Five things about the Da Vinci Code

  1. I’m no snob, I found the book a rollicking good read. The book is better than the movie.
  2. I did not expect to like Tom Hanks in the lead. He was perfectly fine. Though what was with his hair?
  3. That evil monk? Creepy. REALLY creepy. Ick.
  4. Ian McKellen should not equal Snidely Whiplash. He’s better than that.
  5. It’s summer. What did you expect from a summer blockbuster?

Next up? X-Men.

9 thoughts on “Five things about the Da Vinci Code”

  1. 1) The book _was_ better, I agree.

    2) Tom was fine, wasn’t he? I was surprised. I’m very glad they cut any romantic possibilities between the two leads. ew.

    3) Monk may be creepy, but Sir Ian’s butler/driver? Not too shabby.

    4) I thought Ian played a good villain.

    5) Check your brain at the door for X-3, it’s just what you would expect; but you can certainly tell it was directed by an outsider/non-fan boy.

    Reply
  2. Neil: If we had beach weather, we’d be there, getting loud, blowing shit up. Okay, maybe not the last one. We have a good month until summer reaches Seattle for real.

    Shaun: Yes, the driver was a nasty bit of work. But I did think the transformation from good guy to bad guy for Sir Ian was a little too, I dunno, melodramatic?

    Sarah: Details, puhleeze?

    Reply
  3. The Da Vinci Code Drinking Game made the Da Vinci code a great deal more fun for me. Although the guy near us did ask us to “enjoy the movie a little more quietly” –our laughter was a little louder than a snicker (although quieter than a guffaw)– but we weren’t talking on our phones or even talking at all! The film, when approached from the perspective that it is a parody, is a great deal more fun.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.