# Da Vinci Code on film



## nikolai (May 20, 2006)

I enjoyed watching this. It's been slated by the critics, I think for three reasons:

(1) Because it's the definitive example of Holywood trying to cash in on a big-name property.
(2) For being dull (lots of watching people solve puzzles).
(3) For having no character development, and being a bit melodramatic.

It's perfectly true that there are lots of very talented people attached to this film, and that they're all working well below their ability, presumably for the money. You do get the sense that their time would be better spent doing something more highbrow. (I was stuck by just how amazing Paul Bettany would have been as Elric, and also by the tragedy that thanks to this film he's out of contention for the role.)

But I enjoyed it. Perhaps you can complain about the shallowness of the characters if you only watch stuff like A Beautiful Mind and Brokeback Mountain, and were expecting something similar, but I've willingly gone into the cinema to watch stuff like Van Helsing and Stealth. I suppose some people would have found the puzzle solving dull, but I enjoyed the way the special effects montages were used to liven things up. They were certainly cleverer and more interesting than the puzzles.

So I liked it. I'll certainly watch it again when it's released on DVD. I think what I liked the most was that it was different. I've seen so many cookie-cutter action films and thrillers, they all sort of blur together. At least this was trying to do its own thing.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 20, 2006)

Ebert said it was a good movie and that the book sucked.

I watched the movie (kind of by accident) yesterday and thought it was pretty bad. I didn't read the book, so I was judging the movie on its own.

I thought the main characters weren't believable ("Hi! I'm your friend now! Let's go on an adventure!"), many of the side actors were over-acted ("I've been your friend for decades, but I'm afraid of you now because of something I saw on TV"), the history factually incorrect in some parts, and many of the lines and plot twists were predictable.

In short, if the movie is better than the book like Ebert claimed it was, then I'm shocked at the book. Either way, I'm not reading it.


----------



## Insight (May 20, 2006)

Thanks for a thread that's actually ABOUT the movie.  Please don't let this thread devolve into a religious discussion and get locked.


----------



## Viking Bastard (May 21, 2006)

I enjoyed the movie, but I have to agree that it was badly paced in parts.

The movie could benefit greatly by a re-cut.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2006)

I saw it today, and enjoyed it a lot.  It's not an academy award winning film or anything, but well worth seeing.  Some good action scenes (I loved the backwards chase in the Smart Car).  Some good acting from the lead characters.  Some good suspenseful moments.  And I really liked the music.  Overall a fun, pleasant film.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 21, 2006)

nikolai said:
			
		

> (I was stuck by just how amazing Paul Bettany would have been as Elric, and also by the tragedy that thanks to this film he's out of contention for the role.)




A couple of years ago, in one of those perennial "Who would you cast in the Dragonlance movie?" threads, someone proposed Paul Bettany for Raistlin.

My jaw dropped - I hadn't been that 'struck' by one of those proposals for a long time.

(That said, I recently saw a page where someone was putting actors to Song of Ice and Fire roles.  Many of them strike a chord  )

-Hyp.


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 21, 2006)

Saw the movie last night. I an enjoyed it. There were some parts that were a little slow, but over all the movie was well done. Paul Bettany was great as Silas. 
I would give it 4 stars out of 5


----------



## Richards (May 21, 2006)

I haven't read the book, and wasn't particularly anxious to go see the movie, but my wife wanted to see it (she's read the book twice), and since she asks to go see so few movies, we went.  It was okay, but I felt my 2 hours and 40 minutes could have been better spent doing something else.

My big problems with the movie were 



Spoiler



some rather predictable "plot twists" (I knew Magneto's butler was up to no good from the first I spotted him, for instance, and that the French chick was the direct descendant they were all looking for) and a completely unbelievable start: the French chick's grandfather gets shot by the albino monk, and has the presence of mind - not to mention the time - to figure out several anagrams in his head, write them all out so they only fluoresce under ultraviolet light, leave clues at several different paintings, scramble up the Fibonacci sequence combo to the bank vault, strip himself naked, paint a circle on the floor and a pentagram on his chest in his own blood, and only then allow himself to die.  All of that would probably have taken me several hours to figure out and implement, even without the bullet hole in my torso!  (I guess he must have put all of his points into Constitution - but then how was his Intelligence high enough to figure out all those anagrams in his head while dying?  )

I also didn't like all the times we see some conspirator or other talking to somebody on the phone and have no idea who they're talking to.  Yeah, I know they wanted to keep the suspense, but I found it nearly impossible to keep track of the various factions and what was going on.  It also seemed like the identity of "the Teacher" was not only contrived, but decided upon right then at that time in the film, just so it would be a surprise - I'm still not convinced of the Teacher's motivations, and they seem to contradict his earlier behavior in the film.



All in all, I think I liked _National Treasure_ much better, despite generally preferring Tom Hanks over Nicholas Cage.

Johnathan


----------



## Klaus (May 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A couple of years ago, in one of those perennial "Who would you cast in the Dragonlance movie?" threads, someone proposed Paul Bettany for Raistlin.
> 
> My jaw dropped - I hadn't been that 'struck' by one of those proposals for a long time.
> 
> ...



 If Paul Bettany plays Raistlin, y'think he could pump up and also play Caramon? Or should we get Christian Bale to pull a Machinist/Batman Bagins?


----------



## satori01 (May 21, 2006)

I never read the Da Vinci Code, but I did read Angels and Demons.

I can not say I like Dan Brown as a writer.  I give him high marks for the creative use of Art History and Religous Conspiracy history, but I find him disapointing as a wordsmith.  Brown's writting does not sing to me,  I find his use of language dull.  However his books are easy to read, and many people who in general do not like reading, like his books because they are facile.

In regards to the movie, I find Ron Howard to be the Dan Brown of the screen.  Beyond Apollo 13, and maybe Cocoon, I can not say I have loved any of Howard's films.  His films are not bad, but neither are they really inovative or that engaging.  Ultimately, Da Vinci code as a movie did not work for me, because it was not suspenseful, I never felt the character were in real danger, and I did not buy the introduction between Sophie and Langdon.
Moreover some of the visual techniques that Howard uses gives away the story.  The emphasizing of the Pyramids in the Louvre, the very explict showing of the Opus Dei Button on Reno's lapel, gave away huge sections of the plot.  I also did not find the phantasmigorical visualizing scenes to be effective at depicting thought.

Couple those aspects with the predictableness of Dan Brown's writting, (likable and effective, strong territary characters always turn out to be manical, insane, but good intentioned madman villians), and your have a mystery/suspense movie that is neither 
mysterious or suspensful.


----------



## Mistwell (May 21, 2006)

Wow.  This movie did GREAT this weekend.  13th biggest opening weekend ever, beating out all three Lord of the Rings movies, and making $77,000,000 for the opening weekend.


----------



## KenM (May 21, 2006)

I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was decent. Not great thou. I have not read the book. IMO it could have used some kind of action closer to the end of the film. I also thought that Hanks' character 



Spoiler



Should have go right to the US embassy once he found the tracking device in his pocket and through the cops off. I am glad thet they did not do the standard hollywood end of having Hanks and the girl hook up at the end.


----------



## paradox42 (May 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Wow.  This movie did GREAT this weekend.  13th biggest opening weekend ever, beating out all three Lord of the Rings movies, and making $77,000,000 for the opening weekend.



Just goes to show the adage about no publicity being bad publicity is true. 

I saw it today myself. IMO it didn't suck, even though there were some significant plot holes and less-than-believable character moments. But it presented the ideas in an interesting way, and I must admit I felt a tingle of vicarious excitement when they first got into the secret library of records. It was worth a matinee showing.

Now, *next* weekend will come the movie that's hopefully worth full price! X3, here you come...


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 22, 2006)

nikolai said:
			
		

> (I was stuck by just how amazing Paul Bettany would have been as Elric, and also by the tragedy that thanks to this film he's out of contention for the role.)




Why would he be out of contention for the role?


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Some good action scenes (I loved the backwards chase in the Smart Car).



I didn't see any justification for being such a good driver. I thought it was a silly scene.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 22, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> All of that would probably have taken me several hours to figure out and implement, even without the bullet hole in my torso!  (I guess he must have put all of his points into Constitution - but then how was his Intelligence high enough to figure out all those anagrams in his head while dying?  )



While I also think it was silly, I'm pretty sure the shot wasn't fatal. I thought he killed himself because he just betrayed his god, but before that he just left clues for a master-puzzle-solver to figure out. Since he was a great puzzle guy himself, he probably didn't have to think so much about the puzzles. And the bank vault combination was likely done previously.

The Teacher, and the cop, could have implemented whatever plans they had laid out _much_ better than they had actually done. I thought they were poorly done.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 22, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> Moreover some of [Ron Howard's] visual techniques that Howard uses gives away the story.



I think Howard tries to be a mis-en-scene director, but he's clearly not.


----------



## Starman (May 22, 2006)

Cthulhudrew said:
			
		

> Why would he be out of contention for the role?




Fairly well-known actor taking another role as an albino, especially another one that isn't, uh, very nice? Yeah, probably not.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (May 22, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> Fairly well-known actor taking another role as an albino, especially another one that isn't, uh, very nice? Yeah, probably not.




*shrug* 

I don't know- all kinds of actors play the same roles constantly. Aside from his turn in Psycho, I can't think of any role that Vince Vaughn has played that hasn't been loud, sarcastic humor guy. Harrison Ford's roles lately have all been pretty much the same. 

I wouldn't rule it out. Then again, the odds of an Elric movie getting made seem to be pretty slim. The rights have, as I understand it, been passed around for ages now.


----------



## eris404 (May 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> (That said, I recently saw a page where someone was putting actors to Song of Ice and Fire roles.  Many of them strike a chord .




Wow. That is actually some fantastic casting. Sandor is dead on.


----------



## LiKral (May 22, 2006)

Richards said:
			
		

> My big problems with the movie were some rather predictable "plot twists" (I knew Magneto's butler was up to no good from the first I spotted him, for instance, and that the French chick was the direct descendant they were all looking for) and a completely unbelievable start:




Thanks lots, Captain Spoiler. Maybe a little warning?


----------



## Klaus (May 22, 2006)

eris404 said:
			
		

> Wow. That is actually some fantastic casting. Sandor is dead on.



 I wonder who would be Gregor.

But I agree, the castings in this page are amazing! Now I can stop thinking of Jamie Lannister looking like Shrek's Prince Charming...


----------



## Mistwell (May 22, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> I didn't see any justification for being such a good driver. I thought it was a silly scene.




You really the kind of moviegoer who needs foundational evidence of the driver's ability to drive well to deem a wild car chase "justified" in a fiction action movie?

Wow, remind me to never discuss Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, or pretty much any action movie with you.


----------



## Mistwell (May 22, 2006)

Starman said:
			
		

> Fairly well-known actor taking another role as an albino, especially another one that isn't, uh, very nice? Yeah, probably not.




Following that logic, how could Gandalf also be Magneto?

I think him playing this role DRASTICALLY increased his chances of playing the other role.  This is how pitches are usually made in hollywood...play on something the casting director is already familiar with.


----------



## Hypersmurf (May 22, 2006)

eris404 said:
			
		

> Sandor is dead on.




Heh.  Well, Sandor Clegane has always been played by Clancy Brown in the theatre in my head, so I can't agree on that one.

-Hyp.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You really the kind of moviegoer who needs foundational evidence of the driver's ability to drive well to deem a wild car chase "justified" in a fiction action movie?



Not quite, but she was portrayed as a (mostly) normal person. That driving was completely insane.


----------



## Starman (May 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Following that logic, how could Gandalf also be Magneto?
> 
> I think him playing this role DRASTICALLY increased his chances of playing the other role.  This is how pitches are usually made in hollywood...play on something the casting director is already familiar with.




Well, there's a big difference between Gandalf and Magneto. They look different and their characters are wildly different. 

You can draw a lot more superficial parallels between Silas and Elric. Maybe this role would really increase Bettany's chances for playing Elric, but I don't see it.


----------



## Richards (May 23, 2006)

LiKral said:
			
		

> Thanks lots, Captain Spoiler. Maybe a little warning?



Sorry; I assumed a thread about the discussion of a movie would, you know, be read by people who had seen the movie.  I'll go back and edit my earlier post so nobody else falls into the trap that snared you.

Johnathan
AKA "Captain Spoiler"


----------



## DaveStebbins (May 23, 2006)

> Sorry; I assumed a thread about the discussion of a movie would, you know, be read by people who had seen the movie.  I'll go back and edit my earlier post so nobody else falls into the trap that snared you.



Generally, if a thread is going to contain open spoilers, the OP will say so in the thread title to warn off the unknowing. If the title doesn't announce the spoilers, it is always most polite to add them in your post in case the unknowing read the thread to see if they think they'd like the book/movie/TV show. I am one of those who will actively look for spoiler warnings in thread titles, so I've noticed the way they generally work. Having read the book, I wasn't worried about spoilers in this thread, but the theory still applies.

 

-Dave


----------



## Mark Chance (May 23, 2006)

To paraphrase one very accurate review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.


----------



## kirinke (May 23, 2006)

Thrillers don't interest me much anyway. I'll catch it on DvD.


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

*Da Vinci #1 in Every Country It Opened*

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/da-vinci-1-in-every-country-it-opened/

Monday, May 22nd, 2006
Da Vinci #1 in Every Country It Opened

Final May 19-21 numbers have come in for The Da Vinci Code: a $231.8 million worldwide opening, making it the 2nd biggest ever -- $154.7 mil international, $77.1 mil domestic. Sony is telling me it was #1 in every territory it opened. I'm frankly flabbergasted that mainstream papers such as The New York Times treated this like an afterthought in its pages today since phenomenons don't happen everyday in the movie biz. There's not even much talk about it in Hollywood today. Guess it's symptomatic of what we already know: this town really hates good things to happen to anyone except themselves. This should make Hollywood denizens happy: News reports say bootleg DVDs of The Da Vinci Code were on sale for 5 yuan ($.60) all over Shanghai today, but the camera work on the pirated copies was so horrendous it showed people walking in front of the cinema screen and had sounds of someone drinking a soda.


----------



## bolen (May 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Wow.  This movie did GREAT this weekend.  13th biggest opening weekend ever, beating out all three Lord of the Rings movies, and making $77,000,000 for the opening weekend.



 I thought CNN said 2nd best what gives


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

bolen said:
			
		

> I thought CNN said 2nd best what gives




2nd best worldwide, 13th best US only.


----------



## jasper (May 23, 2006)

I read the book and saw the movie yesterday. The movie is better.  But it is a standard thriller movie. Main character thrown into a mess some how survives. 
But since is standard modern thriller (hey i like hitchcock) i may pick it up when hits the 7.50 bin.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2006)

nikolai said:
			
		

> I enjoyed watching this. It's been slated by the critics, I think for three reasons:



Well, some of the critics.  I'm kinda in Ebert's camp on this movie; it works better as a movie than as a novel. 

Or at least, better than a novel written by Dan Brown.  Sure, it's not exactly high-brow entertainment, but then again neither are most movies, even those that include high profile stars and directors.  So what?  The controversy around the subject material sadly, will overshadow any attempt to talk reasonably about the merits of the film anyway.  I have a feeling it's really impacting the critics response too.


----------



## Mark Chance (May 23, 2006)

J-Dawg said:
			
		

> The controversy around the subject material sadly, will overshadow any attempt to talk reasonably about the merits of the film anyway.




How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?


----------



## satori01 (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?




I understand how the film and book can be disturbing to some.  With all due respect and sensitivity, the book and film are fiction.  It is fiction based off the history that the Bible had editors, and that in the early days of Christanity, the religion was non centralized and pretty much free form.  After that everything else is speculation and imagination.

I would respectfully sugest,(and I truly mean respectfully), that those who find the subject matter of the film conterviersial, or want to discuss the theological aspects of the film, exercise their right to "change the channel", as it were, so that those of us who want to continue the current discussion can do so.

I understand that the subject matter of the film can give rise to some extreme feelings, and the desire to discuss can be strong, but the management of Enworld tends to frown on those discussions as they can be quite divisive.

I am merely stating my opinion as a thread participant who wants to see this thread continue.  I intend no, and hope I have not offered, any offense to anyone in my comments above.


----------



## satori01 (May 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> You really the kind of moviegoer who needs foundational evidence of the driver's ability to drive well to deem a wild car chase "justified" in a fiction action movie?
> 
> Wow, remind me to never discuss Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, or pretty much any action movie with you.




I actually disagree with that.  Star Wars offers credentials for its characters.  Han made the Kessel run in X many parsecs,  Jedi are famed 
warriors so on and so forth.  Thus it does not strain credulity when Han is an expert pilot, or Luke becomes more powerful as he advances in his learnings about the Jedi.

Sophie is a code breaker, yet she breaks no codes, and drives in a fashion befitting a trained driver.  Langdon is a Historical Symbologist, yet he seems to be able to break codes with the greatest of ease.  Langdon seems to be a better code breaker than Sophie.

It is the same as if C3P0 piloted the Milienum Falcon like Han, it does not fit the character.


----------



## Mark Chance (May 23, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> I understand how the film and book can be disturbing to some.  With all due respect and sensitivity, the book and film are fiction.  It is fiction based off the history that the Bible had editors, and that in the early days of Christanity, the religion was non centralized and pretty much free form.




But that isn't actual history. For example, one of the central theses of Brown's claptrap is that Constantine convened the First Council of Nicea to "edit" the Bible in order to foist upon the world the thentofore unheard of idea of Jesus' divinity. Dan Brown himself has said more than once that the core claims of his novel are all true, which is precisley not the case. The First Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the canon the Bible. Belief in the divinity of Jesus dates back to the first century C.E.

So, in essence, Dan Brown has written a book which says many defamatory things, is so full of historical errors that any scholar would laugh himself silly reading it, and which the author himself claims is based on facts. IOW, it sounds a lot like the aforementioned Protocols.



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> I would respectfully sugest,(and I truly mean respectfully), that those who find the subject matter of the film conterviersial, or want to discuss the theological aspects of the film, exercise their right to "change the channel", as it were, so that those of us who want to continue the current discussion can do so.




But the current discussion is about a "controversial" film. How can one discuss the film while ignoring the mountains of lies and distortions it is based upon? If Ron Howard's next film was about how Jewish bankers are subverting world governments, would you likewise suggest that people who find anti-Semitism offensive "change the channel"?



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> I am merely stating my opinion as a thread participant who wants to see this thread continue.  I intend no, and hope I have not offered, any offense to anyone in my comments above.




I'm not offended in the slightest by your comments.


----------



## Desdichado (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?



That's absurd.  Nobody says that the X-files can't be talked about critically because they deliberately slander, defame and distort the role of the government in all kinds of conspiracies.  I don't see how this is any different.  The conspiracy Brown invented (or coopted from other nutcases who take it more seriously, actually) was essential to the plot, not an attempt to defame or slander.


----------



## Hijinks (May 23, 2006)

I would also prefer that personal opinions about the subject matter behind the novel not be included in this thread, because then it will inevitably be locked.  I'd prefer that didn't happen.

Some people prefer to think the novel/movie are based completely in fact.  Some people believe it's all claptrap.  Fine.  If you saw the movie, please judge it based on the standards of movie criticism here.  If you want to complain about religious ideals, it's well-known on this board that such things are not allowed, so please keep it on other forums.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 23, 2006)

I agree.   A previous thread on this topic devolved into this same arguement.   Keep your personal beliefs to yourself people.   If you can't babysit your own mouth, then a moderator will end up doing it for you and surely will close this.   Try harder to be more respectful of the rest of us out here.   We don't all share your "beliefs" and would appreciate your not sharing yours here.   

If you can't do this, don't come here anymore please.   

I tried to be polite in the last thread this happened in and it got me nowhere.   Have your philosophical arguements elsewhere, but stop or leave, that's the only request I'm making now.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 23, 2006)

I was going to wait and read the book first, but I think I'll go see this on vacation next week.  I'm a conspiracy buff so this is right up my alley.


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Jdvn1 said:
			
		

> Not quite, but she was portrayed as a (mostly) normal person. That driving was completely insane.




Han Solo was just an ordinary smuggler who could navigate a meteor shower.
Indiana Jones was just an archeologist who could crawl below a moving truck and survive.
The hobbits were just ordinary hobbits, who could do extraordinary things they never even dreamed about.

And yet this one single POLICE INVESTIGATOR (which is what she is - someone in a profession that generally includes emergency driving in the general instruction course) was a fantastic driver in an emergency situation, and you find it so unbelievable as to call it insane?


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> How does one reasonably talk about a film based on a book that deliberately slanders, defames, and distorts? If Ron Howard had decided to make a film version of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, would people be expected to "talk reasonably about the merits of the film"?




It's a fiction film.  It doesn't deliberately slander, defame, or distort anything real, as it is not real.  It's fiction.

Yes, I would be happy to see a film about the elders of zion.  In fact, I think they should use the graphic novel "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, by Will Eisner" as the basis to make such a film.  It would be great.  It would do well.  I would see it.  Most people I know would see it.  A fine suggestion.


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

satori01 said:
			
		

> I actually disagree with that.  Star Wars offers credentials for its characters.  Han made the Kessel run in X many parsecs,  Jedi are famed
> warriors so on and so forth.  Thus it does not strain credulity when Han is an expert pilot, or Luke becomes more powerful as he advances in his learnings about the Jedi.




Han pilots the Falcon through a meteor shower where the exact odds are mentioned just so everyone is clear exactly how incredible impossible what he is doing really is.  There is no question left in the viewers mind - we are seeing essentially a miricle in piloting skills take place.  A lot greater of a miricle than smashing into all sorts of stuff for literally 3 blocks in a tiny little car at relatively slow speeds as done by a police investigator.



> Sophie is a code breaker, yet she breaks no codes, and drives in a fashion befitting a trained driver.




She is a trained driver.  She is a police investigator who specializes in codes, but who had the same training as all police investigators which includes emergency driving.



> Langdon is a Historical Symbologist, yet he seems to be able to break codes with the greatest of ease.  Langdon seems to be a better code breaker than Sophie.




He is essentially one of the best on the planet.  It's his gift.  They even show you how he can see things others cannot by almost total recall of not just words but three dimensional images in a way nobody else can do it.  That IS the point.  He's special, and one of the aspects that makes him the hero.



> It is the same as if C3P0 piloted the Milienum Falcon like Han, it does not fit the character.




c3po isn't the hero, and NOBODY can pilot the millenium falcon through a meteor shower and survive without a miricle....


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> But that isn't actual history.




Correct.  It's fiction.



> Dan Brown himself has said more than once that the core claims of his novel are all true, which is precisley not the case.




1) We are discussing the movie, not the book.  Ron Howard made the movie.  Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.
2) Brown says what he says.  That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things.  That's all true.  He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true.  He says what I just repeated.  It's a specific list.



> So, in essence, Dan Brown has written a book which says many defamatory things,




No.  He has written a fiction book which says nothing about anything real right now.



> is so full of historical errors




Fictional history.  Not real history.  Cannot be an error if it's not supposed to be real.



> that any scholar would laugh himself silly reading it,




It's not a scholarly historical work.  It's a fiction novel.



> and which the author himself claims is based on facts.




No, he does not.  And, in this case, the "author" is Ron Howard.



> IOW, it sounds a lot like the aforementioned Protocols.




Bring on the Protocols!



> But the current discussion is about a "controversial" film. How can one discuss the film while ignoring the mountains of lies and distortions it is based upon? If Ron Howard's next film was about how Jewish bankers are subverting world governments, would you likewise suggest that people who find anti-Semitism offensive "change the channel"?




Yes.  I would indeed say just that.  Particularly if it was a fiction film.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 23, 2006)

For those who have seen the movie and read the book, how close are they?


----------



## Mark Chance (May 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> 1) We are discussing the movie, not the book.  Ron Howard made the movie.  Ron Howard is the one who needs to make claims in this case.




So am I.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> 2) Brown says what he says.  That the art, architecture, documents, and rituals are based on historical things.  That's all true.  He doesn't say the core claims of his novel are all true.  He says what I just repeated.  It's a specific list.




False. Dan Brown in his own words:
“I wanted to write a book that while it entertained at the same time, you close that last page and go ‘Wow, do you know how much I just learned? That’s fascinating.’ That is really what I set out to do.”

“When I started researching Da Vinci Code, I really was skeptical and I expected on some level to disprove all this history that is unearthed in the book and after three trips to Paris and a lot of interviews, I became a believer…”

When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”

Similarly, in an interview with “Good Morning America” when asked: “if you were writing it as a nonfiction book, how would it have been different?” Dan Brown responded: “I don’t think it would have. I began the research for The Da Vinci Code as a skeptic. I entirely expected, as I researched the book, to disprove this theory, and after numerous trips to Europe and two years of research, I really became a believer.”

In the same interview, Dan Brown strove to substantiate his theory about Jesus and Mary Magdalene being married. He claimed: “The people who ask me how much is true need to realize that this theory about Mary Magdalene has been around for centuries. It’s not my theory. This has been presented, really over the last 2000 years, and it has persisted.”​So, while Ron Howard can be given props for distancing himself from Dan Brown's claims, the fact still remains that the author of the book upon which the movie is based says that his book is essentially factual except for its obviously fictitious characters.

Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.

So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.

But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.

To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 23, 2006)

So are you determined to get this thread closed to silence discussion of it?  Please go away.


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> So am I.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





That, my friend, is NOT in the book, OR the movie.  It's an interview.  And if we are including author interiviews as necessary stuff to be able to comment on a movie, there isn't a thread left in this entire forum.  

Interviews with people involved in projects are pretty much useless.  If Joss Weadon did an iterview saying Buffy was real...we would laugh about it, but it wouldn't ever come up as "we cannot comment on Buffy without commenting on what was said in the interview".  The interview is extraneous stuff.  You can read it, or not. You can comment on it in a separate thread about that interview.  But it's not part of the book, or the movie.  There is nothing core there at all.




> So, then, we're dealing with a movie that at its core




See, there you go.  You are calling a single excerpt from an interview with the author of a book that a movie is based on as the core of the movie.  That doesn't make sense to me.  Does it make sense to you?  If I quoted an excerpt from Lucas in an interview commenting on A New Hope saying Luke represented to him the elephant-god diety Ganesh from Hinduism when he wrote the character, would you feel the excerpt was the core of the movie rather than, say, THE MOVIE BEING THE CORE OF THE MOVIE?



> is a deliberate insult to slightly more than 1 billion in the world. Of course, those of you who see no problems in anti-Semitism as a form of entertain don't see this as a problem, while those of us who beg to differ are summarily dismissed by self-appointed moderators huffing with self-righteous indignation.




Nobody said "no problems with anti-semitism as a form of entetainment".  I said I'd like to see a movie about the protocols of zion, and even suggested the graphic novel as a great template for it. It's an interesting subject that would make for an interesting movie.  Will Eisner wrote a great graphic novel on the subject.  I hope someone picks it up to do a movie.



> But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others).




No, it is not.  The movie is in no way deliberately offensive.  If you feel it is, show me a quote from Ron Howard saying he is attempting to deliberately be offensive to anyone.  Nor is it based on claims of the author...it's instead based on the fiction book this author wrote and not his interview.



> Second, it's just not a very good movie.




Did you see it?



> In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.




Fair enough.  Your view is different than mine, but I accept that some people agree with you on the acting and plot.  Can you suggest a way you would have done this movie with a better flow to the plot?​


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> So am I.
> When appearing on “The Today Show,” host Matt Lauer asked him, “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the *art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.*”




You answered your own complaint


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> So are you determined to get this thread closed to silence discussion of it?  Please go away.




I am worried that is the intent...to effectively boycott this thread by having it closed.  I hope that is not the intent.

To Mods: I would be happy to erase or edit any post I've made in this thread if that is what it will take to allow the thread to continue.


----------



## Mistwell (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> Now, what does the movie claim? It claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers and that Opus Dei is an assassin-employing cult. These falsehoods are predicated upon a structure that deliberately distorts history.




Sorry, I missed this comment earlier.

The movie does not claim the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers.  In fact, the movie specifically says that the liars and murderers are doing this without the permission of the Church in any way shape or form and if they are ever discovered the Church will excommunicate them.  I do not see how someone could get the sense that the bad people are operating with the sanction of the Church, when they go to such great lengths to make sure you know it's the opposite.

They also specifically show you how Opus Dei does not know any of this is going on.  It's all done in secret by a few people in Opus Dei.  It's never represented as being the view of Opus Dei as an organization or even many members.  It's show that a few people in that organization are secretly doing this, and taking great pains to make sure it is secret.

Is it that you didn't see those parts of the movie where they talk about how the church is not sanctioning any of this, or that you saw those parts and still thought it was portraying it differently, or what?


----------



## paradox42 (May 23, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> So am I.



No, you really aren't. You're consistently bringing discussion back around to Dan Brown, despite the fact that this is Ron Howard's work- as others have said. I must concur with those others that you are clearly being trollish, most likely in an attempt to get the thread closed. What your motives for getting the thread closed are, I won't speculate openly.



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> But back to the movie. First, it's deliberately offensive



How so? Did you actually see the movie? I saw nothing offensive to the Catholic Church in it. It had one bad Bishop, who turned a deluded fanatical monk into an assassin essentially as a sort of crusade. The rest of the Church, hells, even the top hierarchy including the Pope, had nothing to do with it.

It also had nothing offensive to Opus Dei in it- it mentioned that some "extreme" members practice painful rituals to bring them closer to the Divine (which is true), and mentioned accusations brought by outsiders that it's like a "cult," which are also true and existed well before this book or movie. And on top of that, it also features a member who, when he finally realizes what his corrupt Bishop has been doing, *does the right thing* and turns him over to the Law. I thought he represented the "average" Opus Dei member, not the insane monk or the bad Bishop, and if so it is actually highly complimentary to the group rather than offensive.



			
				Mark Chance said:
			
		

> ...and based on the claims of seriously deluded man who claims to believe his own fiction (or, more precisely, fiction he plagiarized from others). Second, it's just not a very good movie. In almost every case, the acting is wooden. The plot is a muddled mess, which isn't surprising considering the poor quality of the source material. The storyline is overlong and pedantic. It strives less to be entertainment than it does to be documentary.
> 
> To repeat my earlier review: By all means, boycott this movie. You'll sleep better at home.



Fair enough. You've given your review. Now let those of us who had no desire to boycott the film discuss it and lurk in peace, and accept that you won't be able to control our moviegoing impulses.


----------



## mmu1 (May 23, 2006)

Darthjaye said:
			
		

> I agree.   A previous thread on this topic devolved into this same arguement.   Keep your personal beliefs to yourself people.   If you can't babysit your own mouth, then a moderator will end up doing it for you and surely will close this.   Try harder to be more respectful of the rest of us out here.   We don't all share your "beliefs" and would appreciate your not sharing yours here.
> 
> If you can't do this, don't come here anymore please.
> 
> I tried to be polite in the last thread this happened in and it got me nowhere.   Have your philosophical arguements elsewhere, but stop or leave, that's the only request I'm making now.




1. You made no contribution to either this thread or the previous one except to pop in long after it began to lecture people on how they should behave.

2. You (along with other people) chose not to comply with the moderator requests in the previous thread, directly contributing to its closure.

3. You're making inflammatory off-topic posts again. (or being outright insulting, depending on whether putting the word "belief" in quotes was an intentional thing, in the context of your post, or just bad syntax)

In other words, you're _really_ not helping.


----------



## Hijinks (May 23, 2006)

I'd like to say that, in my opinion, saying that a novel is "based on fact" is NOT saying that every single thing said in that novel is a fact.



> “How much of this is based on reality in terms of things that actually occurred?” Dan Brown responded: “Absolutely all of it. Obviously, there are - Robert Langdon is fictional, but all of the art, architecture, secret rituals, secret societies, all of that is historical fact.”




Ok so, Matt Lauer asks him, "Is this book based on reality?" (i.e. fact), and Dan Brown says "yes."  He took some historical facts and expounded on them.  Whether he added unrealities to those factual bases is irrelevant - the book is, as he says based on fact.

He says: "all of the art, architeture, secret rituals, secret societies ... is historical fact."  Does anyone dispute that those things exist now or existed then?  I don't think anyone does dispute that these things exist(ed).  So they ARE facts.  If he based things in a novel on those facts, then I fully believe what he says above.

To be BASED on fact does not mean a book is 100% true.  I see no lie in his words above.


----------



## Mark Chance (May 23, 2006)

Face it. This is a horrible movie based on an even worse book. Although, I suppose, this is one of those very rare instances where the movie is better than the book. Even still, the entire pile of schlock is so ridiculous as to be completely laughable. That is if it weren't so mind-numbingly dull. Heck, the movie can't even get its own title right. No one with any sense calls Leonardo "Da Vinci". Da Vinci isn't his last name; it's where he's from. What's next? _The Secret Life of Stratford-Upon-Avon_?

Mistwell claims the movie isn't deliberately insulting, and that to prove otherwise one must quote Ron Howard being deliberately insulting. Okay. Fine. It's not deliberately insulting. Ron Howard was completely clueless that anyone would find the work patently offensive.

The movie claims the Catholic Church is run by liars and murderers, Howard's attempts to nuance with the presence of sympathetic elements this notwithstanding. It also unequivocally states that the central doctrines of the Catholic Church are the fabrication of cabal of women-hating bishops in cahoots with Constantine. This isn't insulting, both to general civility as well as the intelligence? Of course it is.

How would I have improved the movie? I'd have not filmed it. I'd have made a serious push to the film rights for a good conspiracy theory book, such as Foucault's Pendulum, instead.


----------



## Darthjaye (May 23, 2006)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> 1. You made no contribution to either this thread or the previous one except to pop in long after it began to lecture people on how they should behave.
> 
> 2. You (along with other people) chose not to comply with the moderator requests in the previous thread, directly contributing to its closure.
> 
> ...




I find this complete ignorance on your part that you feel that if someone doesn't post in every thread that they don't read and enjoy or dislike what they see.   The fact that your telling me I can't say something makes your commentary even more offensive.   Your assuming that because I chose not to name a faith or jump into the arguement but be peripheral, is nothing more than absurd as are any of your nitpicking arguements thus far.   You read what you want in things and then jump to horribly wrong conclusions.    You definately need to work on reality a bit there.   Your comments in fact started problems in the aforementioned thread and you can't seem to stop.   Your the kind of person who will take anything and try to inflame a larger arguement for it's sake alone.   My last comment in the previous posting about stopping......that is something you should definately consider.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 23, 2006)

Hijinks said:
			
		

> I'd like to say that, in my opinion, saying that a novel is "based on fact" is NOT saying that every single thing said in that novel is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





IMO, He's obviously trading on the idea that the book is factual in the most part in order to get people to see the movie. "It really makes you think" style of movie. He wants to portray it as the "true" history of the bible to draw interest in it and I think it has worked for the book. Only when directly asked does he get more specific. It's hype.

The movie is simply because the book was popular.

I think the point is that the guy is trying to sell books and thinks the controversy helps (which it obviously does), so he keeps going. It's not that he's looking to defame anything, he simply doesn't care.

The best I saw in a movie on TV once was "based on a true story, some events have been changed for dramatic effect". Basically we changed anything boring.


----------



## Piratecat (May 24, 2006)

*Listen up, everyone.*

From this point forward, this thread wil discuss _only_ the movie. If I or another moderator feel that a post discusses the philosophies and/or history behind the movie, or religion, or starts/continues an argument with another poster, or tries to debate whether or not the movie is based on fact, that person has a good chance of taking a free vacation from EN World for a few days. Expect no additional warnings. This is true even if you feel like the aggrieved party, just fighting back, so please bite your tongue and walk away for ten minutes before pushing the "submit" button.

Does this stifle all intelligent discussion of the movie? Maybe. But it's better than the alternative, which is not discussing the movie at all.

We're tired of threadcrapping, and we're absolutely tired of babysitting these threads. Head on over to Circvs Maximvs if you'd like to discuss the stuff that isn't allowed here. 

If this is somehow a problem or if you have a question, feel free to email me by clicking on my username or getting my address from the sticky thread in Meta.


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2006)

edited out response to Mark Chance.


----------



## satori01 (May 24, 2006)

_ _*
*               Tumbleweeds in the wind
_
_      *


----------



## danzig138 (May 24, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> Batman Bagins?



That paints an intersting mental picture.


----------



## Mistwell (May 24, 2006)

So, I really liked the Cryptex they portrayed in the movie.  They are apparently the hot selling thing right now.  I can see putting one in a D&D game


----------



## Klaus (May 24, 2006)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> That paints an intersting mental picture.



 LOL!!!

Can't believe I typed that!

But ideed, Batman Baggins sounds great, specially with his faithful butler Alfred Gamgee, trying to free Shire City from his archnemesis, Joklum!


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (May 24, 2006)

I think at this point the chance of having any reasonable discussion of this movie here is moot, not due to the mods mind you.

Hopefully I enjoy it next Tuesday. I'll try to remember to write up a quick review when I get back.


----------



## Piratecat (May 24, 2006)

Sorry. There are some fascinating topics surrounding this movie, but it may just be that this isn't the place to discuss them.

Circvs Maximvs, on the other hand. . .

http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=4


----------



## Someone (May 24, 2006)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> How would I have improved the movie? I'd have not filmed it. I'd have made a serious push to the film rights for a good conspiracy theory book, such as Foucault's Pendulum, instead.




I just finished _Foulcault´s pendulum_, and if someone makes a decent film out of it I´ll think of him as one of the greatest scripwriters and directors. On the other hand I laughed a lot when the main characters used a sentence randomizer program and got "Da Vinci´s Code" argument.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 24, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> So, I really liked the Cryptex they portrayed in the movie.  They are apparently the hot selling thing right now.  I can see putting one in a D&D game




Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.

I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one  do you know where they are selling them?


----------



## Taelorn76 (May 24, 2006)

I seem to remember this coming up before, but I don't remember seeing an answer.

In the movie there was only  one codex. But I seem to remember 2 in the book. The first one the code was Sophie, IIRC, then the second was apple.

I'm in the process of moving so my copy is packed away.


----------



## John Q. Mayhem (May 24, 2006)

Klaus said:
			
		

> LOL!!!
> 
> Can't believe I typed that!
> 
> But ideed, Batman Baggins sounds great, specially with his faithful butler Alfred Gamgee, trying to free Shire City from his archnemesis, Joklum!


----------



## bolen (May 24, 2006)

I heard the movie was boring, is that true?   

A freind of mine told me that the book although poorly written (I am talking about his writing ablility here not anything about the story); it  is a real page turner of a story.  So saying the movie is boring is a big slam.  Am I way off base here?  I have not seen the movie but if it a good thriller, I am  game.


----------



## Vocenoctum (May 25, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.
> 
> I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one  do you know where they are selling them?




It's funny, since reading Black Madonna (the SR book from a decade ago with the Davinci Code plot basically, but IE's instead) is the reason that I would never read or watch the Code. What a horrible book.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 25, 2006)

I just came from seeing it. I quite liked it, with all the twists and turns. Ian McKellan was great in it. I would not have beleived that was Tom Hanks, though; man has he aged since The Terminal. Surely some of that was makeup. If not, whew.

I liked the codes, the multiple clues, the various interpretations of the Rose Line. I was sure I knew what code he put into the Cryptex, but I was wrong :/ I thought 'the orb' would be 



Spoiler



Venus


.


----------



## Bront (May 25, 2006)

KenM said:
			
		

> I just got back from seeing it. I thought it was decent. Not great thou. I have not read the book. IMO it could have used some kind of action closer to the end of the film. I also thought that Hanks' character
> 
> 
> 
> ...



FYI, they did, the french police were at the gate blocking it.

I did enjoy the film, having not read the book.  It wasn't the most suspenseful film, but it did make you think while looking at a few of the clues to try to figure them out.  I did connect a few of the points in my head thanks to the visual cues.

I actualy liked the ending, closing things off as Langdon can assume his new role as a guardian, without the heir knowing.

Honestly, my biggest problem is the issue of what does being the decendant of Mary Magdolin prove?  It's the father that matters, his DNA is a different issue.  Even then, I don't see how the revelation ruins the church if he did have a sun.  But, to discuss it more would go into religion.

But, overlooking a few things is part of enjoying a movie.  Very interesting conspiracy film.


----------



## Bront (May 25, 2006)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> I was sure I knew what code he put into the Cryptex, but I was wrong :/ I thought 'the orb' would be
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, that's what I came up with, but he mentions that it can't be that earlier when he says they're all represented except for a few 



Spoiler



moons


, which also would have been a good answer.


----------



## FoxWander (May 25, 2006)

Just came back from the movie myself. I thought it was a decent suspense flick. It wasn't "great cinema" and certainly not Oscar material- but it was an enjoyable use of my time. For those who have seen/read one or the other, or neither, and are wondering how the film compares to the movie- pretty much everything in the book is in the movie. The use of "flashbacks" and visual tricks during the necessary exposition and puzzle solving sequences kept those scenes from being a complete bore. I was disappointed in how wooden Hanks played Langdon, but, if I remember the book correctly, I think that might be an accurate portrayal of the character.

Overall, it's worth the ticket price- but then, I caught the matinee. 

Incidentally, for those wanting a _real_ cryptex, they can be bought at the following sites...
The Noble Collection 
The Cryptex 
Cryptex Security Boxes


----------



## Mistwell (May 25, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> Our Shadowrun GM after seeing the movie said to expect to see things from the movie added to the game.
> 
> I also liked the Cryptex and I would like to own one  do you know where they are selling them?




The nicest ones seem to be from here:

http://www.cryptex.org/

But they are quite expensive.

This one is good:

http://www.noblecollection.com/catalog/product.cfm?id=NN5335             &catid=0

And this place lets you make your own:

http://www.flying-pig.co.uk/pagesv/combination.html


----------



## WayneLigon (May 25, 2006)

Bront said:
			
		

> Honestly, my biggest problem is the issue of what does being the decendant of Mary Magdolin prove? ... Even then, I don't see how the revelation ruins the church if he did have a sun.




I can explain it, if you want to join CircvsMaximvs and start a thread on it with your question.

McKellen's character spells it out in the movie, but it was a little disjointed if you didn't listen to every single word he says. Now, things may not go down as he says; he's an obsessive looney-tune willing to go to tremendous lengths and murder to cause what he thinks will happen. Probably what would happen is that the proof would just be ignored after all this long a time. It might change the minds of some of the undecided or the especially dogmatic but I don't see things going down as he seemed to think they would.


----------



## Elf Witch (May 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> The nicest ones seem to be from here:
> 
> http://www.cryptex.org/
> 
> ...




Thanks I am going to check out these sites and the ones the other poster listed as well. I think building your own could be a lot of fun.


----------



## Laurel (May 26, 2006)

I thought it was okay, but then again I thought the book was okay too. It has the plot and tries to give all the background the book does. It tries to keep the action high paced. It tries to appeal to all.

I think it did what it set out to do, and with the hindrance of screen play to book explanations it succeeded. I liked the little pieces they put in for those who loved the book- ex. the Mickey Mouse watch. It's not one I will recommend to lots of people to go and watch, but will still recommend the book.

I will say I liked Angels & Demons the book much more, but realize it probably would be that much harder to capture an audience on the screen.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 29, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Han Solo was just an ordinary smuggler who could navigate a meteor shower.
> Indiana Jones was just an archeologist who could crawl below a moving truck and survive.
> The hobbits were just ordinary hobbits, who could do extraordinary things they never even dreamed about.



I don't think Han Solo or Indiana Jones were ever portrayed as anything less than exceptional at their jobs. With the hobbits, you might have a point. They were supposed to have extraordinary character and it was a big epic-like story. I didn't get quite that feel from Da Vinci Code, but then again maybe it just didn't do it for me.


			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> And yet this one single POLICE INVESTIGATOR (which is what she is - someone in a profession that generally includes emergency driving in the general instruction course) was a fantastic driver in an emergency situation, and you find it so unbelievable as to call it insane?



Was she ever portrayed as good at her job? I honestly wasn't sure if the police investigator thing was a ruse to save the guy's life or not. For a police investigator, she sure seemed lost most of the time. Are you just going to blame it on bad exposition? I think there wasn't enough of that, certainly.


----------



## fanboy2000 (May 30, 2006)

I enjoyed the movie, two stars. Of course, you have to do a lot go below one star. I gave the first Star Trek movie a pulsar for it's low signal to noise ratio.  Pulsar isn't the lowest rating I give to a movie.

The movie telegraphed it's ending, and had some plot points that just didn't make much sense in the context of movie itself. 

What I liked was the incorporation of real artifacts and semi-real historical figures. It makes the movie fascinating to me.


----------

