Da Vinci Code movie Question?

Question

I was wondering is the Da Vinci Code movie enjoyable. I have read the book and have heard that the movie is not as good, but that's understandable! I know people have different opinions regarding the movie. Anyway, 10 pts for the first detailed answer!
Thanks in Advance!!!!

Answer 1

Ok the most easy way to get around such a question would be :The book is better than the movie".It actually counts for 98% of the adaptations.But The DaVinci code fits in the 2% of the cases where the movie is actually better than the book.

First of all Ron Howard (a beautiful mind) is a great director.The book itself did not appear so great to me having a rather bad character development (leading to the dissapointing revelation of the finale) and having the scientist explain it everything so that anybody can grasp the action is too much artifialism for me.For example Langdon dont need to explain the history of Paris to a french woman who herself is an Academic.This appears to a point in the movie but since the action is preety more spectacular it covers it uo.

Also the book has no fluidity.The chaptres last 2 1\2 half pages maximum and the action is cut much to often.This leads to a confusion because you get to a point where the change of background-people leaves you with a strange sence.The movie is far better.The director not willing to follow all the cuts and changes of the author produces a more solid scenaro leaving the audience understand the changes.For example Langdon and the girl in the book seem (not ARE )the same in the beginning and the end which does not happen to the movie.
The standard motto is "go with the book".But this time I will choose the film instead

Answer 2

I had the Da Vinci code movie on DVD monthes ago (ssshhhh!)
and i personally think it was a very good movie (never read the book) I've watched it like 10 timed to try to understand it better.. It really gets you thinking about the way people glorify Jesus as if he wasn't just a real man who did great things. He didn't start doing the jesus thing until his late late 20's, and the bible never really spoke of his life before then ya know. He was just a human being why is it so hard for people to believe (or accept) the fact that he may have fallen in love, had a wife and a child at some point? Plus if you look into the background of Da Vinci he did like to paint his paintings with backwords hidden mystery, maybe he was trying to tell a story no one else wanted to believe in those days knowing one day the truth would be known!! If you enjoyed the book then i would definatley have to say rent the movie, it's interesting, and educational!

Answer 3

I liked the book better than the movie. As in most movies that are made from books, they left out a lot and changed several things. There is also a bit of nudity in the movie with the Albino. I really thought that the book was much better. I don't know how much you would catch onto in the movie, had you not read the book. However, in the movie they don't get as detailed about the sacred feminine and all the conspiracy theory's. They touch on them, but they don't get so detailed, I think that is not so bad really. Also they don't get as detailed about the butler's role in everything. Overall, it is an alright movie. But like many movies, ie.. Jane Eyre, Count of Monte Cristo.. reading the book spoils the movie.

Answer 4

Problem is Dan Brown relys more on surprises than plot. So once the surprise is revealed, the story line is too predictable. I read the book first and did not enjoy the movie at all. At the same time, I enjoyed the book more than any one else. Do you know why? Because when I received the book as a birthday gift, I thought it would be a boring narrative type of book.

I read Angels and Demons afterwards. The plot was equally great. But digital fortress and Deception Point of Dan Brown seemed boring

Answer 5

The movie is a movie and the book is a book, two different works of art. "The Da Vinci Code" is packaged as entertainment targeted to an audience willing to consider the questions surrounding the origins of Christianity. Whether it contains a grain of truth or not, really is not its point. It was made to make money, bottom line, just as any Hollywood production.

Answer 6

The movie was not able to bring out the essence of the book.
The book really delved into the history and the legend of the holy grail. However the movie did not have the time to go into all that.

Also the movie changed a bit from the plot of the book..especially in the climax when Robert and Sophie visit the tomb of Newton and then are lured into the secluded spot.

Personally I also felt that the book was much better.

Answer 7

To me no matter how good the movie is, the book is always better. For the simple fact that in the movie some things have to be cut or left out entirely because they want the movie to be a certain time limit. However, the movie was worth going to see, even after I read the book.

Answer 8

The main problem I found with the movie was the amount of dialogue. In the book, it was fine, but I feel a movie should rely more on pictures than talking, especially the amount of French dialogue which required subtitles as well.
All in all, the movie is a very good adaptation of the book, but having said that, I don't think it's an ideal book to be made into a movie.

Answer 9

I enjoyed the movie and didn't find it to be as controversial as so many did. I thought the plot and concept was interesting as I enjoy mysteries and trying to figure out the outcome or "who-done-it" ahead of time, and although I never read the book, I was able to guess the ending. Even so, it was fun to watch the clues unfold.

I have to point out that I did approach it as a work of imagination and not of fact as so many who feigned offense and indignation did. I do agree with you, however....oftentimes a movie leaves much to be wanted from the book - two perfect examples: "First Wives' Club" and John Grisham's "Runaway Jury". I'd recommend reading and seeing both books and movies.

Answer 10

I liked it, but book was better. The detail and the theater of the mnd is much better.

The movie was limited by time and accuracy to the original story and left out nuances. Even so, it was good.

I found the movie "timeline" by Michael Creighton with the same problem...good movie, held true to the book, but hard to transelate.

otice how the "Lord of the RIngs" could only be told in three movies...they pulled it off successfully tho.