Tom Hanks cast in DaVinci Code
08-13-05, 01:06 PM
#51
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This book is probably the least of the worldwide Catholic Church's problems. I guess there should have been a disclaimer before Jurassic Park to let people know that dinosaurs weren't really loose on some distant island.
If people take a book/movie/story like this as fact and don't do their own research then there are bigger problems at hand. TO spoon-feed people disclaimers is not the studio's job. I am so damn tired of media pandering to the RC Church just because the RC church wants it.
If people take a book/movie/story like this as fact and don't do their own research then there are bigger problems at hand. TO spoon-feed people disclaimers is not the studio's job. I am so damn tired of media pandering to the RC Church just because the RC church wants it.
08-13-05, 08:02 PM
#52
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Ovid
As for the claim or idea that it would be "selling out", I have to ask...Did you read the last 5 pages? It is interesting to me that only me and my friends seem to talk about the fact that Mr. Brown completely apologizes in the final pages and basically writes, "The Catholic Church would never do anything like this!!! Haha...they're brilliant!!!" It is shocking to me that nobody in media ever addresses this.
OK, I just read the last 5 pages and... have no clue what you're talking about. Care to elaborate? Also, why would you need a disclaimer on this film and not, say, Batman Begins?
05-02-06, 09:49 AM
#60
Banned
Unbelievable! The response to the Davinci Code:
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
05-02-06, 10:27 AM
#61
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Originally Posted by dx23
Unbelievable! The response to the Davinci Code:
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
It's the New Lazy Man's Translation.
No reading required.
05-16-06, 10:26 PM
#62
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 12,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure which of the threads will become the one for reviews, but here is a story on the press screening and the less than excited response.:
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...ent+NewsNews-4
I sure hope it turns out a bit better than that, but I know a lot of folks had similar concerns about how it would translate to film (and make sense).
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsar...ent+NewsNews-4
But the reaction at the opening press screening in Cannes was largely negative, with loud laughter breaking out at one of the pivotal scenes.
"Nothing really works. It's not suspenseful. It's not romantic. It's certainly not fun," said Stephen Schaefer of the Boston Herald.
"It seems like you're in there forever. And you're conscious of how hard everybody's working to try to make sense of something that basically perhaps is unfilmable."
"Nothing really works. It's not suspenseful. It's not romantic. It's certainly not fun," said Stephen Schaefer of the Boston Herald.
"It seems like you're in there forever. And you're conscious of how hard everybody's working to try to make sense of something that basically perhaps is unfilmable."
05-16-06, 10:34 PM
#63
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: NYC
Posts: 17,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dx23
Unbelievable! The response to the Davinci Code:
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
http://www.homemediaretailing.com/in...=2&newsid=9039
“But if you look at it as a work of fiction, and if you look at research that finds 52% of believers who have read The Da Vinci Code have come away unsure of their own theology, then something like The WatchWord Bible is worthwhile,” he said. “So many people have become confused after reading The Da Vinci Code, wondering whether it is a work of fiction, and this DVD is The Word, which really is key.
05-16-06, 10:57 PM
#64
Senior Member
Back to the original topic of this thread...
I think Hanks has been gone from a big-movie lead role too long to get the magic back. He doesn't work for me in this role. It may not send his career downhill the way every Harrison Ford role after "Air Force One" did, but it'll be similar, IMHO.
I think Hanks has been gone from a big-movie lead role too long to get the magic back. He doesn't work for me in this role. It may not send his career downhill the way every Harrison Ford role after "Air Force One" did, but it'll be similar, IMHO.
05-17-06, 01:09 PM
#66
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BellsOfWar
religion is a crutch for the weak, so naturally the weak minded will dispise the book/movie.
05-17-06, 02:25 PM
#67
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Houston
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kcbrett5
insulting worshippers is a crutch for the people who are insecure with their own intelligence, so naturally those who think very little of themselves will practice it.
05-17-06, 04:17 PM
#69
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by GeorgeP
Back to the original topic of this thread...
I think Hanks has been gone from a big-movie lead role too long to get the magic back. He doesn't work for me in this role. It may not send his career downhill the way every Harrison Ford role after "Air Force One" did, but it'll be similar, IMHO.
I think Hanks has been gone from a big-movie lead role too long to get the magic back. He doesn't work for me in this role. It may not send his career downhill the way every Harrison Ford role after "Air Force One" did, but it'll be similar, IMHO.
Also, I don't believe Harrison Ford's career went downhill from either a hiatus of big movies or from appearing specifically in Air Force One, so I don't get the analogy.
05-18-06, 02:03 PM
#70
Senior Member
Tom Hanks was the #1 box-office star of the 1990s thanks to films like "Cast Away" and "Forrest Gump."
In recent years, he has chosen lower-key roles in smaller, lower-budget films. This role is a return to the more "big picture" prestige role, and I think Hanks has lost his box-office Midas touch in the interim.
Make sense now?
In recent years, he has chosen lower-key roles in smaller, lower-budget films. This role is a return to the more "big picture" prestige role, and I think Hanks has lost his box-office Midas touch in the interim.
Make sense now?
