Ok, I saw it last night. How was it? Not so great. If one saw the movie for entertainment I think they'd be sorely disappointed. It's lame. The plot is just not that good. There are a lot of loopholes and things are too unbelievable.
Silas, the albino monk, was played up well as a zealous Opus Dei monk who believes fully in his purpose and will go to every extent to achieve his goal. Tom Hanks, who is of course my favorite actor, does a usual marvy job, but his character seems wrong for the role. The mocvie was also one of those action movies where the whole plot happens in the course of a few days, where the characters are flying all over the continent in a wild pursuit of the Holy Grail, never seeming to stop for food or sleep. So I was not impressed with the movie, but everyone should still see it. How could you not? We'd run out of things to discuss.

Somsuj, is that her verdict on the film?

Hadassah.
Welcome to the forum and thank you for your review.

I *still* haven't seen the movie - we got home from Nantucket completely exhausted. I'm going to see it tomorrow.

As far as the monks who asked for the painting, I do actually talk about that on my page on the Last Supper -

http://www.lisashea.com/hobbies/art/lastsupper.html

The monks were furious about the painting. First, it took an INCREDIBLY long time to finish. They kept pushing Leonardo to hurry up, and he threatened to put them in as Judas if they harassed him. Next, they wanted the typical serene, quiet blessing of the bread scene. This was a mural in their dining hall, remember, and they wanted to "eat with Jesus" in peace and serenity. Instead, they got this wild shouting scene which was hardly good for digestion. I think the last thing on their mind was the actual character portrayals

I watched the movie a few hours ago and it has taken me all this time just to calm down. The movie was such a let down after reading and loving the book. After all the hype leading up to the movie, I was expecting something more. I don't want to give anything away in case someone has yet to see it, but I hope when you do you will understand my anger. The casting was dreadful, the acting was shoty and unconvincing, and the story line was jumpy, with lots of unanswered questions.

After reading the book, I could never image Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon and after watching the movie I was right. Not only did Tom not resemble Dan Brown's discription of Langdon, Tom's acting was terrible!!!! He had no enthusiasm and looked bored. The character is suppose to be passionate about history and symbology.

Audrey Tautouhe did a pretty decent job as Sophie, the only thing that throw me was that she wasn't a red head.

Truthfully the only character that not only did a good acting job, but resembled the character from the book was Silas, Paul Bettany. He did an amazing job.

I can't fully blame the cast for the let down the writer's butchered the story/plot line of Brown's best seller. They changed keypoints in the book, I mean I realize they couldn't do everthing in the book so had to adapt it, but changing the stroy that much was uncalled for, I'm surprised Brown allowed his stroy to be massacered like it was.

Don't get me wrong there were some really good partsfrom the book and that were added, but they don't make-up for the rest of the movie.

I'll stop here and wait for your own reviews, just remember if you have read the book and loved it you will be VERY disappointed in the movie

Wouldnt it be wonderfull if we could wipe the slate, remove the book, and just see the film first, without the critics views. I wonder if the oppinions would differ? Are we expecting to much ? Did Dan Brown produce a better book than we appreciate ? Is there a conspiracy to blacken the movie and influence others against it ?
Have to say, Victoria's post reads as very Anti towards the concept/storyline of the book/film.

Off to see it tonight (Sunday of all days) so will give my view tomorrow.

I have seen some truly fantastic movies based on books. It really can be done, if you have a great director, great cast and great writer. Given the huge amount of money this movie had to work with, I really think they could have done it.

For example I think the first Harry Potter book was very nicely turned into a movie, because they cast and crew paid such attention to detail and put their heart and souls into it. The writer of the book was consulted daily and they truly did everything they could for it to turn out "right". I think the same is true for the Lord of the Rings movies. The entire cast was reading the novels, understanding the characters, throwing themselves into it heart and soul. How about The Big Sleep? Great book, great movie. The Godfather? Great book, great movie.

So it can happen. A brilliant movie can be made, even from complex books. The question is, did it happen here ...

I am yet to see it PDM, so - you are right - it was Mona Lisa's remark on the movie - may be she has seen it.

I am a little sceptical about Film critics, I dont trust them, they do sometimes have an agenda.
I would prefer the critics to view on same day as the public.
These highly paid people are a tiny minority, has a film judged by these experts and condemned, ever been proved wrong by the far greater majority audience ?
They may be right, it might be xxxx, I have just watched a BBC programme and someone emailed in to say it was brilliant. Interrestingly though, she had not read the book, or any reviews!