The Davinci Code Film - Bust or Bling?

[Morlock 11]

Well, I don't think there's any doubt that'll it'll make a bundle. But will it be any good? The best review I've seen is Ebert's, who has a well-known weakness for terrible summer movies (He gave Van Helsing 3 star). But in the meanwhile, I'm enjoying the score, especialy the beautiful 'Kyrie for the magdalene' by Richard Harvey.

[pi 0]

I think Sophie could have been played by a hotter chick.

[QMM 4]

Reviews have criticized it for having too much exposition and talking, something that doesn't bother me that much. I still plan on seeing it tomorrow

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Ebert mentions Zimmers score.

[futuremartymcfly 0]

which after listening to a few times, is no longer as exciting as it initially sounded...

[JWfangirl1992 18]

I just came back from it, it was very good but I read the book and it was easy for me to understand but most of my friends who never read the book had no clue what was going on. I felt the ending was very drawn out, but nevertheless it was still very good.

[King Mark 3,625]

Seems critics are pulling a Memoirs of A Geisha on it.They don't like it for this and that and then jump on the negative review band wagon.

k.m.

[orrakul 0]

Reading the book right now. Reminds me of a Grisham book - interesting idea, competently executed; nothing to be blown away by. The film didn't get a good reception at its premiere in Cannes - it will be interesting to see what happens this opening weekend.

[Panthera 0]

I saw it, liked it, and the music worked in the film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

its looking like a huge opening,

[pi 0]

Music was great film was ...ehhh

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Agree with pi. The music was wonderful, very subdued in the right places and never too bombastic (which is apparently a negative point of the score for some people).

I haven't read the book, but the film had an interesting story with interesting ideas, but it was executed horribly. Far, far too much exposition through "talking heads". The action scenes are few and far between, which isn't necessarily bad, but when the alternative is boring dialogue I almost wish for inexplicable explosions.

As for the story itself, it's intriguing enough but relies too heavily on pretensious plot twists and there's absolutely no discernable character development. It also just seemed to go on forever. After what I thought was the end/climax, it just kept going and going. Tom Hanks was good, but the role hardly called for his talent, but Sophie is adorable. Ian McKellan hams it up, but at least he could afford to with a character with apparently one layer. I'm more looking forward to seeing him in X3 next week.

I give it **/****

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I'm fuzzy on what the movie's actually about. Haven't really been paying attention to all this Da Vinci Code hoopala. All I know is that there's a bunch of dorks out there who mistakenly thought they picked the book up from the non-fiction section.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I'm fuzzy on what the movie's actually about.  

It's about a secret so powerful that if revealed it would devastate the very foundations of mankind. (Ian McKellen style exposition.)

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Another thing: there wasn't enough about DaVinci in it. I was hoping it was a big scavenger hunt for something of his, a la Rambaldi in Alias.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Wait a minute, you didn't know what the film was about before seeing it in the cinema?

[Incanus 5,713]

Well apparently Catholics and other Christians hate the book and the film. Albinos think it gives a bad image of them and several Christian organizations and deeply religious countries boycott the film. The biggest cinema in the Faroe Islands, Havnar Bio, decided to boycott the film, effectively blocking it from the other smaller cinemas, who rely on second hand films from this source, on the count that it seems to be blasphemous in their point of view. Vatican, Opus Dei of course are against the book and the film.

:roll:

I am going to see the film today and make my own judgement about it. I enjoyed the book and am interested to see how well did they succeed to translate it to the screen.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

These people are very stupid to campaign against a film that has about as theologically relevant as Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

I'll probably see it this week.

I don't expect to be surprised though. I haven't read the novel, but the central theory behind the film and book was not created by Dan Brown, I've seen documentories about it on The Discovery Channel.

The prospect of ian McKellen delevering a truckload of exposition in his typically dramatic style is to good to pass up though.

And it has a masochistic-killer-albino-monk, which is always a plus.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This is an obsession, Steef! I never understood it. Neither did Hitch.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

actually Steef, it is theologically relevant, as its basis goes way back, and its conclusion if true, would shake the foundation of Christianity, but only if people let it.

[Incanus 5,713]

These people are very stupid to campaign against a film that has about as theologically relevant as Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

I'll probably see it this week.

I don't expect to be surprised though. I haven't read the novel, but the central theory behind the film and book was not created by Dan Brown, I've seen documentories about it on The Discovery Channel.

The prospect of ian McKellen delevering a truckload of exposition in his typically dramatic style is to good to pass up though.

And it has a masochistic-killer-albino-monk, which is always a plus.

Ian McKellen is the reason why I am seeing this movie. I knew that he was going to play the role when I read the book and I could just picture him having fun with this role:) And as you say Stefan a young Palpatine look-a-like killer monk is always a plus to a movie.

[Docteur Qui 1,544]

Wait a minute, you didn't know what the film was about before seeing it in the cinema?

I haven't read the book. Just haven't bothered really. I knew a few tiny details, but that was it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Ian McKellen's character is the reason I disliked the book, he was the most telegraphed character in the book.

I knew exactly what was going to happen.

[Panthera 0]

I had absolutely no idea what the movie was about before I saw it. I didn't even know that Ian MacKellen would be in it.

[deimos 0]

I just saw it. It's a good summer movie IMO. Though it could be a little shorter and nobody would notice, I didn't find the explanations boring. In fact when I thought about the book becoming a movie, I thought they would ruin one of the things I liked about the book, and that is how the find out the solutions to the riddles. But Ron Howard went the graphic way, using "historical" flashbacks and kind of imaginary holograms to solve this, in a convincing way, at least for me. I didn't like the lack of connection between Hanks and Tatou ( I was expecting a "come on, forget about the fucking mistery and let's go to bed" thing, and it was quite the opposite. But anyway it was entertaining, which was what i was looking for.

[John Takis 206]

FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

These are the words with which Dan Brown inaugurates "The DaVinci Code". He then proceeds to butcher fact after fact. The book is one long parade of fabrications, distortions and mistruths. Dan Brown's recounting of "history" in particular is basically wholesale fiction. I'm not a fan of that kind of intellectual dishonesty, especially when it's calculated towards the vilification of a religion and a faith community. I wouldn't pay money for a film or book that treated "The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with credibility, and I won't pay money for this.

Just my two cents.

To those who feel that it's silly for Catholics to be upset about the film, Steven D. Greydanus' review of the film is worth reading.

[pi 0]

FACT: All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

These are the words with which Dan Brown inaugurates "The DaVinci Code". He then proceeds to butcher fact after fact. The book is one long parade of fabrications, distortions and mistruths. Dan Brown's recounting of "history" in particular is basically wholesale fiction. I'm not a fan of that kind of intellectual dishonesty, especially when it's calculated towards the vilification of a religion and a faith community. I wouldn't pay money for a film or book that treated "The Secret Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with credibility, and I won't pay money for this.

Just my two cents.

To those who feel that it's silly for Catholics to be upset about the film, Steven D. Greydanus' review of the film is worth reading.

Well to play devils advocate, if you are to say that Dan Brown's version of history is incorrect - who can prove that yours or that gentleman who wrote that articles is? Can't one apply the same reasoning which supposedly discredits Brown's history to disprove your history? I mean these events happened thousands of years ago - no historian can say for sure what details are true and false, no one was there and history has a way of favoring those in power. Over years and years if you are fed lies the public will start to believe them and then it becomes "history." (Constatine). I think that is what makes this book so exciting - while no one can definetively PROVE Dan Brown correct, one can certainly not PROVE him wrong. Read Holy Blood Holy Grail and further examine the amount of wierd coincidences which seem to appear supporting Dan Brown's idea.

PS this is a freaking great zimmer score ----- oscars????

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

PS this is a freaking great zimmer score ----- oscars????

Your point?

[John Takis 206]

Well to play devils advocate, if you are to say that Dan Brown's version of history is incorrect - who can prove that yours or that gentleman who wrote that articles is?  Can't one apply the same reasoning which supposedly discredits Brown's history to disprove your history?

No.

I mean these events happened thousands of years ago - no historian can say for sure what details are true and false, no one was there and history has a way of favoring those in power.  Over years and years if you are fed lies the public will start to believe them and then it becomes "history." (Constatine). I think that is what makes this book so exciting - while no one can definetively PROVE Dan Brown correct, one can certainly not PROVE him wrong.  Read Holy Blood Holy Grail and further examine the amount of wierd coincidences which seem to appear supporting Dan Brown's idea.

Your argument would make total hash out of history as an academic discipline. Real historians are able to study documentary evidence, apply sound methodologies, and arrive at reliable conclusions. That you (and Dan Brown) assign any credibility whatsoever to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is telling. The whole "Priory of Sion" thing is a proven (and admitted!) hoax. "HB, HG" (and its literary spawn) relies on conjecture, methodological errors, and discredited "evidence". It is pseudohistory at its most risible.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

yeah, but it more fun then the Biblical version,

[Ollie 1,059]

[pi 0]

Well to play devils advocate, if you are to say that Dan Brown's version of history is incorrect - who can prove that yours or that gentleman who wrote that articles is?  Can't one apply the same reasoning which supposedly discredits Brown's history to disprove your history?

No.

I mean these events happened thousands of years ago - no historian can say for sure what details are true and false, no one was there and history has a way of favoring those in power.  Over years and years if you are fed lies the public will start to believe them and then it becomes "history." (Constatine). I think that is what makes this book so exciting - while no one can definetively PROVE Dan Brown correct, one can certainly not PROVE him wrong.  Read Holy Blood Holy Grail and further examine the amount of wierd coincidences which seem to appear supporting Dan Brown's idea.

Your argument would make total hash out of history as an academic discipline. Real historians are able to study documentary evidence, apply sound methodologies, and arrive at reliable conclusions. That you (and Dan Brown) assign any credibility whatsoever to "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" is telling. The whole "Priory of Sion" thing is a proven (and admitted!) hoax. "HB, HG" (and its literary spawn) relies on conjecture, methodological errors, and discredited "evidence". It is pseudohistory at its most risible.

You say real historians study documentary evidence. What declares the documents they study true - is it just because they are old? I mean look at the American government and all of its cover ups to boost public opinion. If you found documents thousands of years from now and assumed they were all true you would be mistaken. I can't imagine what the ruthless Roman empire must have been lying about. And also if something existed and was not written about by your methods it was never to exist. My point is you just can't know for sure about that time period -its too old.

[orrakul 0]

Here's an extract from today's Hollywood Reporter. Da Vinci opened huge:

Sony's "The Da Vinci Code" deciphered the boxoffice code for success this weekend as the mystery-thriller from Columbia Pictures and Imagine Entertainment cracked an estimated $224 million in worldwide receipts -- the second-biggest worldwide opening in history. Only 20th Century Fox's "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith" grossed more on opening weekend, with $253.9 million in worldwide ticket sales.

On the domestic side, the Tom Hanks starrer pulled in a sterling estimate of $77 million, which depending on the final tally, is the 16th- or 17th-biggest weekend of all time in North America. One thing that is that it definitely is one of the top openings for pictures that appeal largely to an adult audience.

The international side of the boxoffice coin was nearly double its domestic counterpart. The Ron Howard-directed film generated a staggering estimate of $147 million -- the biggest international debut of all time, bumping "Sith" ($145.5 million) into second place.