Yeah, it's not a good judge of quality. I was just agreeing with Passion. No one's going to talk about V for Vendetta in 10 years.

 

 

I wouldn't say no one, as V for Vendetta has a cult following, but yes, I agree.

 

That was a mis-step on my part. DVC is a bigger film, viewership-wise, and will undoubtedly be running over and over again on cable and satellite systems.

 

So it probably will be more remembered, however it doesnt speak to either film's quality (See M:I:2 and Fight Club).

 

 

I actually thought V for Vendetta was horrible. But I own and used to read the comics back in the day.

 

 

That is a personal opinion just as the above are over Da Vinci Code.

**** SOME SPOILERS****

 

 

I finally saw the movie. I loved it. I loved the ending. It made me understand more than the book.

 

One of the best parts was actually seeing stuff like the Rose Line, certain parts of the Louvre, Sir Isaac Newton's tomb, Rosslyn Chapel, Chateau de Villette, etc. It was as close to the book as it can get. The only thing I didn't understand were the plot changes, Sophie's relationship with Sauniere and how she found her grandmother. I don't think there really was a need for that. They could have just left it as it was. And if you didn't read the book, you won't understand the whole Hieros Gamos thing... that's the ritual that Sophie saw her grandfather take part in. I had to explain to Max what that was all about.

the ending was not as good in the movie as the book, mostly because the movie moves away from the book drastically in the ending by and large.

 

 

They also only solved one of those puzzle things, there are two in the book. A bit annoying.

 

 

Enjoyable how they made Opes Dei basically nothing in the movie when its very central to the book...but this organization is just too powerful in this world sadly so they had to appease to them or else my world turns into a nightmare..but thats a bit of a different story.

 

 

Overall pretty good.

Finally saw it yesterday, way better than I thought it would be. I didn't think it moved slowly at all.

Finally saw it yesterday, way better than I thought it would be. I didn't think it moved slowly at all.

 

 

Yeah, I agree. I liked it a lot, actually.

 

For those that have read the book, I assume you'll like it more as the scenes that are really overdone are just that way in the book so while it's corny, it's Ron Howard being as completely loyal to Dan Brown as possible.

I liked the book and I don't think he's a sh*tty writer.

Finally saw it yesterday, way better than I thought it would be. I didn't think it moved slowly at all.

 

 

Yeah, I agree. I liked it a lot, actually.

 

For those that have read the book, I assume you'll like it more as the scenes that are really overdone are just that way in the book so while it's corny, it's Ron Howard being as completely loyal to Dan Brown as possible.

:lol

 

I don't know why that is so important (being loyal to Dan Brown). I haven't read the book but supposedly he's one sh*tty writer. If Howard tries to follow that poorly written work closely he is being a bad filmmaker.

 

Just because he's not Hemingway doesn't mean he's a sh*tty writer. He's not great, but he's really good at what he does. It's not the prose, it's the overall plot and story.

 

To call him sh*tty is idiotic.

Finally saw it yesterday, way better than I thought it would be. I didn't think it moved slowly at all.

 

 

Yeah, I agree. I liked it a lot, actually.

 

For those that have read the book, I assume you'll like it more as the scenes that are really overdone are just that way in the book so while it's corny, it's Ron Howard being as completely loyal to Dan Brown as possible.

:lol

 

I don't know why that is so important (being loyal to Dan Brown). I haven't read the book but supposedly he's one sh*tty writer. If Howard tries to follow that poorly written work closely he is being a bad filmmaker.

 

Just because he's not Hemingway doesn't mean he's a sh*tty writer. He's not great, but he's really good at what he does. It's not the prose, it's the overall plot and story.

 

To call him sh*tty is idiotic.

 

I concede I haven't read it, but I've heard from people that I usually trust in terms of literary criticism (including a Classics major from Harvard that finished at the top of his class) that this book only suceeds due to the interesting plot alone.

 

To each his own though.

Wow, we're talking about a fictional book here, and you want criticism from a Harvard classics major?

 

Cmon, there is no way books live up to the expectations of those guys!

 

I bet they think Harry Potter is awful.

I concede I haven't read it, but I've heard from people that I usually trust in terms of literary criticism (including a Classics major from Harvard that finished at the top of his class) that this book only suceeds due to the interesting plot alone.

 

To each his own though.

 

 

Best selling authors all, I'm sure.

 

If writing was so easy there wouldn't be critics, there would be authors. That being said, Dan Brown is the J.K. Rowling of adult fiction and his stories are generally set up in that way. At the end of a chapter a mystery is set up while the promise of the next chapter is that particular mystery will be solved.

 

Of course some Classics major is going to hate it. It sells and people like it instead of reading Finnegan's Wake. I haven't finished the thing, and have picked it up and put it down nearly three times now (due to a busy school schedule) but to call the guy sh*tty, when he's put out one of the better best sellers is absolutely nutso.

They don't have anything against modern bestsellers. I've just heard that the book is written like a movie and has no conceivable style. In other words it only became popular because it was saying something interesting and controversial.

 

Perhaps it should have been written as a screenplay from the very beginning.

 

If you are reading a book to critique its literary values, then go for it. I like to read books for their entertainment value. Da Vinci Code is a fluid, active and comprehensive book.

Penguino, if you're saying that the book was written like a screenplay, then why are you criticizing Ron Howard for following the book as closely as he could.

 

The fact is that there are millions of people who love that book, so to stray too far from the book would be a decision so stupid and arrogant, that my guess is only a literary critic would attempt it. It's a credit to Ron Howard that he stayed true to the source.

I don't think the book was much of a critical success, so it's possible that the film is a critical failure for the same reason that the book was. I could be off base on the critical reception of the book, but honestly, all I ever heard from critics on the book was exactly what I'm hearing from you...that the writing is rather clunky, that the characters are poorly written, that the book is all plot, etc.

 

Critics have a purpose but they are not the average consumer. I think they all reach a point where they have read or seen too much, and it takes something really refreshing and original to capture their interest. Normal folks, though, in the end really just want a good story to keep them entertained. People don't get much into fancy new writing styles, and camera angles, and all that stuff. Once again, I'm not trying to demean the importance of good art, but there's a reason critics tend to gravitate towards little-seen art films and the populace goes for the big blow-em-up blockbusters, and it has nothing to do with intelligence levels or anything like that. It just has to do with people looking to get different things out of their cinematic experiences.

 

Obviously, I'm simplifying a little here. Sometimes critics go nuts for a well-made blockbuster. My point is basically that they never got the Da Vinci Code in the first place.

 

Da Vinci Code is obviously an excellent beach book, and from those who have read it, I keep hearing that it is an entertaining popcorn flick.

 

Ron Howard knows his audience. You are not his audience. While you would like to get intellectual about the Da Vinci Code and talk about how film and literature are different media, I really think the people buying tickets for this movie don't want him to tinker with the book much at all. Sure, he had to cut some things out...I heard all the romance stuff was clipped...but he stuck to the basics, and most people I've heard from seem happy enough with the results.

 

This movie was not made to innovate. It was made to please. Tinkering with the source material was not called for.

I don't think the book was much of a critical success, so it's possible that the film is a critical failure for the same reason that the book was. I could be off base on the critical reception of the book, but honestly, all I ever heard from critics on the book was exactly what I'm hearing from you...that the writing is rather clunky, that the characters are poorly written, that the book is all plot, etc.

 

Critics have a purpose but they are not the average consumer. I think they all reach a point where they have read or seen too much, and it takes something really refreshing and original to capture their interest. Normal folks, though, in the end really just want a good story to keep them entertained. People don't get much into fancy new writing styles, and camera angles, and all that stuff. Once again, I'm not trying to demean the importance of good art, but there's a reason critics tend to gravitate towards little-seen art films and the populace goes for the big blow-em-up blockbusters, and it has nothing to do with intelligence levels or anything like that. It just has to do with people looking to get different things out of their cinematic experiences.

 

Obviously, I'm simplifying a little here. Sometimes critics go nuts for a well-made blockbuster. My point is basically that they never got the Da Vinci Code in the first place.

 

Da Vinci Code is obviously an excellent beach book, and from those who have read it, I keep hearing that it is an entertaining popcorn flick.

 

Ron Howard knows his audience. You are not his audience. While you would like to get intellectual about the Da Vinci Code and talk about how film and literature are different media, I really think the people buying tickets for this movie don't want him to tinker with the book much at all. Sure, he had to cut some things out...I heard all the romance stuff was clipped...but he stuck to the basics, and most people I've heard from seem happy enough with the results.

 

This movie was not made to innovate. It was made to please. Tinkering with the source material was not called for.

 

 

About as well as anyone could have put it and it's not offensive to anyone in the least. I agree with this assessment.

The best part is that el penguino is going on third person accounts of his criticisms.

 

 

I'd take what he has said a lot more seriously if he had actually read the book.

 

 

But thats just me.

The best part is that el penguino is going on third person accounts of his criticisms.

 

 

I'd take what he has said a lot more seriously if he had actually read the book.

 

 

But thats just me.

 

It's not like I'm making some radical claim here, friend.

 

People have been knocking on this book since it came out. For every instance I've heard complaints regarding the controversial subject matter I've heard at least a dozen more claiming that the writing style is absolutely banal.

 

You would perhaps have a more valid point if I were knocking on Faulkner.

 

I'll tell you what. I'll download a .pdf of the book tonight and give you my thoughts on it tomorrow sometime. :thumbup

 

I can read all the literay criticisms as well.

 

It means less when you havent even read the book to take a stand yourself based upon your own thoughts and ideas in regards to any book review.

I just saw the movie. Was an enjoyable film. Not one I'd probably buy when it comes out on DVD but definitely worth the matinee price.

 

The beginning I felt moved kind of slow, but it picked up as the movie went along.

I'm reading the book now. It's pretty enthralling. I just finished the prequeal to TDVC, Angels and Deamons. That was a really good read too. I suggest you read that too.

 

While Dan Brown may not be the best author in his time, he's good at what he does. Creating suspense and entertaining characters. Good plot twists as well.

 

AnDs is written like an episode of 24, which is one of my favorite shows. It takes place in real time. I feel like before each chapter, it should read, "The following takes place from 10pm to 11pm, Events occur in real time"

 

Anyway, haven't seen the movie yet, I will once I finish. I heard that Hanks agreed to reprise his role as Langdon in Angels and Deamons set to release 2008.

Need to get ANgels and Demons book on tape to occupy my time back and forth to Tally.

Need to get ANgels and Demons book on tape to occupy my time back and forth to Tally.

 

 

 

I heard Deception Point was good. I'm tryin to get Dan Brown out of my system. I finished reading Godfather Retruns last month, by Mark Winegardener. A decent read, but I enjoyed it a hell of alot, GF is my favorite movie and book.