With no presumptions of faith, is this an enjoyable film? Would those that are essentially ignorant of the Bible be entertained?
I think those ignorant of the Bible would be as entertained anyone else, but unfortunately, that wouldn’t be much. It’s comparable to “National Treasure” in that it’s a bit of utter hokum masquerading as history, but “National Treasure” is (IMO) the stronger film of the two.
I found it so-so. Paul Bettany turns in a suitably creepy performance as Silas, Ian McKellan is always enjoyable, and Jean Reno and Alfred Molina flesh out the supporting cast pretty well.
For the most part, though, I thought it was tepid–there’s a lot of description and lecturing going on in the book and not a whole lot of action. The movie tries to amp up the action and tone down the historicism, and for the most part it fails. It rated pretty much a ‘meh’ from me.
Angels and Demons will probably make the better transition to movie, IMO.
Hopefully, they’ll improve on the history of the Illuminati from the book.
It has a terrible ending, one of those “so what’s the point” endings where everything the heroes did ended up pointless. And for those who said you’d pay good money to watch Sir Ian read from the Telephone book- congrats you now can do that very thing. 
It got a 25 (of 100) on rottentomatoes.com. Some overtly religious folks made a big deal about the subject matter, but the critics mostly thought it was dull.
I agree with the sentiment here. I’m no Bible expert, and I’m sure few are, but you don’t need a foundation in biblical history to appreciate the movie. It’s just not that great a film. A little longer than it needs to be, a little more complicated than it ought to be, and just generally pointless by the time it’s over. McKellan, Molina and Reno make for a wonderful supporting cast, but Hanks is overrated no matter what film he’s in, IMO. I think his last good performance was as Forrest Gump, and every character since then is just Tom Hanks being Tom Hanks.
Acting aside, the film had a pace which was just one notch below tedious and while it had some good scenes, they weren’t tied together effectively. I think the recent sendup on this week’s South Park described the movie pretty accurately in about twenty minutes, as opposed to three hours, and made me laugh several times too. I didn’t laugh once during The DaVinci Code. I didn’t walk away from it with much of a reaction at all, to be honest. I’m sure the fans will say the book is better, and it probably is, but it’s a bit like the story of the Titanic … you know what happens in the end. The latter, however, got you to associate with and care about the characters even though you knew the underlying outcome. Can’t say the same for DaVinci.
I thought the movie was a lot better then the book, just because it just didn’t feel so clumsily written.
But I don’t think you’ll enjoy the film very much without having read the book.
And that just isn’t worth it. 
Just what I was gonna say. If you’ve read the book the movie is easier to follow, which makes it more interesting. Now, I don’t know that it is a great movie, but I was a little entertained.
The only people that I know that hated the movie didn’t read the book.
I think that folks essentially ignorant of the Bible are more likely to be entertained. It’s the kind of movie that, the more familiar you are with the history of the Bible and the Church, the more bothered you will be by the movie’s mischaracterizations, misrepresentations and twisting of the truth to accomodate the plot.
I managed to avoid the book but finally saw the movie last month. I agree with the sentiments of the others. It didn’t suck but it wasn’t great. A typical Hollywood action movie with lots of suspension of disbelief. I was going to equate it to National Treasure, but kelly5078 beat me to it, rather quickly as well.
I hated both the movie and the book although I thought that this was one of Tom Hanks better movies and definitely one of Ron Howards worst which is surprising because he really wanted to make this movie. Howard brought absolutely no energy or creativity to the movie. Stay away from this borefest.
Taken as escapist fantasy with a sprinkling of wildly inaccurate history, I liked the book, all in all, despite the breathless and often clunky prose. I liked the movie better than I thought I would, but it was far from the best movie I’ve ever seen. As Skammer said, those well-versed in history and the Bible will probably be at a relative disadvantage. Ignorance truly can be bliss when you’re plunking down $8.50 at the local multiplex.
I found some mild entertainment at the movie–in the sense that my companion and I spent most of the movie rolling our eyes at each other or stifling giggles. This, of course, is a bit different from being entertained by the movie.
(I haven’t read the book, but I do know a bit about the myths surrounding the Merovingians and whatnot. I was just there for Paul Bettany.)
You’ve heard of Jesus, right? You don’t need much more than that. In fact, your ignorance may actually help you avoid some :rolleyes: eye-rolling.
We had a thread on the movie around the time it came out last year, but it contains spoilers, so I wouldn’t advise reading the thread before seeing the movie (or reading the book) if you’re going to. But for those who are interested, here’s a link to that thread. I gave my own opinion, which does not include spoilers, there, and I stand by it:
Thanks for the comments. It sounds like I shouldn’t bother. Instead I’ll rent National Treasure.
I know it’s been a while since you posted, but if you haven’t rented “National Treasure” yet, don’t.
It sucks.
I’m not even going to explain myself on this one, just trust me.
It’s amazing how much happens in a single evening.
That was my take on the film.
One of the dumbest books I’ve ever read. The only reason I finished was 1) the wife kept bugging me and 2) I was at the beach and had nothing else to read.
I can’t imagine wasting time on the movie…
Well, maybe.
But it was you who spent time at the beach reading the silly thing! 