It fails to creat excitement from the start. The begining is just confusing and the story jumps forward too quickly. As to the ending in Paris, well that was a complete farce. It must be the worst portrail of a book in recent times. I read the book some time ago and thought that was quite good, However the film was crap
2006-11-03 10:12:31 · 26 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
this was the shitist display of direction i have ever seen. i lovedd the book and with such a cast and the locations lined up this had the formula for an all time classic. there was no chemistry between stars the screen play was rushed and failed to insire any kind of excitement. there was no creativity in the way the film was shot or cut. no atmosphere just the feel it was banged out in a few week to make sure the masses were still reeling from grail fever so they would flock to see it and spend their hard earned money.
a big pile of ****
2006-11-03 10:47:13 · answer #1 · answered by craig e 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. It couldn't possibly be "the poorest directed movie of all time" because Ron Howard is a very good director, and there were some parts that were not horrible. It was a difficult task to turn that book into film. And - the film was a pretty big disappointment. But the "poorest directed movie of all time"? No. Surely you can think of something worse - some B film - or porno film. There are many movies that would be considered worse.
2006-11-03 10:28:43 · answer #2 · answered by liddabet 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is just too much detail in the book that they couldn't portray in the film and they shouldn't have even tried. There was no way the film was ever going to be any good, they were just cashing in on a best seller.
I agree the ending was crap, a few seconds to show where the tomb was and suddenly the end, it was a major part of the end of the book and the entire story and to do that just ruined it all.
2006-11-03 10:19:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Not having read the book before I watched the movie I thought the film was good - confusing in places - but good.
It's a movie I would get out on DVD so I can replay bits I didn't get the first time around!
My friends who have read the book however completely agree with you!!!
2006-11-03 10:36:33 · answer #4 · answered by Jay Jay 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think Ron Howard is the most over rated director going around. Mind you, he didn't have a lot to work with in Da Vinci Code book.
2006-11-03 12:19:54 · answer #5 · answered by Jim T 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It looks like a stinking pile, but the Poorest movie of all time is a big call, have you seen "Plan 9 from outer space", "the Island of Dr Moreau", "Titanic" etc.
I have no intention of ever going to see The Da Vinci code, and commiserate you on your wasted 2hrs but I heard Tom Hanks stange hairdo is mildly diverting = )
2006-11-03 10:26:22 · answer #6 · answered by strawman 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I agree with you. I kind of expected that since Ron Howard
directed it. I read the book, the book was 10x better than the movie.
I heard Ron Howard is already filming the sequel (prequal)
of Angels and Demonds...I read that too, and I belive Tom Hanks
is going to be Robert Langdon again!.
We'll see what happens!
2006-11-03 10:23:54 · answer #7 · answered by Sabine 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your question is so refreshing. I tend to rely on my own training and know how before I call something a dog. But these days I can call it the minute the hype factories start talking the stuff up. I knew this thing was a dog. Haven't seen it yet. I'm not going to see ' Flags of our Fathers ' either. The title is selve serving and disingenuous. The cinematography looks like it was done by Stanley Kubrick's DP on ' Full Metal Jacket ' - ( That was quite enough, thank you. War isn't a dream, it's a nightmare. ) The best combat scenes I ever saw in my life other than actual combat photographer footage was in ' Patton '. In case anybody wants to know what a 105 - 155mm shell will do, see that. It did that to a jeep. Imagine what it does to people. Thanks again, for your question.
2006-11-03 10:17:41 · answer #8 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Maybe not "of all time" there are plenty more turkeys but it certainly was rubbish - a total let down. Shame on you Ron Howard!!
Mind you the book is also wildly historically and theologically inaccurate, badly written s hite
2006-11-03 10:15:30 · answer #9 · answered by Bumblebee 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's terrible, it's one of the WORST movies I've watched in a LONG time...... So boooooooring, and from the very beginning you could easily tell the girl was the jesus kid. So evident.... Even Jean Reno a really funny actor, totally sucked, even in french! A really bad movie.
2006-11-03 10:17:48 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋