|
Originally Posted by Morf
:hscratch: I wouldn't exactly characterize either as "clowns." Are you confusing Hanks and Howard with Jim Carrey and Ben Stiller?
http://digilander.libero.it/happyday...ori/richie.jpg http://web.tiscali.it/fabioracco2/images/Howard2.gif |
Wow, so you think all actors and actresses are clowns. I don't know how you can ever enjoy anything.
EDIT: Ah, I just noticed this quote:
Originally Posted by FinkPish
Just ignore him, he hates everything.
|
Using a Simpsons caricature as evidence of Ron Howard being a "clown?" You really are scraping the bottom of the barrel there, ain't ya? Moving along ...
|
Originally Posted by FinkPish
Just ignore him, he hates everything.
http://disney.go.com/vault/archives/...ine/f07a3e.jpg |
NY Post gave it 4 Stars ... so who knows ...
|
It's going to be a hard film to trust others opinions on.
Religious people are going to bash it just due to the content. Many people hate Howard and bash everything he does. This is one film I especially knew from the outset that I'd just have to see for myself and ignore the reviews. I liked the book a good bit, and thought it would make a good movie while reading it. Howard is a great director IMO, the trailer looked good, so I'm pretty confident I'll like it. I hate all the bashing it's getting for the "absurd" plot. It's based on the book, if you didn't like the book and it's plot, you won't like the film. And this is again just probably negativity coming from christians/catholics in many cases. |
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
I hate all the bashing it's getting for the "absurd" plot. It's based on the book, if you didn't like the book and it's plot, you won't like the film.
Spoiler:
|
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
And this is again just probably negativity coming from christians/catholics in many cases.
|
Originally Posted by baracine
I really, really like the Over The Hedge previews, but seriously, folks...
|
Originally Posted by Artman
The quotes we're seeing today from the critics have been on dialogue, acting, pacing, etc..
|
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle And this is again just probably negativity coming from christians/catholics in many cases. |
Originally Posted by Draven
DVDTalk: Where film and literary snobs come to bitch! :lol:
I liked the book, and I'm sure I'll like the movie. |
Leaving aside the worthy work of the Albino Anti-Defamation League, there are presently three distinct controversies surrounding this film, representing three different groups:
1. The religious nuts: The fundamentalist, Catholic and Opus Dei factions who oppose any tampering with Christian orthodoxy - whatever that is- even in a work of escapist fiction. Those people are not represented in the negative reviews so far and, if anything, only add to the commercial appeal of the film. 2. The "literary snobs": The scholars who disapprove of Dan Brown exploiting a story that was already tenuous when the book "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" was published more than 20 years ago, as it is based on the Prieuré de Sion fairy tale which has been disproved by the very people who perpetrated the hoax. These people have no bearing on the reviews and never will, except that a tall tale looks even taller on film than in print, without those neat little footnotes to make it seem believable. 3. The "film snobs": The film insiders who consider it is a grave mistake to have a goodie-goodie like Ron Howard tackle such a potentially blasphemous subject as "The Da Vinci Code" and have the main character played by such a bland actor as Tom Hanks. These people are having a field day right now saying "I told you so"... And, of course, there are the 45 million people who read and enjoyed the book, some of which will go see the film but a lot of which - like myself - don't see the point as they already know the ending and they understand that all those literary, religious and philological enigmas are very difficult to translate into a coherent script that keeps you awake for almost three hours. Then, there is the immense, amorphous mass of people who haven't read the book and haven't formed an opinion, who must be really uninformed but haven't been able to escape all the hype, even if they live under a rock, and will probably give in at the googleplex out of curiosity and may or may not like what they see. These people may potentially destroy the film's box office by negative word of mouth because the expectations of a good action movie - which the film apparently isn't - are very different from those of a well-crafted suspense novel - which the book was. In other words, I would be very surprised if it flopped but there is always that possibility, God willing. |
this is currently at 0% on rottentomatoes...granted there's only 7 reviews so far but thats a terrible sign...oh well i am glad this movie probably sucks because i'm sick of hearing people talk about it and the previews all look boring
|
if this flops...it just gives the religious nuts more power.....
and all the religious people who HATE this movie will say how it flopped because people don't want to see the Catholic religion "smeared" which is absurd due to the popularity of the book (although basis isn't for the smearing of the catholic religion). Anyways; I've never seen it but it does look interesting and I'd like to see what all the talk is about! I'm more excited for Over the Hedge (snicker if you will). |
I enjoyed the book and think it is obvious that this movie will do well just because of the number of people who did read the book. But it is tough to do justice to a book as well, so I could see it being a stinker.
Here is what is odd. I found the book to be an effective page turner quite often, but it was pretty "out there." I could see where it could actually flow in a book quite well, but condensed down to a movie and I could see where it may just seem a little too implausible. The saddest thing to me about the "controversy" is that is shows just how few Catholics (and other Christians) actually know about church history. I have said before that the book was a lot like watching Raiders of the Lost Ark and having all the Nazis be African American. It is still a great show, with lots of action, etc., but you would have to work a little harder to suspend your disbelief. |
Originally Posted by JacksModernLife
if this flops...it just gives the religious nuts more power.....
|
Originally Posted by Artman
The quotes we're seeing today from the critics have been on dialogue, acting, pacing, etc..
I expect the pacing to be kind of slow. It was a fairly slow paced book. It's not going to be an action movie. If it's true to the book it should be a slow developing thriller with a bit of weak action here and there. |
Originally Posted by Josh Hinkle
I realize that. Was just saying in general that this is a movie I'm not going to put any stock into critics opinion or general word of mouth and will see for myself both do the controversy and the hate many have for Howard as a director.
I expect the pacing to be kind of slow. It was a fairly slow paced book. It's not going to be an action movie. If it's true to the book it should be a slow developing thriller with a bit of weak action here and there. |
People who were interviewed as they were coming out if the Cannes screening seemed to agree on the following:
People who had read the book found the film to be a total bore. People who had not read the book were utterly confused by an overly condensed and convoluted plot which assumes you have read the book in the first place. |
Originally Posted by purplechoe
A SLOW PACED BOOK? What is it with this web site and guys named Josh?
It was much slower than Angels and Demons for instance. There's a lot of time spent just wandering around looking for clues, trying to decipher clues etc. I'm not saying that's a bad thing as I loved the book. Just that I can see how the short attention spanned, summer movie crowd could find a film based on it slow. |
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Out of curiosity, if it breaks all the records, does it just give the anti-religious nuts more power?
If it does good at the box office it just does good at the box office. No power being given to anyone, religious or not. It'll just be another hyped up film that ended up being very shitty, and life will move on just as it did before. ;) Well, 1 fresh and 15 rotten at RT now with an overall score of 6%. Could this flick actually end up with a worse overall score than See No Evil? Now that I'd like to see. :) |
Originally Posted by purplechoe
A SLOW PACED BOOK? What is it with this web site and guys named Josh?
|
Originally Posted by kvrdave
A slow paced book can still be a page turner. Misery was a pretty slow paced book, but was still amazing. I just think he meant it was not "action packed" which is really wasn't.
|
Originally Posted by eXcentris
People who were interviewed as they were coming out if the Cannes screening seemed to agree on the following:
People who had read the book found the film to be a total bore. People who had not read the book were utterly confused by an overly condensed and convoluted plot which assumes you have read the book in the first place. Exactly! Glenn Beck, a very common, ignorant, brutish commentator with a show on CNN Headline News was just doing a remote interview with an American female film critic called Christy Lemire (Associated Press) stationed in Cannes and trying to have her say - the man was very offensive and racist - that just because the French didn't like the film, it didn't mean anything and I quote: "Anybody who can love Jerry Lewis has to have something wrong with them" - you see the type... So the critic responded that she was American, of Irish ancestry, and had only married a French Canadian named Lemire (she actually had to defend her ethnic origin in front of that pig!) and that the French people at Cannes hadn't said anything about the film, it was the critics the world over who were closing ranks to say it was a bomb, the reason being that whereas the novel gave you the leisure and satisfaction of interactively solving the many riddles that the heros encounter, in the film, the solutions to these were all shoved down your throat in record time and induced a monumental headache. Slow curtain, the end. |
Mary Hart's one word review: WOW! (from tonight's Entertainment Tonight). :D :D :D
|
Originally Posted by Patman
Mary Hart's one word review: WOW! (from tonight's Entertainment Tonight). :D :D :D
http://www.joebrightbooks.com/assets...ary%20Hart.jpg |
A quick question about the quote on RT from the NYP review:
"... a crackling, fast-moving thriller that's every bit as brainy and irresistible as Dan Brown's controversial bestseller." |
I liked the book and will still see this on Friday despite bad reviews. I'm thinking it won't be the HUGE smash that Sony is expecting, but even if it's not great, I hope it doesn't tank...because I really want "Angels & Demons" to be a movie... a far far superior book to Code and probably the only 'great' book Dan Brown has written.
MATT |
Originally Posted by kvrdave
Out of curiosity, if it breaks all the records, does it just give the anti-religious nuts more power?
It challenges certain religious dogma and assumptions, but it still has a strong spiritual component to it. |
Well, Roger Ebert seemed to like it enough and gave it *** And judging by his review, it does not seem like he was all too fond of the book.
|
Cannes was never a place to debut this.
|
Originally Posted by dcprules
Well, Roger Ebert seemed to like it enough and gave it *** And judging by his review, it does not seem like he was all too fond of the book.
He's often been caught red-handed quoting from books he hadn't read - like the biography of John Nash, the book that (cough) inspired "A Beautiful Mind". Besides, where did you find a Roger Ebert review of this film? It's not out yet!!! But he is on the record for saying this about the book: What does Roger Ebert think about The Da Vinvi Code? Here is a statement he made in his review of "National Treasure": "That I have read the book is not a cause for celebration. It is inelegant, pedestrian writing in service of a plot that sets up cliff-hangers like clockwork, resolves them with improbable escapes and leads us breathlessly to a disappointing anticlimax. I should read a potboiler like The Da Vinci Code every once in a while, just to remind myself that life is too short to read books like The Da Vinci Code." Ah, c'mon Roger - it's just a novel! (From: http://frcoulter.com/presentations/davincicode.html ) dcprules must have been thinking of this critic from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer ( http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies...avinci19q.html ): Thursday, May 18, 2006 "Da Vinci:" Better than the novel, and a pleasant surprise By WILLIAM ARNOLD P-I MOVIE CRITIC The bottom line on the $125 million screen version of Dan Brown's controversial, mega-bestselling thriller novel, "The Da Vinci Code," is that it could have been worse -- a lot worse. Considering the immense challenges involved in adapting such a talky tome, it even struck me as something of a pleasant surprise. DIRECTOR: Ron Howard CAST: Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Jean Reno, Ian McKellen RUNNING TIME: 149 minutes RATING: PG-13 for disturbing images, violence, some nudity, thematic material, brief drug references and sexual content GRADE: B+ It is not, let's be clear, in the same lofty league as such great movies made from phenomenon-novels as "Gone With the Wind," "From Here to Eternity," "The Godfather," and "To Kill a Mockingbird" -- movies that not only capture and enhance their literary source but touch the sky with a special magic all their own. I'm not even completely sure if the movie will be coherent to people who have somehow managed to avoid reading the novel (if any such people exist). By necessity, the adaptation sheds large chunks of the saga and elements of the puzzle that shifts the action from place to place. On the other hand, the film has an exciting visual texture that gives body to Brown's bestseller-ese prose, and uniformly strong performances that give dimension, depth and interest to characters that the author never entirely brought to life. In this sense, I found it much more entertaining and satisfying than the novel. As a thriller and as the conveyer of an elaborate conspiracy theory, it's only moderately successful. But it consistently holds one's interest, and it never seeks to over-simplify its convoluted case or in any way talk down to its audience. I found its willingness to be "difficult" very refreshing in a big Hollywood movie. The script, of course, follows the novel to the letter, telling Brown's story of Robert Langdon, a Harvard expert in religious symbols (Tom Hanks) who, while lecturing in Paris, finds himself the chief suspect in the grisly ritual murder of the director of the Louvre -- a man Langdon barely knows but who has left him a dying message. On the spot, Langdon is befriended by the victim's granddaughter, Sophie (Audrey Tautou), an understanding Parisian policewoman who masterminds his escape and -- over the course of one eventful day and night -- helps him battle conservative Roman Catholic fanatics in a quest to find the Holy Grail. There are some changes. Characters have been lost (Sophie's brother, for one), vast amounts of dialogue have been jettisoned (thankfully) and the conspiracy has been narrowed from all mankind suppressing the Sacred Feminine to the Catholic Church specifically denying the role of Mary Magdalene in the life of Christ. The puzzle-solving aspect of the novel -- in which, by trial-and-error, the characters crack a complex linguistic code and other symbols to advance toward the treasure -- has also been significantly reduced. It's the kind of thing that works on the printed page, where you can study the riddles, but not in a fast-paced film. Where the film really shines is in director Ron Howard's clever use of special effects to make scenes from the ancient past live in the present, and to present some of Brown's arguments. For instance, seeing a multi-media presentation of the hidden meaning of "The Last Supper" is infinitely more effective that reading about it. The blue-chip actors also elevate the characters far beyond Brown's capabilities. Hanks and Tautou -- both abandoning their natural quirkiness to play their roles very straight -- are totally engaging, while Jean Reno, Paul Bettany and likely Oscar nominee Ian McKellen (as the fugitives' fussy British ally) also shine. As an expose of the hidden history of the Catholic Church, the film is definitely less strident than the novel. But it doesn't really pull back all that far. The Vatican has just cause to, if not fear the movie, at least dislike its icy message that the church's historic subjugation of women was probably no accident. But, you ask, shouldn't the movie be condemned on moral grounds? After all, hasn't it been conclusively proven that the secret parchments found in Paris' Bibliotheque Nationale in 1975 identifying Da Vinci and other illuminati as guardians of the Grail -- the factual premise of the book -- was a hoax? All I can say is that when Alexander Dumas wrote "The Three Musketeers" in 1844, he tried to pass it off as his hero's factual memoirs, which Dumas claimed he found in the exact same Paris Bibliotheque Nationale. Fraud or not, "The Three Musketeers" is still one hell of an adventure story. So is "Da Vinci." Good or bad, history or hoax, sacrilege or metaphoric feminist truth -- beyond these matters, "Da Vinci: the Movie" holds an added importance to the world that hasn't been fully recognized. It's the first summer blockbuster in two decades that has hugely excited people and is not a sequel, remake, science-fiction extravaganza or sword-and-sorcery kid's fantasy. Whatever it is, it's a complex movie about ideas. That makes it unique in a Big-Budget Hollywood Cinema that is has been consistently dumbing itself down since the mid-'80s. And if this movie, with its immense built-in following, fails or disappoints at the box office, Hollywood is not likely to be this intellectually ambitious again anytime soon. So I, for one, wish it well. |
|
Never mind. William Arnold's and Roger Ebert's reviews put things in a very different perspective: It would appear that the film is not as dumbed-down as it could have been and that it does have a lot of atmosphere. Hell, I've even heard of pundits who think the music is not suitable for children... This probably means I will want to see it eventually, if only on DVD. |
Just finished the book last night. I started reading it about two years ago when it was only available as a basic hardcover and really couldn't get into it. Recently I sold my hardcover and got the illustrated paperback, which helped my understanding and reading element immensely.
However, that does not change the opinion I formed when I first tried to read it a few years back: it reads like a novel that was written by a pulp writer who hoped if he wrote something provactive enough, it would sell millions and get made into a movie. In short, like a lot of today's commercial fiction seems, it reads more like a screenplay adaptation/novelization than anything else. In terms of the plot, I found the story entertaining, but I didn't feel like I had read anything groundbreaking. I thought it was a slightly above average book and that the material would make an average movie at best. I will still go and see the movie, but it will now be more due to it being another summer release for another weekend as opposed to seeing something utterly intriguing. FWIW, I find it interesting that they placed several spoilerish plot points in the trailer. Spoiler:
All in all, I think any problems I or anyone will have with this movie will most likely be traceable to the source material. FWIW, I think that sometimes "pulp fiction," as seems to be the more appropriate identification, is best left as a book. On a side note, I find it interesting that Ian McKellan will be in this movie this weekend, then in another one next weekend. I think he is a great actor and I am acounting on him to elevate the material a bit, as he often does. Knowing he was playing Teabing had me chuckle when in the book he says:" I am not part of any brotherood," as I immediately pictured him standing with Pyro and Juggernaut. Having the two of them chase Sophie and Langdon would be a treat! |
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
All in all, I think any problems I or anyone will have with this movie will most likely be traceable to the source material. FWIW, I think that sometimes "pulp fiction," as seems to be the more appropriate identification, is best left as a book.
P.S.: Ian McKellen is also reprising the voice of the wizard Zebedee in "Dougal" out on DVD this week. (He did that voice in the British version as well.) |
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
I didn't find the novel to be anti-religious at all.
It challenges certain religious dogma and assumptions, but it still has a strong spiritual component to it. I did enjoy the book despite its flaws, and I'm still going to see the movie to judge for myself. But I won't be surprised if it isn't great, since I think a faithful adaptation of the novel would be tough to make into an entertaining summer movie. |
I still plan to see DaVinci Code this weekend, but when every negative review uses the word "dull" to describe the movie, it kinda lowers my expectations. I hope they're wrong.
|
Despite reviews, 'Da Vinci' should be big
Box office watchers expect film to have $50 million-plus weekend LOS ANGELES, California (Reuters) -- First reviews for "The Da Vinci Code" may be mostly scathing, but box office experts say they expect the Mona Lisa to keep smiling all the way to the bank this weekend. The experts say the religious-themed thriller can expect to haul in between $50 million and $80 million, when it opens domestically Friday -- more than enough to compensate for the laughter, jeers and sneers it received when shown to critics at the prestigious Cannes Film Festival Tuesday. Print reviews of the movie version of the world's biggest-selling novel were also less than kind. Daily Variety critic Todd McCarthy said, "Director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldman have drained all the fun out of the melodrama, leaving ... an oppressive talky film that is as close to dull as one could imagine with such provocative material." The Hollywood Reporter's critic, Kirk Honeycutt, complained the film "never rises to the level of a guilty pleasure. Too much guilt. Not enough pleasure." In early reviews, only Lou Lumenick of the New York Post cheered, "'The Da Vinci Code' is the Holy Grail of summer blockbusters: a crackling, fast-moving thriller that's every bit as brainy and irresistible as Dan Brown's controversial bestseller." Movie ticketing service Fandango said the film was accounting for 78 percent of all the agency's advance sales, and 88 percent of those buying tickets said they had read the book, which has sold more than 40 million copies. The service also reported that 74 percent of those buying tickets said their religious beliefs did not affect their decision. The book has come under criticism from religious groups who object to its premise that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child together. By comparison, advance ticket purchases for DreamWorks Animation Studio's "Over the Hedge," also opening Friday, accounted for 4 percent of sales. Box office watcher Paul Dergarabedian, president of Exhibitor Relations Inc., said the bad reviews may help the box office, at least in the short term. "It means people are talking about this movie, and you have to remember that there is often a disconnect between critics and audiences. What will really count for this film is word of mouth, and that will not make itself felt until the second or third weekend," he said. He said he would expect that the film would make about $50 million in its opening weekend. Chad Hartigan, box office analyst for Reel Source said he expected the film to do between $60 million and $80 million in its first weekend, helped in no small part by the public's awareness of the novel. "Our office saw the film and thought it was great. The general public will be more forgiving than the mainstream critics," he said. MovieTickets.com said "The Da Vinci Code" was tracking very high in advance of its weekend opener and had 10 times more tickets sold than "Mission: Impossible III" during the same time in its sales cycle. The Tom Cruise action film, the first of the summer's big-budget movies, opened two weeks ago to a disappointing weekend gross of just under $48 million. Brandon Gray of Boxofficemojo.com said he thought "The Da Vinci Code" would gross about $70 million in its first three days. "It has real audience interest and a real fan base," he said. Copyright 2006 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:53 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.