quote:

---

Oh, and for those religious members please try to remember it is a work of FICTION so lets not have any banner waving!

---

Humm.... I think Larry Miller's playing it here in SLC....
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 05-19-2006, 01:37 AM:
 
Must not have any gay cowboys in it then, eh?
 

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 05-19-2006, 03:37 AM:
 
I had a conversation with someone today who was of the opinion that you would have to be on drugs, with a concussion, blind and with perforated ear drums to appreciate this film. Whilst I think that is unnecessarily harsh I do believe had I not seen it at 11:00pm in the evening and instead seen it during the day with an audience I might have thought more of but, as is so often the case it doesn't live up to its hype and is lukewarm at best.

Sections of it are intriguing but overall I found it flat, Hans Zimmer score is impressive (as always though).

2.5 out of 5.
 

---

Posted by Phil Blake (Member # 2012) on 05-19-2006, 04:02 AM:
 
Also not having read the book I was not exactly sure what to expect.

I also found it interesting , well acted and the flashback scenes were very impressive. The sound (in DTS) was very good but similar to MIP 3 the focus was not the best.

The critics over here are bagging it big time giving it 1 star and saying its not worth the film it's printed on!

Well, they gave Date Movie 2 stars and I am quite sure the Da Vinci code rates far higher than that! I guess this weekend will tell how successfull it will be.

3 out of 5 for me
 

---

Posted by Keith Peticolas (Member # 971) on 05-19-2006, 08:23 AM:
 
Just finished watching my print and really enjoyed it. Ian Mckellan (sp?) does steal the scenes he is in. But is over all real well casted pic. The weirdo focus thing had me making a few trips to the booth to check things, but got into story and it doesn't bug ya much. Joe Blow won't notice it. Decent sound, although not a big sound movie. Dialog was nice and clean.
The book is a damn hard act to follow. Ron Howard did it justice. Won't break records but will do okay. Hanks final scene was very cool.
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-19-2006, 08:46 AM:
 
Think the critics are panning it 'cos it's had so much hype. Seems to be the norm these days. Is better than the gay cowboy film though!
 

---

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 05-19-2006, 11:45 AM:
 
I've actually read the book twice and enjoyed the film. Overall it was a pretty fathful adaptation with a few story changes here and there. The most interesting change is the Robert Langdon character being a bit wishy-washy about the whole history part as oppose to being compleatly steadfast in the novel. I also think that they should have tighting up the ending just a bit as it dragged pretty bad.

I also have to say that I HATED the score in the beginning of the film (especially during the car chase scene) but it did get better near the end. Also the print that I screened had a LOT of negative dirt which I found really distracting. I wonder if dragging the print across the booth floor will cancel that out

Anyway 2.5 out of 5 for me...
 

---

Posted by Michael Brown (Member # 890) on 05-19-2006, 09:26 PM:
 
I saw the original rough cut of this film about a year ago.

Nicolas Cage played the lead role instead of Tom Hanks and he was supported by Diane Kruger instead of Audrey Tautou.

And the working title for the film was "National Treasure"
(later changed to 'Da Vinci Code' when director Ron Howard took over)

and it was much better back then...

 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 05-21-2006, 03:45 PM:
 
CINEMA: Century 20 at Jordan Creek, West Des Moines, IA
AUDITORIUM: 10
PRESENTATION: 35mm/Dolby Digital/THX
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Annoying woman with loud candy bag behind me
RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four)

Wife #1, who learned everything she needed to know from romance novels, read the book. She says it stayed pretty true to the book. A few differences here and there, but she thought it was very good overall.

I kept replacing Robert and Sophie with Fred and Daphne in my mind. Therefore, I thought it was the most boring episode of Scooby Doo ever.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 05-21-2006, 06:00 PM:
 
Well, I had to pass a group of some 15 or so fairly nasty picketters shouting at everyone who was going to that show that this film was an attack on Chrisitanity and we shouldn't go see it. Problem is, at this 20plex, there were hords of movie-goers and the picketters seemed at a lost who to target. In fact, a few people who seemed quite annoyed at being yelled at yelled right back saying they weren't even going to see THE DA VINCI CODE. I was just wanting to get past them without any confrontation at all, but it was not to be. When the fellow in front of me said he wasn't going to the film, two of the plackard holders moved forward toward me and asking if I were going. I said yes I was. Then just as one of them was about to launch into the scripted speil, I added, "but I'd be happy to go to see some other movie instead, if you'd care to buy me a ticket." Seems they weren't all THAT concerned about the attack on Christianity.

I was a little surprised that it had focus problems, but the DTS sound was excellent and I did like the score. Hanks will not be nominated for this role....it just seems like a job he's walking through. McCallen does seem to light up the screen much more than anyone else.

As a mystery movie, it was ok; nothing special, though, and it CERTAINLY doesn't live up to the hype, but how could it? The hype was churned out full-force.

As a so-called attach on humanity or christianity or whatever they were claiming, I didn't see it at all. I happend to come from a Catholic education (right up thru college) and from a theological point of view, even if this fictional "revelation" were true (Jesus being married), it wouldn't go against any actual doctrine. According to Catholic belief, Jesus was both God and man -- he had divinity and humanity. If part of Jesus's humanity was marriage (make no doubt about it, the real issue here isn't that he was married, but that means he would have "carnal knowledge," and THAT'S what sets them in a frenzy), that wouldn't deny his divinity and it would, at least for some, it would validate his humanity even more, so it wouldn't contradict any church tenent. So what's all the fuss about?

And as Ian McCallen said, "If Jesus were married, at least it would prove that he wasn't gay." (which was another theory put forth some time ago.) And since I see conspiracy behind every tree, I could almost believe that the studio pays these "protesters" just to drum up business since I don't see how Christians can be even mildly threatened by this movie or the book.

3 out of 5
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 05-21-2006, 07:21 PM:
 
Today @ 11:30AM, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene, House #1, SR•D. Attendance around 60-70, not bad for an early matinee. OK presentation, nothing to get excited about either way.

This is a moderately-entertaining muddled mess of a movie. As it moves along from scene to scene it's like there's a thread of connectivity missing. Stuff was thrown in from the book that was non-essential to moving the narrative forward. It held my interest but just barely, and I suspect if I hadn't read the book I would have liked it less.

Tom Hanks is miscast in the role of Robert Langdon (at least as it's written and directed). Audrey Tautou is better. Ian McKellen seems to be having fun.

I give this 3 stars out of 5 if you've read the book, otherwise 2 stars out of 5. This will not be remembered as one of Tom Hanks' or Ron Howard's better films.

Why is there such a variation in the sharpness in this? Some of the present-day scenes are very soft, others are much sharper. The flashbacks are hyper-sharp. Way inconsistent.
 

---

Posted by Matt Fields (Member # 3211) on 05-21-2006, 10:17 PM:
 
On the attacking Christianity thing, doesn't the book and movie deny that Jesus was divine? After all, Tom Hanks character says in the movie (near the end): "All history shows is that Jesus was a great man."

By the way, this "Jesus wasn't really the Son of God but just a really great guy" theory doesn't hold water. Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter. If you don't believe in him, feel free, but that means you think he's a quack, because normal people don't go around and call themselves God.

My 2 cents on the movie...way too long and frankly rather boring.
 

---

Posted by Kyle Anderson (Member # 3504) on 05-22-2006, 01:27 AM:
 
I was actually relieved once I saw this movie ( I haven't read the book, but I understand the assertions made in it ) - NO ONE could even THINK this crap was true by the last 1/3 of the movie. Seriously... the first 100 minutes or so was actually believable stuff ( if you didn't come to the movie prepared), but once they started the typical 'oh this "normal" person isn't so normal after all ladidadida' routine bull I completely lost interest. How Lame. This movie actually reinforces the Christian version of historical events.

And yup.. the camera focus was just wierd - no discernable pattern here at all that I could see.

But the sound mix was better than MI3, so not so bad i suppose.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 05-22-2006, 02:09 AM:
 

quote: Matt Fields

---

Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter.

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

Hans Zimmer's first hour score was annoying.

---

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

Oh yeah, and this. National Treasure was a lot more entertaining than this movie.

---

quote: Paul Linfesty

---

Well, there is a THIRD option, but since we're not supposed to get into religious discussions, I won't mention what it is.

---

quote: Matt Fields

---

By the way, this "Jesus wasn't really the Son of God but just a really great guy" theory doesn't hold water. Jesus was either what he said he was or a nutter. If you don't believe in him, feel free, but that means you think he's a quack, because normal people don't go around and call themselves God.

---

quote:

---

Actually (and I am only talking semantics here, not religion) Jesus doesn't say his is God, only that he is the Son of God,

---

quote:

---

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS

Super 35mm 2.35:1

Arricam Studio, Lite; Arri 235
Cooke S4 lenses

Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229;
Vision2 200T 5217, 100T 5212;
Vision 250D 5246

Digital Intermediate

Printed on Kodak Vision 2383

---

quote:

---

Da Vinci Code was not expected to be a compact production. Working in Super 35mm 2.35:1, Totino planned to use at least two cameras on every setup; his main package included two Arricam Studios, two Arricam Lites, and a lightweight Arri 235, all mounted with Cooke S4 lenses. “I really loved the S4s on The Missing, so I went out and bought my own set,” says Totino. The cameras would be constantly moving, affixed to sundry dollies, jib arms, Steadicam rigs, or Technocranes (50', 30' and 15') with Scorpio stabilizing heads.

Naturally, the Louvre wanted to safeguard its priceless art against accidental damage by man or machine. The administration also did not want filming to impinge on the flow of visitors, especially because the shoot took place at the height of the summer tourist season. Shooting was allowed only after hours, and the galleys had to be pristine by the time the crew cleared out at 6 a.m. Nothing could be pre-rigged or left behind, not even outside the museum. Lights could not be pointed directly at artwork. And, of course, no blood was allowed on the parquet floors.

By the third tech meeting, it was clear to the filmmakers that portions of the Louvre would have to be replicated onstage. For starters, there was the matter of the huge glass ceiling that stretches the length of the Grand Gallery and lets in light at daybreak. “The Louvre people weren’t interested in us getting up there and controlling the light,” says British gaffer Perry Evans. So the Grand Gallery was ultimately re-created on the 007 Stage at Pinewood Studios (one of 12 stages used there and at Shepperton Studios). The Louvre murder was filmed there, as was all the action around the corpse and in the Grand Gallery.

---

quote:

---

Setting the film’s mood in the Grand Gallery, Totino kept things dark and shadowy. “I thought it was better to keep the lights off,” he says. “It added a lot more mystery and depth. Your eye wants to see into the shadow.” Evans notes, “All the way through, Sal kept saying, ‘I’m going to be right on the edge.’ I’d say, ‘Sal, are we going to be okay here?’ and he’d say, ‘It’s okay, we’re on the edge.’ It became a running joke.”

Because half of Da Vinci Code takes place at night, Totino relied heavily on Kodak Vision2 Expression 500T 5229. He preferred this to Kodak’s Vision2 500T 5218 because “it has a little less contrast and a nice softness. I wanted to be able to work in low light and not worry about losing detail in the blacks. I wanted the latitude and gave myself more range to play with. Later, I built some of the contrast up in the digital intermediate [DI].” He used Vision2 100T 5212, Vision2 200T 5217 and Vision 250D 5246 for daytime scenes.

Totino, who operates on all his films, was often shooting wide open. “The poor focus pullers, John Conroy and Simon Hume!” he marvels. “What a fantastic crew they were. I tried to approach this film with longer lenses because I wanted to draw the viewer’s eye into the frame in a different way. It was an intuitive thing. I wanted to compress the backgrounds and have them a bit more out of focus.” He also used Mitchell A and B diffusion filters throughout the film. “I wanted to take the edge off, just ever so slightly. The Mitchell softens the image without lightening the blacks or taking away from shadows.”

---