Did you enjoy The da Vinci code film, and why or why not?

Answer 1

The subject of the story is too deep and complex for what the movie presented. I felt like it was superficial and botched. For the sake of acting lots of things were left out that could really give more suspense or intrigue, and really result in a closer story as the book.
As much as I like the actors in general, I thought the characters were not played as well as they should have been. Too light, not enough substance, especially for someone like Hanks and Reno. Tautou was not in her natural acting element.

Answer 2

I enjoyed it because of the question. Was Jesus married. I have no problem with him being married because all of the disciples were, and it was a real offense in those days to be unmarried. Other gospels, say Jesus trusted Mary Magdalene above all and that she was the 1st disciple he would go to. Da Vinci shows her at his side at the last supper. Anybody who says that person is a man next to Jesus is a idiot.
Years ago I saw a documentary about this subject, which convinced me he probably was married, because only family members were allowed to touch the body for funeral, and she was the first disciple he saw after he became spirit. Even the bible shows she was a big part of his life. I believe the rest was covered up when they put the bible together in the fourth century. Don't forget that Priest for some hundreds of years were married. Whether he had a child, I don't know, but there are some accounts of a daughter being moved to the British Isles and founding the oldest church, which still stands. Jesus was supposed to be tempted by all the things any human is tempted by. If he wasn't human, then how could we follow his example? Being human require a person to have a relationship, that is more than a handshake. That doesn't make him any less. NO less respect should be given him, just because he was in human form.

Answer 3

I thoroughly enjoyed the book which I read before seeing the movie. I was disappointed with the movie, even though, when I read books I do actually try to picture actors who could play the characters and I did think of Tom Hanks. He's the right age, not too good looking but not ugly either. His hair and attitude put me off his character. He should have been portrayed as much more interesting and intelligent and vulnerable than Hanks played him though. Such a shame! Also, I thought Paul Bettany on paper sounded perfect as the mad monk but he was totally crap and wooden (and I love him normally)!

Having read the book, I was compelled to read the others by the same author. Unfortunately, having watched the movie, if they made any more from the other books, I'd be compelled to avoid them!

Answer 4

No. I did not.

The DaVinci Code was better suited for miniseries treatment. Pure magic was the book. I could not put it down...could not wait to get to the next revelation. The magic of the book lay in the seamless tapestry the author wove as he made the obscure into the obvious...so that I kept saying to myself "Omigod...how could I not have seen that...he's right" and a dozen other things like that.
I felt transported into a new world...one of wonder...of new things...that had always been a part of my daily life...that I had never paid attention to...the mundane becoming rife with new meaning.
By the time he got to the concept of the rose...and what it could really signify...I was sold...lock, stock and smoking barrels.
The movie had no magic...no bite...no bark...no substance...no weight...just another vehicle to remind the movie going fans that Tom is an actor and keep him in the public consciousness until his next Oscar winning performance. I was not impressed...at all.
As I am writing this I know that I am going to pick up the audio book...again...and take the journey once more. I was lost for days the first time listened to the audiobook...in the drama of the code. I know I am going to find and experience some new things this time...stuff I missed last time.
As for the movie...that is not something I will revisit...ever.
Hope this helps...

Answer 5

I found it hard to watch the film as I read the book first which is so much better.
The film is defiantly good but left out many facts that the book had to explain many points of the da vinci code

Answer 6

I did enjoy the film. I actually read the book first and was curious as to how the film would portray the sequence of events in the book. There were details the film did not address. However the film was a nice addition.

Answer 7

No, No, NO!!!!!!

I think the movie was scr*wed right out of the gate because of poor principal casting. Tom Hanks was way too old and not nearly sexy enough for the role of Robert Langdon; Audrey Tautou was too young and not substantial enough for Sophie Neveu.

Casting Jeremy Northam (who's mind-bogglingly sexy in that academic/ collegiate sort of way, and exactly who I pictured when I read the book) and Julie Delpy (who lobbied for the role of Neveu), respectively, would have significantly improved the film.

I agree with the poster below (crazy child), though: Paul Bettany was inspired casting!

Answer 8

The premise of urgency was unbelievable. All the rushing about painful to watch. The bad guy seemed silly or just perverted and not a credible threat. 'Worst Hanks movie I think I've seen.

Some interesting details in it though, like the ancient lock box that was supposed to destroy its contents if improperly opened.

I had to wonder why the Church bothered to attack it.

Answer 9

I love the book and the movie!!
so, i liked the film because Tom Hanks is such a good actor, the film followed very very closely to the actual book, it was interesting, i like the director, it was just good!

Answer 10

Not really, tom hanks annoyed my cos he picked up the clues too quick, maybe would have been better had i not read the book first that was brilliant but i think 'angels and demons' was by far the best Dan brown book, hope they make that into a movie.