Saw the Divinci Code yesterday...

[Heatherhcb]

Da Vinci (spelling is so not my thing)

Soooooooooo good!!! I recommed this movie!! It was great. It is long though, I have to warn you, but totally worth it!!!

Tom Hanks is great in it!!!

[DevotedToAMC]

I give the film 9 out of 10 stars! Why not 10? Too short

[Adam]

While it is certainly not nearly as bad as the critics are suggesting, the main thing that feel short for me was the completely boring and dry performences of Tom Hanks and the girl.... they just didn't sell it for me and their on screen chemistry was about as combustible as water and water.... I just didn't feel it. Ian McKellen though was awesome! But I loved the story and it wasn't boring (the actul plot) and I didn't really think it was all that hard to follow. Oh and yeah Paul Bettany I so did not buy as an assasin.... Molina was good as the Bishop though. The casting was very very hit or miss.

3 and a half stars out of 5.

[Mitchapalooza]

Good! I was starting to worry about this film with the HORRIBLE reviews it has been getting (but there may be WAY to much bias to really render a good review).

It sounds like word of mouth for this film is going to huge considering the painful reviews this film as been getting AND the media attention surround that. People will be telling people how good it was DESPITE the reviews and in the past that has meant MAJOR money at the box office, so who knows all the bad reivews it got might have actually been a blessing in disguise for the film.

I was teetering on whether to see it (because of the reviews) but now that more and more I am hearing it was great I am gonna go see it, maybe Sunday night.

BTW the film pulled in a HUGE 30.1 Million on Friday and is now expected to make between 80-90 million in its opening weekend, well above the studio/media estimates of 50-60 million opening.

[SIPort]

I have to say that I enjoyed it right up until the ENDING

Even though it was sentimental, I LOVED that in the end in the BOOK, Sophie was reunited with BOTH her BROTHER and GRANDMOTHER!

I don't get why the movie chose differently.

I thought the explanation given in the book - the parents died(under suspicious conditions), and the grandparents thought that their grandchildren were next, and decided to make a HUGE sacrifice (in essence, their marriage) to protect the children, was a wonderful display of LOVE.

I just don't get why the movie folks chose to change that.

Their choice didn't ADD to the movie.

40 million people have read the book. Why END the movie on a different note?

And, the only other 2 nitpicks for me:

1. Wish they had gone ' there' in terms of the reason given in the book as to WHY Sophie hadn't talked to her grandfather in years (THE RITUAL SCENE) - we should have SEEN IT - in DETAIL

2. More background of Silas.

[WTGH]

Haven't seen it yet as I'm waiting to see it without standing in line for 3 hours.

But, am I the only one who doesn't see Tom Hanks as Langdon?

[DAMfan]

I saw the movie Sat. and like it much better then I thought I would,

[Adam]

He was a miscast IMO... I know it is serious subject matter but Tom Hanks showed no emotion... neither did whatever the girls name is.... just no on screen chemistry... very dry performences. Ian McKellen though as I said earlier was the one bright spot in an array of bad casting. The casting is the only problem I had with the film. Other than that I thought it was pretty decent. The critics are just thrashing it because of its subject matter. The same thing happend with Passion....

[Rebecca]

I really didnt mind the casting choice. I loved it! Literally just came back from it! Loved the assassin dude, Ian M., etc etc. The movie is just an adaptation of the book (which Harry Potter fans still dont understand, lol) so things are allowed to be different/change. Maybe the brother was in the crowd, who knows hahaha.

[Joshua]

I thought it was dreadful. Tom is no Robert Langdon.

[SIPort]

Actually, I really liked Hanks as Langdon. I totally bought him as a Harvard Professor.

I didn't mind the no chemistry between him and Tatou, because, IMO, the only thing I did NOT like about the book was them trying to do something romantic at the end of it.

I liked the casting of the movie.

I would have accepted an even longer movie if they had done more explanation with Silas.

[SpiritualJunkie]

I was really excited to see this movie and was getting kinda bummed by the bad reviews but it's not bad..but be prepared to be confused! Me and my friend couldn't help but laugh during several parts of the film because there were so many WTF moments.

I agree that Tom Hanks and the girl that played Sophie had no chemistry. I was afraid they'd try something romantic between the characters near the end of the film and was glad when it didn't happen.

I really liked the beginning of the film where Robert is giving a lecture to his students about symbols..Hanks is believable as a professor and the lecture was pretty interesting.

The guy who played Silas was really good! He made such a good messed-up villain.

My problem with the movie was that it was so hard to follow sometimes. Half the time I didn't know who were the bad guys. I've never read the book so now I'm going to have to to get those details all cleared up. Did all these events take place in one city. There was a part in the movie where they took a plane with Lee. Where did they go? Speaking of Lee...they made it seem like he and Robert were really good friends at first so to find out that Lee wasn't their ally seemed to come out of nowhere. I also thought that Italian-looking dude who asked about the Rolex watch in the truck scene was bad (didn't he also try to chase Robert and Sophie after he "discovered" that Robert had left the museum?)...but near the end of the film, it almost seems like he is actually the good guy as he watches the Bishop get carried away by the ambulance and tell him that Silas is dead.

There were also a lot of cheesy moments...like Sophie finding out that she is the last descendent of Christ, Robert shaving and the blood that drips flows shaped like a sword (to this my friend turned to me and asked, "Is he a descendent of Christ, too?" ), the way Robert solved those anagrams with the images he remembers lighting up (yeah, okaaay...), etc.

Also, Sophie's grandmother says to her that Soniere was a really good friend to her. She's talking about the guy that raised Sophie, right? If so...didn't we discover that he was really a creep (performing that weird ritual..one of the big WTF moments..I wanted to know what exactly they were doing..)? So that scene made no sense.

The ending was really well done....great music, great scene direction, great setting, great camera work...it moved me. The sets in the movie overall were great..did a great job of creeping me out. I will never look at a basilica-type church or museum the same way again.

[WTGH]

When I first read the novel I imagined Langdon as a young Robert Redford type.

Good guy Hanks was the furthest from my mind.

It depends. Harry Potter (most notably "Prisoner of Azkaban") was adapted to the point it barely made sense onscreen.

The reveal that Padfoot, Moony, Prongs and Wormtail are James, Sirius, Lupin and Pettigrew is a MAJOR revelation in the book. Yet, in the movie there is no mention of this.

But this isn't about HP.

[Rebecca]

I hope they stick that somewhere eventually. That was really the only thing that I was annoyed about. And true.

[SpiritualJunkie]

I surfed around on imdb.com yesterday and I KNEW I recognized the actor who played Silas! I thought he was the guy from the movie "Wimbledon" but I wasn't sure. I thought Paul Bettany was the best actor in the movie. Silas was one hot but freaky dude!

My sister also told me that Audrey Tautau (sp?) was Amelie...I didn't believe her at first...she sounds sooo different in this movie! I didn't recognize her at all!