less about what critics say.

Ditto!


I saw it today and thought it was very good!

 

[luvflorida]

Did anyone else notice when they were in the airplane and Sophie ripped the tape off Silas's mouth? In the very next scene you can see Silas sitting in the background with the tape still covering his mouth.

Robert leads Sophie back to her seat, so there really wasn't any time for anyone to put the tape back on his mouth, and he certainly didn't do it himself!

 

[SueM in MN]

Did anyone else notice when they were in the airplane and Sophie ripped the tape off Silas's mouth? In the very next scene you can see Silas sitting in the background with the tape still covering his mouth.

Robert leads Sophie back to her seat, so there really wasn't any time for anyone to put the tape back on his mouth, and he certainly didn't do it himself!

I noticed that too. Kind of wondered why they even had that scene.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I'm going with my sister to see it in less than an hour. I'm looking forward to it!

 

[Aimeedyan]

Saw it today... well, our church rented a theater to see it together so a lot of us saw it today and then discussed it afterwards.

I thought it was okay. The screenplay was a dud and made even good actors wooden. I can see the issues that the critics had. I also don't like the change at the end they made and can't figure out WHY they changed it.

I think if Dan Brown had written the screenplay it would have been a better film. The cinemetography (sp?) was amazing, that's for sure. But the story and acting fell flat.

JMHO - glad I saw it, but even happier that I read the book =)

 

[goofygirl]

I saw it today and I must say I was pleasantly surprised! It was better than I expected, and I liked it better than the book. Any doubts I had about Tom Hanks in the role are gone, as I think he did great in that role!

 

[Zippa D Doodah]

BY FAR the lamest Tom Hanks movie I have ever seen. This includes "Bachelor Party" and "Turner and Hooch". Half the people in the theater snorted and giggled when Hanks delivered the BIG LINE to Sophie toward the end of the movie. Truly ridiculous.

Also, how do you suppose Sauniere gets shot in the gut, runs all over the Louvre leaving messages written in invisible ink, strips naked and dies in the precise position he intends. Oh... and for good measure he takes this big heavy ginormous painting that must be six feet tall, and hangs it back on the wall. Not bad work for a man dying with a gut shot.

I kind of liked the book, but the movie is a pitiful joke. Everyone except Ian McKellen should be ashamed to cash their paychecks. Anything clever about the whole proposed myth is totally gone from the movie.

I really wanted to like the movie. I dashed off to see the first showing on Friday... and I was so disappointed.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

Well I just got back from seeing it and I can honestly say I ENJOYED it. Ooooh, scandalous, I know Seeing as all the critics, and quite a few here on the Dis weren't impressed at all. But maybe I'm just easily pleased. I read the book and loved it, and other than a few changes (and I agree they could have done without the change at the end) I thought it lived up to the book quite well. I didn't think I'd like Tom Hanks as Langdon, but I did. There was no laughing at any of the lines delivered except for some by Ian McKellan as he did provide a bit of comic relief. I liked the flashbacks, they were really interesting IMO. I really, truly enjoyed this movie. Again, maybe I am just easily pleased But I would recommend it. In fact, I'm going to see it again with my mom next week because she had to work tonight

 

[SueM in MN]

I liked the flashbacks, they were really interesting IMO.

I know a lot of the critics didn't like the flashbacks; they thought they slowed the action, but without the flashbacks, you wouldn't know why the action was happening. I thought it was a really difficult movie to make because so many pages of the book were spent explaining things. I liked how they did that part.

 

[HomeSweetDisney]

I know a lot of the critics didn't like the flashbacks; they thought they slowed the action, but without the flashbacks, you wouldn't know why the action was happening. I thought it was a really difficult movie to make because so many pages of the book were spent explaining things. I liked how they did that part.

I agree completely. I thought the flashbacks added to the action.

And a lot of critics were saying that people who haven't read the book probably wouldn't be able to follow along as well. Well I told my 14 year old sister who hasn't read the book but went to see the movie with me and she said "That's crazy! Anyone with half a brain and some imagination can follow along just fine! What do critics think we are? Idiots?"

Maybe some of those critics hadn't read the book either but since they got lost on a few things they felt everyone else would too

 

[SueM in MN]

Maybe some of those critics hadn't read the book either but since they got lost on a few things they felt everyone else would too

Obviously some who said they read it, either just thought they did or don't have very good memories since many of the reviews said it "slavishly followed the book" and then didn't mention that the end is very different (not the last scene, but the sequences in the church in England).

I wondered what the point is of doing a movie of a book if you don't at least follow the plot line.

 

[boomhauer]

I never let critics sway me in one direction or another.

After seeing this yesterday, I wish I had this time.

 

[WhoopyPie]

I read the book, my husband did not. We went to see it and enjoyed it very much. My husband was able to follow it. It kept his attention, he didn't think it was slow. So much for critics.

 

[Crankyshank]

DH and I saw it Friday night. DH did not read the book but I have
I thought it was mediocre but in no way deserving of the horrible reviews it got from the movie critics.

it was totally lacking any suspense and my thought that Tom Hanks was a bad choice was justified. He was wooden and too "gosh darn" for me. I thought it was mediocre but in no way deserving of the horrible reviews it got from the movie critics.
Still.. it was beautifully shot (especially the Louvre scenes) and Ian McKellan was really good.

 

[CourtasanSatine]

Not the greatest of films but had a good time. I was blown away by Paul Bettany and Ian McKellan mostly.

 

[Shugardrawers]

We saw it last night. Had I not read the book I'd have been completely lost. I found myself explaining huge portions of the backstory that were just glossed over in the movie.

 

[Just2554]

And a lot of critics were saying that people who haven't read the book probably wouldn't be able to follow along as well. Well I told my 14 year old sister who hasn't read the book but went to see the movie with me and she said "That's crazy! Anyone with half a brain and some imagination can follow along just fine! What do critics think we are? Idiots?"

I agree; my 13 year old sister (who hasn't read the book) went with us and she followed along just fine. She asked me a few questions after the movie was over (mostly about stuff that was in the book but they'd left out of the movie, as it turned out), but overall, she understood everything. Around here, alot of critics complained that the movie did too MUCH explaining. It's a controversial topic overall, so it's only natural for it to have controversial reviews.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

Not the greatest of films but had a good time. I was blown away by Paul Bettany and Ian McKellan mostly

I agree, we also saw it last night. It definately isn't an Academy Award Nominee but it also isn't even 1/2 as bad as some of the reviews I've seen on it.

My husband hadn't read the book and he followed along quite well. He did ask me some questions about Da Vinci and some other details after the movie, but he got the plot quite well.

All I could think after seeing it was - well if watching that caused somebody to "lose their religion," then I can't imagine that the ever HAD any religion to begin with!"