Da Vinci Code - Movie [SPOILER]

[smtan24]

yup, museum security responded when the alarm sounded, but as the bars were down, they could not enter. they heard noises and presumed that the "thief" was still inside and called the DJCP.

Teabing viewed only the driver compartment, so i doubt he could recognise the vehicle as a armored vehicle...=]

I assume that security was sleeping when they don't notice on their security camera when the curator was running being chase by a monk. Also note that museum has cameras they would notice the curator stripping down.

If you see in one of the scenes there are two monitors. So he definetly saw the armored vehicle.

 

[forward]

The mastermind behind Da Vinci Code has similiar capability as the one behind Y2K saga. They saw the opportunity to turn a knot which is difficult to untie into huge financial gain using aggressive advertising using all the medias available including your latest mobile phone.

When you get 30% of the whole world to buy your book or see the movie you will know how financial free you'll be. It is just unbelievable that even a friction out of the brain power could make the highly educated people to go and get trapped.

If you enjoy the art of movie making and intend to learn more about the many unique places of history, go for the movie to entertain yourself.

-------------------------------
The critical entreprenial characteristic of the masterminds behind
the Da Vinci Code should be studied and appreciated for their abilities to negotiate in great power throughout the nations.

 

[jsbn]

Strange it seems, no one has brought it up even though the movie has been showing for 1.5 weeks already MDA has done the right thing by rating it as NC16 - No scenes were cut as a result afaik :thumbsup:

I guess the religious hooha it brought up in churches led to the surprising little discussion on this movie.

Well, its just a book. Overrated one at that. I think.

 

[Friday13]

I guess the religious hooha it brought up in churches led to the surprising little discussion on this movie.

Well, its just a book. Overrated one at that. I think.

I tend to look upon this as entertainment. Too much religious thingy involved. not healthy.:nono:

 

[mohgui]

i'd suggest that you read the book before watching the movie. my mum went in and out of the cinema and had a hard time knowing what the movie was talking about. furthermore, there're no subtitles

got english subtitles leh... but of course when they are speaking in french :bsmilie:

 

[mohgui]

i guess Dan Brown made name for himself for good and bad reasons.

they should also make a movie out of the Angels and Demons. that would be nice too.

 

[trlnlty]

i'd suggest that you read the book before watching the movie. my mum went in and out of the cinema and had a hard time knowing what the movie was talking about. furthermore, there're no subtitles

i caught the movie at lido last night and the WHOLE movie had english subtitles. It made me mad because the natural reaction was to read it.

i dont want to read the entire movie

 

[+evenstar]

oOo really?? the one i watched at GV didn't have subtitles..maybe yours is newer

 

[mpenza]

they should also make a movie out of the Angels and Demons. that would be nice too.

Agree It would have been an action-packed thriller.

 

[chriszzz]

I assume that security was sleeping when they don't notice on their security camera when the curator was running being chase by a monk. Also note that museum has cameras they would notice the curator stripping down.

If you see in one of the scenes there are two monitors. So he definetly saw the armored vehicle.

goodness, read the book. They already said that most security cameras in large museums are fakes, since its impossible and prohibitively expensive to monitor thousands of monitors. Secondly, even if the cameras are real, it doesn't show all views at the same time. It is perfectly possible that the scene was missed, even if the cameras worked. Note that the Mona Lisa was once stolen from the Lourvre. If the security cameras were that effective, that would never have happened.

Teabing is a crook. So what if he saw the armoured vehicle ? He could just be playing along knowing that they have something up their sleeves.

Finally, this is fiction for crying out loud.

 

[smtan24]

goodness, read the book. They already said that most security cameras in large museums are fakes, since its impossible and prohibitively expensive to monitor thousands of monitors. Secondly, even if the cameras are real, it doesn't show all views at the same time. It is perfectly possible that the scene was missed, even if the cameras worked. Note that the Mona Lisa was once stolen from the Lourvre. If the security cameras were that effective, that would never have happened.

Teabing is a crook. So what if he saw the armoured vehicle ? He could just be playing along knowing that they have something up their sleeves.

Finally, this is fiction for crying out loud.

About the security cameras:
http://www.lonmark.org/solution/building/louvre.htm

I agree that its a book but I expect Dan Brown to bother to check up the facts like other writers. Dan seems unwilling to do any research.

 

[AReality]

Note that the Mona Lisa was once stolen from the Lourvre. If the security cameras were that effective, that would never have happened.

Get your facts right 1st before embarassing yourself lah.
There weren't no serurity cams in 1911.


.

 

[chriszzz]

Get your facts right 1st before embarassing yourself lah.
There weren't no serurity cams in 1911.
.

True. My bad. But a quick google for art theft reveals that a fair number of paintings were stolen in the last 20 years from meseums, when CCTV technology was already available.

In anycase, its just fiction. The author already set the background with his assertion that cameras are not working. The link at lonmark mostly talks about just sensors ( which ARE installed and used for many expensive works of art), with a short reference to CCTV, which there should be at least some that works.

In fact, check out the following article, from museum-security.org :

Louvre admits museum is 'easier to rob than a store'
(Times of London) FROM SUSAN BELL IN PARIS at http://www.museum-security.org/reports/002599.html#1

Its a bit dated ( 1999 ) though. No doubt things have improved in recent years, but who knows ? If a thief could steal a 8 million franc Le Chemin de Sèvres on a busy Sunday afternoon, who knows what happens at night ?

 

[knpan]

the show is boring. talks bout christanity. i am not a christian thats why.