Speaking of "The Da Vinci Code"

Yesterday I made an off-hand reference to The Da Vinci Code, which I never read. (Although I did listen to it on audiobook, on the way up to Toronto for Bouchercon 2004. To be honest, I don't really remember anything about the story.)

Today we watched the Ron Howard film on DVD. I wasn't expecting a whole lot from it, but it was actually a well-done and entertaining film. Tom Hanks was his usual appealing, solid self, and the plot was more clever and interesting that I anticipated.

The female lead was miscast, but it's not much of a role in the first place, so it hardly matters. It's also a little long for a thriller, but there was a lot of material in the book that Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman were trying to keep, so that's understandable.

Watching the film didn't exactly make me want to run out and buy the book, but I must say that it made for an enjoyable 2.5 hours.

Comments

[Elaine Flinn]

In spite of all the grumbling - and if one can get past the historical and religious errors -the book was definitely a thriller - and it WAS entertaining. After reading your comments, Dave-I'll have to rent the video now.

[Elaine Flinn]

And my spelling sucks! Sorry about that. :)

[Lana Lang]

David Montgomery liked the Da Vinci Code? Say it ain't so!

[Deborah Graff]

Now you HAVE to read the book and tell us what you think of it. Dad and I both read the big expensive version (from the library) with full page color photos of the artwork--I would recommend reading it that way if possible. I thought it was an okay book but was bewildered by all the hype. I liked Bridget Jones better. :)

[Victor Gischler]

Really? I didn't read the novel, but I thought the film an apalling waste of time. Tom Hanks was not even asked to act for this role. Rather, he was reduced to saying things like "That's just a theory" etc. in service to the story's premise without developing character at all.

On the other hand, Dan Brown is effing wealthy and I'm not. So what the heck...

VG

[Roddy Reta]

I'm always amazed by the number of penniless writers who tell me that Dan Brown doesn't know how to write an entertaining novel.

[David J. Montgomery]

The idea that Brown doesn't know how to write an entertaining novel is absurd. Clearly, even if nothing else, he does that.

As for the film... Victor, I expected to react exactly as you did. Thus I was pleasantly surprised when I found it to be quite entertaining. My wife was less enthused, though.

[Guyot]

Brown should know - he learned from Lewis Perdue.

Bada Bing!!

[J.D. Rhoades]

I usually don't admit this in front of other writers, but I enjoyed The Da Vinci Code when I read it. Totally absurd and goofy, but entertaining in an Indiana Jones sort of way. It may have helped that I was at the beach when I read it.

[Frank Wilson]

What I want to know is how anybody can get past the part where Leigh Teabing declares that English is the European language with the fewest words of Latin origin?
I thought Holy Blood, Holy Grail, which I read years ago, was much more entertaining than Brown's Dick-and-Jane version. The only thing in the movie that I thought worked was Ian McKellen's over-the-top hamming. McKellen knows crap when he sees it - and knows what to do with it.

[Historical Books]

The First edition historical book are mostly written by contemporary authors and some of these historical books are signed and lined by authors.