I don't find that to be the message behind DVC at all, but I don't find it surprising that such a film regarding Islam wouldn't be made.

Saw it last night with a fairly respectful crowd (surprisingly). Felt bad for the people that started to line up at 7pm for the 10pm show; we got in line at 930 and got great seats.

This movie was not as bad as the critics made it out to be, but honestly, should have been shorter. It really lost steam as the several "false endings" played out. Also, I never read the book, but everything was very predictable.

I'm sure it will destroy the box office, and a summer popcorn flick should. But I didn't leave the theater questioning my beliefs or with any profound ephiphanies, much like I didn't do any asteroid research after I saw Armageddon.

If people go to this expecting a B-grade thriller, then they will be satisfied.

As someone who did read the book, I agree. FWIW, the book is pretty dang predictable, but well paced. This movie really isn't.

Did you mean to say "$25m opening day"?

Estimates for
Friday, May, 19, 2006
Title Daily Total
Da Vinci Code 30.2 (30.2)

I saw it and enjoyed it. It didn't need to be very action packed or short to entertain me. I enjoyed Pirates of the Caribbean, partly because of the extra twists and stuff that made it a little longer. I didn't read the book but was a history major and learned about a lot of the history surrounding the book and movie and knew more background facts/rumors/myths so that may have had something to do with it. Overall, I enjoyed it and thought the female star was pretty good. I'd go see it again and will definitely buy, especially a special edition.

It was done in the XVIIIth Century, as a play by Voltaire called "Le Fanatisme ou Mahomet", in which the intolerance, brutality and deviousness of the prophet Muhammad, who turns from peaceful mystic to bloodthirsty politico with his accession to power, was supposed to stand in for all fanatical religious leaders, but especially those of the Catholic Church, of course. The play had trouble in its time and it still had trouble a year ago when it was presented in Switzerland and guess who objected this time... See: http://www.banned-books.com/truth-se..._4/ts214d.html .

Thought it was a pretty good little summer movie...It was a bit long, and I think it seemed longer as well since I knew what was going on. Its been a while since I have read the book, but it seemed to be pretty faithful (moreso than Geisha or Gblet of Fire were). I thought the acting was pretty good for the most part, although Hanks' Langdon still seemed off from the book. I really think the critics are bashing more the hype than the movie. I dont think its a religious thing but more an anti-hollywood thing, but thats my opinion. I saw it in Midtown where there were a bunch of protesters out and handing out pamphlets and what not, so that was kind of fun as well. I would give it a B-.

Well, I saw the film this afternoon in a packed Toronto house. The crowd was silent and attentive, most cellphones had been turned down to low - which is still extremely annoying - and the people around me repressed just a few yawns toward the end. I felt like I was the only one chuckling at the jokes and funny moments which mostly came from Ian McKellen and Jean Reno and were not in the book.

I liked the exposition parts which gave life to some very involved explanations with the help of interesting - if low-resolution - visuals and historical recreations. But I think that as a travelogue or illustrated appendix to the book, the film suffers from anaemic colours and pallid photography. I don't know whether this is a built-in drawback of digital photography, but it looks like Howard has decided that a serious film needs to have all colour drained from it, like Spielberg has been doing for some time. A lot of the scenes take place at night or under cloudy skies or in murky indoor locations. Sad to say, but the novel had better visuals...

The action scenes are so jumbled and close-cropped - TV-style - that it's hard to get a clear idea of what goes on. In one isolated flash of genius, the film shows an instant replay of what just happened from a different point of view in order to answer questions the viewer might have. It works - as it does in the book - and this technique should have been repeated in other instances, especially after the big showdown in Westminster Abbey, which peters out like a wet firecracker without it.

The monuments shown, whether real or stand-ins, are rarely presented in all their architectural glory even when the camera pulls back for an establishing shot (which is not often). You never feel like you are in Paris or in London. I kept thinking I'd prefer the matte paintings of old to this kind of botched and pedestrian location photography. There is never any sense of awe, wonder, amazement, grandeur, majesty, magic, joy, celebration, mystery, intrigue or emotion and you don't feel the excitement of discovery or urgency, which should be an essential ingredient of any treasure hunt movie. Howard paints all scenery as well as all human interactions with only one colour: grey. The music is equally lugubrious and oppressive and sounds like it was penned during an acute bout of Prozac withdrawal.

A few changes were made to the original story, some of which are justified when they speed up the action, while others, IMHO, are missed opportunities to reprise what worked best in the novel. Especially abhorrent is the change that was made in Sophie's family tree, which can only be explained by a misplaced sense of prudery. It robs the ending of any human warmth and closure. Any hint of sexual attraction between the protagonists has also been surgically removed, so as not to mix s-e-x with all the "seriousness" that goes on. The raciest thing extant is a pat on the shoulder... The screenwriter has even gone out of his way to not offend any religious sensibilities by planting a lot of "ifs" and "buts" in every argument From that point of view, the film was made by a yellow-bellied prude hedging his bets at every turn and unwilling to listen to a second opinion. It is so reticent about its own subject matter that it may be suspected of having been financed by the Opus Dei to defuse the controversy. It's easy to imagine Howard wearing a cilice all through the shooting of this picture and taking time out for bouts of self-flagellation in order to remind himself that no despicable fleshly enjoyment at all should be derived by anyone from this picture. It feels like a film about Catholic dogma directed by a Puritan Quaker.

A good part of the film is in French and acted by competent French actors, which makes Hanks' horrible pronunciation stand out like a sore thumb. I mean the guy is supposed to be an international scholar, for 's sake, and he still takes half a minute to struggle through the words "Bois de Boulogne". I guess Hanks' time is too valuable to sit in front of a language coach for half an hour, which also explains why his character acts at all times like he is slightly annoyed because he has other, more pressing engagements and this whole shoot is playing havoc with his social calendar. Audrey Tautou is charming and believable and one feels for her character's many predicaments as well as for the horrible cuts that were made to her back-story. Jean Reno has to struggle with a part that makes him even more of a one-dimensional heel and a chump than his character was in the book (yes, it's possible). Ian McKellen gives his all, as usual, and tries, in vain, to save the film single-handedly. He certainly deserves an honourary keystone. The Silas character (Paul Bettany) has been reduced to a side-show non-entity trotted around for pure shock value. We never learn where he came from or what the hell that accent is supposed to be (French-Spanish-Latin retard?). His last words () are particularly appropriate since he couldn't very well say: .

In conclusion, it's an unnecessarily timid and sanitized adaptation which is more than a little depressing, if not outright morbid, in its delivery. The flashbacks about Silas' childhood and his relationship to his protector, for instance, and Sophie's falling out with her grandfather, are not long enough to reveal anything of interest and only add to the atmosphere of sadness, randomness and confusion. I personally did not see where the budget went because it's certainly not on screen, even if all the historical flashbacks were CGI, and some palms had to be greased at the Louvre and Mr. Tom "Nice Guy" Hanks insists on a solid gold bidet in his private quarters.

When I left the theatre, the colours of a springtime sunset in downtown Toronto were absolutely breathtaking by comparison. Final thoughts: The book had its faults but it was certainly better than this and that is the only disclaimer that should have been put at the beginning of the picture.

I may have been onto something. If this doesn't drop too much next weekend, I may have a safe #1 pick for the Summer box office.

Pirates and Superman could have a similar opening though and could hold on stronger during their second weekends...

I was getting a little depressed with all the negative reviews because I was looking forward to this movie more than any other movie since The Village. However, I am pleased to say that I'd rate this movie a 94%. If you gave me 100 random movies, this movie would probably be my 6th favorite movie out of those 100. The acting was great. I liked the slower pace of the movie. The music was great. The scenery was great. It was just as good as I pictured the book in my head as I read it.

I kind of liked the first 90 mintues of the film, but overall the main characters ("good" and "bad") weren't developed as well as they could be, and they seemed to exist just to move the plot along. And then we get to the final hour of the film where it just slows down and takes on a leisurely pace with the revelations and by then my interest had waned and the film just stumbles to the finish line.

I give it a C+ or 2.5 stars.

I have my doubts, especially since next weekend is the debut of X-Men: The Last Stand, another long-awaited "summer movie."

X-Men 3 will probably open big but it has "stinker" written all over it. Word of mouth will kill it by week 2. I think DVC will hold out for a while and fans of the book may come back for seconds (and bring more of their friends).

Caught it this afternoon and really enjoyed it. I loved the book and though Howard did a very good job with the adapatation. All the performances were solid, especially Bettany as Silas. Not sure why it's gotten panned critically.

4/5 for me. I'll pick up the DVD.

Pirates and Superman have a better chance simply by being family movies.

I think TDC will have a substantial dropoff, but we are defintely looking at a movie that will approach $200M.

I really enjoyed the film today and will definitely pick up the DVD. People even clapped at the end of it. Cant believe there is so much controversy over this...

The buzz on Superman on pretty bad also. I'm looking forward to Pirates.

The book does explain most of this:

It wouldn't get made because Islam simply isn't a part of our everyday lives. It isn't the predominant force behind most of society's actions here, so it would have little relevance and would come off as a meaningless attack. Likewise, you don't get movies in Japan about the evils of Christianity, but films about throwing off the shackles of tradition and questioning whether the gods of Shinto even exist are a dime a dozen (and wouldn't you know it, when they come out over here the common complaint is that they assume knowledge of Japanese history, traditions and religious practices, which clearly isn't an issue for anyone living in Japan).

Basically, if largely Islamic nations were free to make such films, I'm sure you'd see them being made there. You don't see them from non-Islamic nations because they would serve no purpose and wouldn't connect with the audience in any meaningful way. The audience doesn't believe in it (thus there's not much to question) and doesn't know enough about it to establish any sort of meaningful thought process. This is why you won't see an "Islam is false" movie in America.

That said, if you just want "haha muslims are stupid" movies then I'll be happy to direct you to action films of the 1980s.

My thoughts exactly. Enjoyed it and I don't really see why it has been degraded so much by critics.

Me three. The movie certainly has its issues, but I thought it was an effective thriller, as loyal to its source material as it could be, and I thought all of the performances were good. Very enjoyable way to spend 2.5 hours.

Impressive ... "two thumbs up" plus people posting that they liked it!

Guess it took a day or so for the backlash against the backlash to kick in.

I'll say the top 3 movies will be

TDC
X-3
Pirates

I don't know which order they will be in but I think they will make the most.MI-III total is going to look pretty small next to these movies.

Poseidon will look alot smaller. From what I've read, the tracking has X-Men 3 making about $100 million over the Memorial Day weekend, which I believe would top The Lost World's $90 million opening record. If it doesn't drop 60% its second weekend, it should be up there in the top 5 for the Summer.

For those saying the religious stuff wasn't directly causing bad reviews.

"I'll say it: It is anti-Jesus and anti-Catholic. Unintentionally though, it is a recruiting film for Opus Dei. Where do I sign up?"

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/...=1&rid=1507583

It's certainly not the reason for bad reviews across the board, but I'm sure it's having more of an impact than many are admitting, and many reviewers are probably scoring it lower for such reasons and not being so foolishly overt about it in their reviews.