main
side
curve
  1. Welcome, Guest

    Upcoming events: Solo: A Star Wars Story: 24th May

    Supanova: Sydney (15-17 June), Perth (22-24 June), Adelaide (2-4 November), Brisbane (9-11 November)

    Oz Comic Con: Melbourne (9-10 June), Brisbane (22-23 September), Sydney (29-30 September)

  2. Welcome to the new boards! Details here!

Oceania The Da Vinci Code movie

Discussion in 'Oceania Discussion Boards' started by Ivo, May 21, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ivo

    Ivo Jedi Youngling star 1

    Registered:
    Oct 10, 2002
    I watched the Da Vinci code last night at the cinema, I thought it was really good. Part of the reason was that it faithfully follows the book (I know it's a radical concept) which reading some of the reviews of the movie is a bad thing apparently?????

    I don't know which important part of the movie was unintentially funny because no-one in the cinema including me noticed. I thought Tom Hanks was good, but Audrey Tatou stole the show. All in all great movie lives up to the hype
     
  2. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    The reason that Da Vinci code closely resembles the book is that the book was written like a movie.

    I'll be seeing it tomorrow and hope against everything that Ron Howard had something up his sleeve when he made it.
     
  3. BobaFett22

    BobaFett22 Jedi Youngling star 3

    Registered:
    May 21, 2005
    I saw this movie on Friday night with 5 friends. Two of us read the book, two were not Christian and the last friend was Christian, but knew nothing about the story. All of us thought it was very good. Acting was spot on. Hanks was great as usual Audrey was beautiful and amazing. The movie is as close to the book it was based on as any I have seen before. Go see it!
     
  4. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    The movie is BETTER than the book. That can't be said about many movies that are based on books but it is better.

    What I liked was the footage of the crusades and ancient Rome and those sort of things.
     
  5. Kartanym

    Kartanym Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    May 23, 2002
    If I can make the time, I'll go see this one. But with X3 out this week too, it's gonna be tough :p
     
  6. solo77

    solo77 Jedi Grand Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 28, 2002
    I could not stand this movie.

    It was boring, confusing and the acting was very bland

    2/5 [face_plain]
     
  7. Kartanym

    Kartanym Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    May 23, 2002
    pfft. Sir Ian made the movie. I thought it was ok. Bit slow in parts, but I think what drew me in was the theory itself, not specifically the acting. I can forgive that, considering it wasn't really important in the context of telling the story (especially character development, which took a back seat).
     
  8. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    What I liked was the speech at the start showing how subjective symbols can be.

    Though I half expected Silas to pull out a blue lightsaber! [face_mischief]
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Yes, it's funny a subjective story would include a lecture on subjectivity; in case people took it seriously and as fact (without doing their own research.)

    Oh, wait... :oops:

    E_S
     
  10. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    What are your thoughts on the protesters, Ender?

    Even here in Launceston we had a troop of Bible-bashers on opening day handing out leaflets against the film.

    Why can't they let people make up their own minds? This is 2006, not the Middle Ages.
     
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    The protestors are funny. Firstly, they're publicising the film, and secondly, they're as bad as the gullible cretins who believe the "history" contained within the Da Vinci Code novel; except in this case, they're believing the opposite.

    There's a reason the fringe of grail historians subscribe to similar theories, people!
     
  12. Detonating-Rabbit

    Detonating-Rabbit Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 23, 2003
    I agree. By publicly criticising it, they promote it and make it controversial. The irony... :p
     
  13. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    But I don't know who is worse; the reactionary protestors, or the faux-coffee house intellectuals who read it and assume it's telling an accurate tale of history.

    The best quote I heard for this book was someone saying it was what people who didn't read literature thought literature was like.

    Still, it would be nice if the film was better than the book. Even though I enjoyed, for example, the Tailor of Panama more as a film, it didn't adhere too strictly to it's source material. But for every rare example like the one mentioned, there's an example of abject butchery. Hollywood still owes Louis De Berniere an apology.

    E_S
     
  14. TheEmperorsProtege

    TheEmperorsProtege Jedi Knight star 5

    Registered:
    May 22, 2004
    I absolutely agree with everything you said *nod*

    [face_laugh]how can any tale of history be completely accurate???? they're all accounts of things written or told by a person that hopefully really experienced it and knows what he or she is talking about. but like every tale it is subjective and therefore only a POV and incomplete....

    -Mel
     
  15. TheBoogieMan

    TheBoogieMan Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Nov 14, 2001
    I would just like to second the claim that there is no such thing as historical truth.
     
  16. Katana_Geldar

    Katana_Geldar Jedi Grand Master star 8

    Registered:
    Mar 3, 2003
    To a certain extent you are right, Ender and I'm doing a History major at uni. A lot of what we accept as historical 'fact' is actually the agreement of several historians on an interpretation of relevent sources. This is how a history is formed as even with documented evidence we still need to interpret.

    The way you can definitely say that a historical event actually happened is that if several different sources agree on this. As for the how, that's something that's always being debated. I'll see if I can ask Viceroy to contibute on this as he's in most of my classes.

    If the Bible did not arrive by fax from heaven, history did not likewise arrive in written form courtesy of Doc Brown.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.