The Da Vinci Code

[Sean P Kelly]

Because I'm going to the cottage, I won't be able to see the movie this weekend (I plan on seeing it Tuesday or Wednesday).

However, that doesn't mean you can't post your thoughts on it if you see it.

[Tonberry2k]

It's getting bad reviews, but I'll see it anyway.

Interesting story, my aunt, who is a nun, called my mom a while ago and told her that the bishop at her church said that seeing the movie was a mortal sin, because you're directly paying for something that is a lie against God. So, along with murder and suicide, he have "seeing the Da Vinci Code" as a mortal sin.

Anyway, my mom retaliated with "It's just a story. And it was a story 2 years ago when I read it." I'm glad she can be religious and not unreasonable.

So there's my story. I'm seeing the movie partially out of interest, partially cause I read the book, and partially out of spite. :P

[Platinum]

Plan on seeing it very soon, I hope its better than what the reviews say.

[Irkenwarrior12]

I was told it was alright.

[[sage]]

I enjoyed it. It was interesting enough to make me want to read the book.

[Lurch1982]

I've seen more religiously offensive things on the history channel or 700 club.

The critics are right. This movie is boring and sh1tty. Ron Howard is a terrible director and alternates between a disgustingly high amount of subtext (that doesn't come off clearly) and an almost dumbed-down overtelling of things that 95% of the people in the world already know. Yes, we all know Jesus Christ is the central figure of Christianity, you don't have to tell us that repeatedly. Oh, and I loved the stock footage they used for the historical flashbacks....THE FIRST TIME I SAW IT WHEN IT WAS ON THE HISTORY CHANNEL LAST YEAR AND DIDN'T HAVE A GRAINY FILTER ON IT.

People that get offended at this movie are too stupid to count in the grand scheme of things.

Save your money for X-3. Even if the retard director that likes to bring the boom totally train-wrecks the series, your butt won't fall asleep within 20 minutes. There's a reason The DaVinci Code has like a 21% positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes...its horrible.

Also, the previews before the film get an F - - - - -. A remake of The Omen is pointless, Fast and the Furious goes to Japan is stupid, that dumb horror movie with talking dead people in computers is beyond lame, and the Oliver Stone World Trade Center flick looks absolutely gut-wrenchingly bad. It even has Nick Cage attempting to do a NY accent and failing miserably at it (like he failed at doing a southern accent or any other accent in any other role).

[Falco53]

^ Harsh as usual, Lurch. But I agree with you--a rare occurence indeed.

I didn't realize that World Trade Center was being made by Oliver Stone until yesterday. Crap.

[Sean P Kelly]

I saw it tonight and I liked it. But, then again, I rarely see a movie that I did not think that I was going to like beforehand (that's why I rarely give negative comment, but I still do that sometimes)

I was thinking about talking about the Religious controversy, but I think religion is too taboo to talk about in this forum without offending someone (for the record, I was NOT offended even though I AM a church-going Catholic)

And Lurch, lighten up. So, you didn't like the movie. It's just that, a movie. Some people will like it, and some people will not. I liked it, you didn't. I've had the opinion for a long time that people seem to pay too much attention to what reviews say and use that to decided whether or not to see a movie.

Like I said above, I usually only see movies that I believe that I will like. I have never paid much attention to reviews for quite sometime (mostly since, and I can prove this, they tend to be biased towards certain genres of films than others). What I suggest to people is, if you think that you might like this movie, then see it and don't let anybody else convince you otherwise.

[Lurch1982]

Originally Posted by Falco53

^ Harsh as usual, Lurch. But I agree with you--a rare occurence indeed.

Indeed.

Originally Posted by Some Moderator

And Lurch, lighten up. So, you didn't like the movie. It's just that, a movie. Some people will like it, and some people will not. I liked it, you didn't. I've had the opinion for a long time that people seem to pay too much attention to what reviews say and use that to decided whether or not to see a movie.

Like I said above, I usually only see movies that I believe that I will like. I have never paid much attention to reviews for quite sometime (mostly since, and I can prove this, they tend to be biased towards certain genres of films than others). What I suggest to people is, if you think that you might like this movie, then see it and don't let anybody else convince you otherwise.

There's two things to address: my opinion and critic opinions.

Oh yeah, small spoilers ahead.

Spoiler Below

First, if a movie is a steaming dog-turd, I'm well within my rights to call it out and be as harsh as possible. The DaVinci Code failed in many aspects as a direct result of directorial decisions. The biggest mistake the movie made was I was painfully aware that I was actually watching a movie. I've watched longer movies and didn't notice, yet for some reason the DaVinci Code was painfully obvious that I was sitting in a theatre and getting quite uncomfortable. The pacing of the movie as a whole was horrible. It had the feel of watching 70 year olds mall-walk at 7am with small splices or a motorcycle stunt in the middle of it. I'm not expecting explosions, nor am I expecting guns-ablaze. However, the way the mood was built up through camera angles, music, and generally poor screenplay storytelling managed to smash out the entire suspension of disbelief. Lets dive a little more into my prior critique of Howard's direction of handling flashbacks and background story. Far too much of the character backgrounds relied on subtext that was muddled at best (I went with three other people and we had three different interpretations on some of the flashbacks). Here's an example: the guy who drove the truck. It made absolutely no sense why he would help them escape to attempt to kill them in the middle of the woods. Was he Opes Dei? Was he part of the Templars? It never becomes clear at all. The last thing we see of him is meeting with the cop in the hospital for three lines that seems like the important ones were left on the cutting room floor. Even going with the cop, his character is never fully fleshed out. He comes off as a figuratively blind individual that blantently believes everything that he hears from Opus Dei. Come on. Going further on with the cinematic storytelling elements, the DaVinci Code had at least 5 moments where it felt like the movie was wrapping up and the credits would roll, only to present 30 more minutes (at least) of filler. Getting to the religious controversy, I don't see why there even is any over the movie. Howard managed to make the DaVinci Code completely unoffensive to anyone that watched it. There are more offensive things in History Channel specials (particularly the ones that used the flashback scenes Howard ripped and put a hazed lens filter over for the film).

Critics shouldn't form your opinion on movies. If you are blind enough to say "Ebert said it was good, so it must be good," you shouldn't have a place in society. Yet, when critics resoundly pan a movie, that's a good sign that the movie is a steaming dog turd.

Yes, critics do exhibit some bias towards certain genres of film. For example, most critics in mainstream publications will pan teen movies and slasher flicks (and rightfully so) while praising some movie that will only take in 8 million dollars lifetime. However, applying it to the DaVinci code doesn't work. This movie should automatically become a critical success simply because it has Tom Hanks (beloved actor), Ron Howard (beloved director), and the DaVinci Code as the source material (bestselling book). Yet, Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 22% fresh rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/), lower than both RV and Posidon (which aren't exactly Citizen Fcuking Kane). I'm hesitant to ever use Rotten Tomatoes as a comprehensive source of critical reactions, but looking at its film page shows that almost every major publication and reviewer panned the movie for some reason or another (Ebert being the only one I noticed who didn't). Sure, its going to offend the hormonal fans of the book that put down Fabio romance novels to pick up The DaVinci Code, but I as well as almost every other critic in the world have said the movie SUCKS.

[Sean P Kelly]

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Indeed.
Spoiler Below

First, if a movie is a steaming dog-turd, I'm well within my rights to call it out and be as harsh as possible. The DaVinci Code failed in many aspects as a direct result of directorial decisions. The biggest mistake the movie made was I was painfully aware that I was actually watching a movie. I've watched longer movies and didn't notice, yet for some reason the DaVinci Code was painfully obvious that I was sitting in a theatre and getting quite uncomfortable. The pacing of the movie as a whole was horrible. It had the feel of watching 70 year olds mall-walk at 7am with small splices or a motorcycle stunt in the middle of it. I'm not expecting explosions, nor am I expecting guns-ablaze. However, the way the mood was built up through camera angles, music, and generally poor screenplay storytelling managed to smash out the entire suspension of disbelief. Lets dive a little more into my prior critique of Howard's direction of handling flashbacks and background story. Far too much of the character backgrounds relied on subtext that was muddled at best (I went with three other people and we had three different interpretations on some of the flashbacks). Here's an example: the guy who drove the truck. It made absolutely no sense why he would help them escape to attempt to kill them in the middle of the woods. Was he Opes Dei? Was he part of the Templars? It never becomes clear at all. The last thing we see of him is meeting with the cop in the hospital for three lines that seems like the important ones were left on the cutting room floor. Even going with the cop, his character is never fully fleshed out. He comes off as a figuratively blind individual that blantently believes everything that he hears from Opus Dei. Come on. Going further on with the cinematic storytelling elements, the DaVinci Code had at least 5 moments where it felt like the movie was wrapping up and the credits would roll, only to present 30 more minutes (at least) of filler. Getting to the religious controversy, I don't see why there even is any over the movie. Howard managed to make the DaVinci Code completely unoffensive to anyone that watched it. There are more offensive things in History Channel specials (particularly the ones that used the flashback scenes Howard ripped and put a hazed lens filter over for the film).

I don't pretend to know any better, but why are you talking like you are an expert on film making? I don't get why some people feel compelled to point out every single little thing that's wrong with a movie, instead of trying to sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

Originally Posted by Lurch1982

Critics shouldn't form your opinion on movies. If you are blind enough to say "Ebert said it was good, so it must be good," you shouldn't have a place in society. Yet, when critics resoundly pan a movie, that's a good sign that the movie is a steaming dog turd.

Yes, critics do exhibit some bias towards certain genres of film. For example, most critics in mainstream publications will pan teen movies and slasher flicks (and rightfully so) while praising some movie that will only take in 8 million dollars lifetime. However, applying it to the DaVinci code doesn't work. This movie should automatically become a critical success simply because it has Tom Hanks (beloved actor), Ron Howard (beloved director), and the DaVinci Code as the source material (bestselling book). Yet, Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 22% fresh rating (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/), lower than both RV and Posidon (which aren't exactly Citizen Fcuking Kane). I'm hesitant to ever use Rotten Tomatoes as a comprehensive source of critical reactions, but looking at its film page shows that almost every major publication and reviewer panned the movie for some reason or another (Ebert being the only one I noticed who didn't). Sure, its going to offend the hormonal fans of the book that put down Fabio romance novels to pick up The DaVinci Code, but I as well as almost every other critic in the world have said the movie SUCKS.

If you look at it at face value, yeah 22% looks bad. But if you look closer you will see that just means that 132 of 169 reviews were negative. What was that? 169? I thought you just said that every other critic in the world said it sucks. Last time I checked, there were not 169 people in this world.

In the grand scheme of things, film critics make up less than 1% of the actual population.

Now, if you go to Yahoo Movies (which, in my opinion, has one of the best fan-submitted rating systems - since it uses a letter grade instead of a star rating), you will see that the concensus of 19477 (normal) people have thought that the film is, at the very least, fair.

Now, I'm not saying that everybody thought the film was fair. By skimming through the fan reviews, you will quickly see that is not the case.

Now, I'm rambling on, so I will get to the point. Who really should care what everyone else thinks? When it is all said an done, it is YOU who is going to see the movie. Lurch, I am not saying you aren't making good arguements. But, I am offended that you are expecting me to allow you to try and tell everyone else whether or not to see the movie. It's THEIR decision on ONLY their's.

I am not going to speak an more on this issue. You are free to give your opinions on this and other films, but PLEASE don't try to influence the decisions of others.

[Lurch1982]

Because those are the things that make the movie NOT enjoyable. If a movie is bad, I'm not going to simply say "the movie was a steaming dog turd," I'm going to explain exactly why I thought it was a steaming dog turd.

Thing is, Rotten Tomatoes uses a crosssection of mainstream critics, and when 78% of the major reviewers say a movie is a dud, it can safely be called a dud.

In the grand scheme of things, critics are less than 1%, true. Yet, their job is to report their opinions on movies and they are generally experts. By your logic, everything from teachers to reporters to stock analysts are useless and their opinions are invalid because their profession isn't made up of a large percentage of the population. Simply put, I'll take stock advice from professional analysts over internet peons on a stock board, just like I'll take the opinions of the majority of film critics over some average person in line.

Yahoo's movie rankings are off. A letter grade really doesn't work the same way as an up/down (rotten tomatoes) or a 10 point scale (IMDB, 6.5/10 after 12000 votes). Thing is, fan reviews aren't reliable because you're going to get the zealous, Fabio-cover-reading, hormonal rabid fans of the book attempting to skew the rating high while the zealous, don't-know-the-meaning-of-fiction, religious nuts are skewing the rating lower.

What the hell is the point of this forum if people who have seen movies cannot recommend or pan them? Are we supposed to post "YES I SAW IT LOL!" or "NO I DID NOT SEE IT LOL" in every topic? This is the damn point, to discuss movies and why they do or do not suck and if they should be recommended to other people.

[Sean P Kelly]

whatever

[NintendoNut]

I saw it and thought it was good, couldn't believe the critics were panning it so much.

[Koga]

I saw it today and I liked it. I wasn't dissapointed, although there were a few things I disliked, like

- the pace at the start of the movie, which I thought was too fast. I already thought they solved the riddles fast in the book, and that it would be hard to translate that to the screen in a believable manner, and I think they didn't.
- the part at the Rosslyn chapel, which was quite different from the book.

Things I liked:
- seeing the locations and artworks described in the book
- the cast, especially Paul Bettany and Ian McKellen. And Audrey Tautou is very pretty (I hadn't seen her in a movie before this)
- the fact that the characters spoke in their native tongues with each other.

[Sean P Kelly]

Originally Posted by Koga

And Audrey Tautou is very pretty (I hadn't seen her in a movie before this)

Movies from recent years that she is known for are Amélie and Dirty Pretty Things.

This is actually only her second or third English-speaking role (Dirty Pretty Things was the first)

[Koga]

I should be seeing Amelie in the near future, as my mother just bought it. My parents are on holiday, at the moment, though.

[N Kong]

Originally Posted by NintendoNut

couldn't believe the critics were panning it so much.

Really?Because the critics I've heard from give The Da Vinci Code 4/5 stars.

[Empyrean]

Its not bad I enjoyed it a fair bit. I think I would rate it at 3.5 stars.