• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

The Da Vinci Code

Nice review Peder, way to stay objective about something that most people have a hard time being objective about. The critics don't like it, but it isn't the critics that fork over the dough.

Predominantly Catholic countries like Italy and Mexico close to breaking box office records. In Italy, Da Vinci Code seeing huge grosses, and, based on an exit poll there, 75 percent thumbs up, 15 percent neutral, and 10 percent not liking.*

I'm told Sony/Imagine's The Da Vinci Code did "huge business" in Australia and New Zealand today (remember, they're 24 hours ahead), "pretty much smash openings" across the board in every foreign territory it opened so far, "incredibly well" in parts of Europe except France, where there was a major soccer match on Day #1 but the box office bounced back on Day #2. Britain's Sky News has been reporting good reaction from people coming out of screenings there. Same thing happened around the U.S.: for instance, TV news reports in Portland, Ore, and Miami Beach, Fla., are featuring quickie interviews with just-out-of-screening moviegoers and they're loving it. (Do film critics matter any more?) Early reports say the matinees out of New York City were "giant-sized." I've learned that Sony execs are "very happy." As for the rotten reviews, I hear the Sony suits are taking the attitude that the critics are out of touch with the public and counting on Da Vinci Code being reviewer-proof. After all, this movie is based on a book that sold 40+ million copies; flick qualifies for the "phenomenon" category, good or bad.
Click to expand...
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/first-bo-reports-on-da-vinci-code/
As reported by gossip columnist Matt Drudge
 
It's not common for a U.S. film having a worldwide release date. Do you (everyone on this thread) think that Sony did it intentionally? Does the film gross more? Just curious. :rolleyes:
 
Maybe they're finally realizing that NOT having a worldwide release date in these downloadin' times is commercial suicide?
 
SFG75 said:
Nice review Peder, way to stay objective about something that most people have a hard time being objective about. The critics don't like it, but it isn't the critics that fork over the dough.

http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com/first-bo-reports-on-da-vinci-code/
As reported by gossip columnist Matt Drudge
Click to expand...
SFG,
Many thanks for that article from Matt Drudge and for you own nice words.
The reported popularity now doesn't surprise me at all after seeing a full-house 12:10 matinée in NY despite a miserably rainy day. In addition, the theater had showings scheduled for every half-hour throughout the day and many in the prime evening slots were already sold out! It may just be that there will be "boffola" weekend numbers out of NY despite the rain, and it wouldn't surprise me if all previous box-office records were completely smashed. Just might happen.
And PS, there were two other large theaters I frequently go to which were also running similar half-hour schedules. Plus I don't know how many others were also showing the film. All very unusual!
Peder
 
Just to let you know, I've merged a few threads together here, so there are some posts at the very begining that weren't here before.
 
Please know that I went to the theatre with an open mind and left mentally unstimulated. In my honest opion the movie stunk, stank and stinks. The best parts of the film are the scenes of the Louvre, the city of Paris, Jean Reno, and Sir Ian Mckellen.
Click to expand...

Sir Ian McKellen was the finest aspect of this movie, but his acting was too exaggerated when he gets arrested. He sounded like some crazy street preacher... I laughed at that scene. Jean Reno was disappointing, as was Audrey Tautou. Tom Hanks was okay; the haircut was awful, but his performance wasn't embarrassing (at least when compared to Tautou's acting in this film).

Thinking about it, I didn't really like the movie. It was awfully dull for a suspense movie. I preferred Dan Brown's novel, shockingly enough.
 
WARNING - SPOILERS ABOUND!




Well, we just got home from the theatre.
In a word - actually 2 words - IT SUCKED!

Peder is right that if follows the book quite closely. I guess I must have hated the book too. At least, the last 2 thirds.

If the Church objects to this movie, it ought to be because it is so bad, not because they are upset that the movie (and book) claim that JC was a mortal man (which I totally accept anyway).

Can't tell if it was bad directing, bad acting, a bad script, bad source material, or bad cinematography. Probably ALL of the above.

Too long, zero suspence, and zero identification with the characters.
I don't even think Alfred Hitchcock could have made this film suspenseful - it was that dumb.
Remember the film Wait Until Dark with Audrey Hepburn and Alan Arkin? When I got out of that movie, my palms had imprints from my fingernails that were so deep, it took 3 days for them to fade.
Ditto, Deliverance.
The Da Vinci Code makes no effort to be realistic time wise, and just did not draw me in.
Example:
Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) says, "Hey, I have a friend in England that can help."
5 seconds later they are knocking at his gate. As though England is the size of a large pizza pie.
Later, they say, OH Let's go to this or that Bank/Cathedral/Church/Country - whatever.
Seconds later they are at their destination. Not that the time is speeded up to move things along - all this is happening MOVIE TIME, not necessarily REAL TIME.
I remember finding the same fault with the book. Everything happens within the time frame of a single day. Rediculous.
Another thing that is stupid beyond reckoning:
In the first scene, a character is shot in the guts and then spends his last few moments on the earth, constructing a puzzle and treasure hunt, of rediculous complexity. instead of calling 911 or even writing his will.
DEE YOU EMM BEE!
I hated it.
 
Libre said:
NOTE - SPOILERS ABOUND!

Well, we just got home from the theatre.
I hated it.
Click to expand...
And some others love it. Not much different than the book. Some loved the book and some hated it.....but everyone talks about it.:D
 
Is the movie really that bad? I read and loved the book, and I have free tickets to see the movie, but after reading this, I might just hand them off to my friend who wants to see it.
 
Well, IF:
-you read and LOVED the book and;
-you have FREE tickets and;
-there's nothing else you feel like doing instead;
THEN
-go.

It DOES follow the book very closely, to it's credit.
I was dissapointed tho.
When I read the book, I lost interest about 1/3 through, although I did finish it. So maybe you shouldn't let me spoil it for you if you loved it.
By all means, go.
 
Libre said:
The Da Vinci Code makes no effort to be realistic time wise, and just did not draw me in.
Example:
Langdon (played by Tom Hanks) says, "Hey, I have a friend in England that can help."
5 seconds later they are knocking at his gate. As though England is the size of a large pizza pie.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about when they go to see Teabing? because what they would of said is "Hey, I have a friend from England that can help" because he actually lives in France. I thought it shows you well enough how they're getting from one place to another, like the shots on Teabings plane. I can kind of agree that it all happened too fast, but i think its a bit unfair to single this out, as plenty of films speed up events.

Libre said:
In the first scene, a character is shot in the guts and then spends his last few moments on the earth, constructing a puzzle and treasure hunt, of rediculous complexity. instead of calling 911 or even writing his will.
Click to expand...

Well that isnt really the films fault, as thats what happens in the book. But like you said, you didnt like the book either.

I thought the film was good until the ending, where it completely changes, and im not sure i like the new ending. While watching it, i thought it all happened too fast, especially the descriptions about the holy grail and everything, if i hadn't read the book I probably wouldn't of understood what was going on.
 
I haven't seen the film yet but did read the book (and enjoyed it... don't hit me). It's a complicated story( yes I know and a poorly written one... don't hit me) pehaps they tried to fit too much into a couple of "movie" hours. How long was the film does anyone know?

One of the girls that works for me saw it yesterday and she said the same about the ending, "Not impressed".

I'm still planning on seeing it though. Can't help myself. If for nothing else than to see all the scenery. I have heard from most that it's a nice film to look at.
 
Its about 2 and a half hours long. For a film which follows the book so closely, I dont know why they completely changed the ending. But its definetly worth watching, I'd have to agree with Anamnesis post about the acting, but Audrey Tautou's average acting was made up by her pretty face. :eek:
 
DontGoAway17 said:
I dont know why they completely changed the ending.
Click to expand...
Aw drat, that means I definitely will have to read the second half. Or the fourth quarter. Or somethin'
Peder
 
DontGoAway17 said:
Are you talking about when they go to see Teabing? because what they would of said is "Hey, I have a friend from England that can help" because he actually lives in France. I thought it shows you well enough how they're getting from one place to another, like the shots on Teabings plane. I can kind of agree that it all happened too fast, but i think its a bit unfair to single this out, as plenty of films speed up events.
Click to expand...
I did mean when they go to see Teabing - which was in France as you said. But both in book and movie they are knocking on his gate moments after Langdon gets the idea. And it felt like this was happening within the time frame of the story. I mean, all the places they go, the banks, Churches, cathedrals, 2 different countries, monestaries - and eveywhere else, it all happens in 1 day or at most 2, and they never even had to stop to pee.
 
I've been, I saw, I came home again.

Well I enjoyed the book, not hugely, but it was a reasonable read so despite the hype and the dis-hype I thought I would go and see it.
It was reasonable!
It was a reasonable film nothing fantastic, nothing particularly memorable, but watchable. I think like many films that are over hyped it is disappointing when you finally get to see it. And like any film that you go to see after you have read the book it is disappointing because celluloid rarely if ever matches up to the imagination.
As far as I can see the book and the film are only receiving the attention they do because of the controversial nature of the subject and that there are a few small facts in there that are true and so it makes the rest look like a true story.
My advice is go and see it, you may enjoy it. I’ve seen worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top