Printer-friendly copy Email this topic to a friend
Lobby Pass The Popcorn Pass The Popcorn Archives topic #103042

Subject: "The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)" This topic is locked.
Previous topic | Next topic
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Wed May-10-06 08:35 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
"The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)"
Wed May-10-06 08:36 PM by xbenzive

          

Is anyone intrested in watching this movie?

I've read the book. When I saw the trailer it seem intresting that most of the parts kept true to the scenes in the book. The cast seem flawless. I'll shall watch it. Just to see how they transfer the book into a movie. Plus to be entertain by Audrey Tautou :-D

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top


Topic Outline
Subject Author Message Date ID
I'm excited about it
May 10th 2006
1
RE: I'm excited about it
May 11th 2006
2
I wanna see it but the book was SO good the movie has to disappoint
May 11th 2006
3
RE: I'm excited about it
May 22nd 2006
87
      RE: I'm excited about it
May 22nd 2006
88
I will, most likely, be a film than it is a book
May 11th 2006
4
what?
May 11th 2006
6
      Sorry,
May 11th 2006
9
           WOW, i'm surprised you think that
May 11th 2006
11
Havent read the book but I'm already there
May 11th 2006
5
this movie looks shitty
May 11th 2006
7
RE: this movie looks shitty
May 11th 2006
10
Harrison Ford!!
May 11th 2006
14
      CROOZE!
May 11th 2006
18
           Paul Walker
May 11th 2006
19
                David Blaine
May 11th 2006
20
                     Bob (ain't nobody) Iler
May 11th 2006
21
                     RE: David Blaine
May 11th 2006
22
how so?
May 11th 2006
13
      RE: how so?
May 12th 2006
23
this movie looks shitty
May 11th 2006
8
waiting for the reviews. wanna see them reviews.
May 11th 2006
12
Anybody see the Da Vinci Code edition of God Stuff
May 11th 2006
15
God Stuff? lol
May 11th 2006
16
      shit
May 11th 2006
17
I'll definitely go see it. n/m
May 12th 2006
24
I'd be thrilled to see it tank
May 12th 2006
25
^^^1st class hate right there
May 12th 2006
26
      I read it
May 12th 2006
27
           Why didnt you like it?
May 12th 2006
28
                Because it was terrible
May 12th 2006
29
                     indeed.
May 13th 2006
31
                     Word.
May 14th 2006
33
                     it was a horrible book
May 14th 2006
34
                          What book did this plot come from????
May 18th 2006
49
                               Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent
May 18th 2006
50
                                    'Holy Blood Holy Grail' is in WALMART now...
May 19th 2006
52
                                    Ima check it out, thanks
May 21st 2006
80
RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)
May 13th 2006
30
is it supposed to be 100% serious?
May 13th 2006
32
It will be worse than the shitty book
May 15th 2006
35
I kept reading because of the whole conspiracy theory
May 17th 2006
41
RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)
May 15th 2006
36
I would prefer to see a movie version of Foucault's Penduulum
May 15th 2006
37
early reviews are pretty terrible
May 17th 2006
38
A.O. Scott just ethered this film in the NY Times (swipe)
May 17th 2006
39
if i cared what critics thought, i'd never see anything that interests m...
May 18th 2006
48
RE: A.O. Scott just ethered this film in the NY Times (swipe)
May 19th 2006
53
      Or it could be a bad movie
May 19th 2006
58
Off to see it right this second!
May 17th 2006
40
I'll be interested in seeing how Akiva Goldsman adapted the book
May 17th 2006
42
The complete Variety review (swipe)
May 17th 2006
43
L.A. Times review (swipe)
May 17th 2006
44
rottentomatoes shits all over this movie
May 17th 2006
45
RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)
May 17th 2006
46
I am going to see it...........
May 17th 2006
47
watched it today, enjoyed it
May 19th 2006
51
The box office numbers will be through the roof
May 19th 2006
54
RE: The box office numbers will be through the roof
May 19th 2006
56
I'm not sure it could be more suspenseful
May 21st 2006
81
saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*
May 19th 2006
55
RE: saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*
May 19th 2006
57
if they didn't cut some of the dialogue...
May 19th 2006
60
      exactly! lol
May 22nd 2006
90
RE: saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*
May 21st 2006
79
Fuck the critics. They hate everything. I thought it was pretty good
May 19th 2006
59
The better critics (like A.O. Scott above) said the same thing
May 20th 2006
61
Are you kidding me???
May 20th 2006
65
      maybe I misread your post
May 20th 2006
76
RE: Fuck the critics. They hate everything. I thought it was pretty good
May 20th 2006
62
Agreed
May 20th 2006
77
.
May 20th 2006
63
Man, I feel for Akiva Goldsman...
May 20th 2006
64
Fuck Akiva (Note: This is an Akiva post not a DaVinci Code post)
May 20th 2006
67
      1. I didn't say anything about Akiva being a good writer
May 20th 2006
68
           Why is sympathy in quotes?
May 20th 2006
69
                *sigh*
May 20th 2006
70
                     *awkard pause*
May 20th 2006
73
                          I'm going to finish here, and say that in no way am I defending,
May 20th 2006
74
Saturday box office update
May 20th 2006
66
Not surprising
May 20th 2006
71
      RE: Not surprising
May 20th 2006
72
      Did See No Evil bomb?
May 20th 2006
75
           It's not a flop
May 21st 2006
78
                Yo, there were some protesters in Memphis!
May 21st 2006
82
                     Well played, sir.
May 21st 2006
85
I liked it and it looks like 77 mil for the weekend
May 21st 2006
83
V
May 21st 2006
84
This movie is a perfect example of how to make a bad movie.
May 22nd 2006
86
RE: This movie is a perfect example of how to make a bad movie.
May 22nd 2006
89
^^^perfect review
May 22nd 2006
91
a spoiler or two
May 22nd 2006
93
RE: a spoiler or two
May 22nd 2006
94
SPOILERS (Book & Movie)
May 22nd 2006
96
      yes she was (spoilers)
May 23rd 2006
103
           RE: yes she was (spoilers)
May 28th 2006
108
on the art/cinematography
May 22nd 2006
97
      so dark the con of man
May 22nd 2006
98
Did anyone get a fealing
May 22nd 2006
92
I think they may try aftre the sucess of this movie
May 22nd 2006
95
      RE: I think they may try aftre the sucess of this movie
May 22nd 2006
99
           You know i hated him at first
May 22nd 2006
100
Looking for spoilers
May 23rd 2006
101
RE: Looking for spoilers
May 23rd 2006
102
RE: Looking for spoilers
May 24th 2006
106
Akiva Goldsman signed up to adapt Angels and Demons (swipe)
May 23rd 2006
104
waitaminute
May 23rd 2006
105
      irony, huh??
May 24th 2006
107
now that ive seen this (major spoiler)
Jun 07th 2006
109

queenisisdivine
Charter member
7138 posts
Wed May-10-06 09:53 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
1. "I'm excited about it"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Hope it doesn't disappoint.

I'm so FoCuSeD
~>http://www.myspace.com/hiphopgyrl
~>http://ihearthiphop.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Thu May-11-06 12:15 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
2. "RE: I'm excited about it"
In response to Reply # 1


          

Same here.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Thu May-11-06 07:17 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
3. "I wanna see it but the book was SO good the movie has to disappoint"
In response to Reply # 2


  

          

RIGHT?

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
P. Nom
Member since May 22nd 2006
1 posts
Mon May-22-06 03:22 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
87. "RE: I'm excited about it"
In response to Reply # 1


  

          

I thought it was amazing. I might see it again. But... Angels & Demons is a MUCH better book. I would've rather seen a movie of THAT.

_____________________________
When I bust niggas run for the hills like Al Qaeda (c) T. Kweli

half egg.half worm.all soul--
http://www.myspace.com/paranom

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Mon May-22-06 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
88. "RE: I'm excited about it"
In response to Reply # 87


          

I AGREE!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

s t a r s k y
Member since Oct 22nd 2004
2396 posts
Thu May-11-06 09:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
4. "I will, most likely, be a film than it is a book"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          


________________________________

Sturdy chin!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Thu May-11-06 11:34 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
6. "what?"
In response to Reply # 4


  

          

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
s t a r s k y
Member since Oct 22nd 2004
2396 posts
Thu May-11-06 01:22 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
9. "Sorry,"
In response to Reply # 6


  

          

I meant, be a BETTER film than it is a book.
________________________________

Sturdy chin!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Thu May-11-06 03:50 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
11. "WOW, i'm surprised you think that"
In response to Reply # 9


  

          

i know the cast is solid but the book was so good i think the movie would have to be unblievable to live up to it.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

jigga
Charter member
31583 posts
Thu May-11-06 11:32 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
5. "Havent read the book but I'm already there"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I'm sold on the cast

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

SienaBlaze
Charter member
2596 posts
Thu May-11-06 01:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
7. "this movie looks shitty"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I just don't buy Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. Nothing against Tom he is an excellent actor just I think they could have cast the role better



Siena Blaze
http://www.myspace.com/sienablaze

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Thu May-11-06 03:36 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
10. "RE: this movie looks shitty"
In response to Reply # 7


          

Who would you cast?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
buckshot defunct
Member since May 02nd 2003
26345 posts
Thu May-11-06 05:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
14. "Harrison Ford!!"
In response to Reply # 10


  

          


-----------------------------
http://talestosuffice.com/
@kennykeil

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Thu May-11-06 06:16 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
18. "CROOZE!"
In response to Reply # 14


  

          

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Hey there
Lay there
Won't you take me home?
I'll write your name in a song

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
jigga
Charter member
31583 posts
Thu May-11-06 06:18 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
19. "Paul Walker"
In response to Reply # 18


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Thu May-11-06 06:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
20. "David Blaine"
In response to Reply # 19


  

          

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Hey there
Lay there
Won't you take me home?
I'll write your name in a song

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Thu May-11-06 06:29 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
21. "Bob (ain't nobody) Iler"
In response to Reply # 20


  

          

___________________________________________________________________________________________
Hey there
Lay there
Won't you take me home?
I'll write your name in a song

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Thu May-11-06 06:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
22. "RE: David Blaine"
In response to Reply # 20


          

haha. David Blaine.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Thu May-11-06 04:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
13. "how so?"
In response to Reply # 7


          

All of the characters had zero depth.

Silas has to be really white...but other than that everything else is completely open.
_________________________________

rivers burn
and then run backwards
for her, that's enough

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
SienaBlaze
Charter member
2596 posts
Fri May-12-06 08:50 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
23. "RE: how so?"
In response to Reply # 13


          

I honestly don't know who I would cast but from the book I pictured Robert Langdon as a man in his late 30's.



Siena Blaze
http://www.myspace.com/sienablaze

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

SienaBlaze
Charter member
2596 posts
Thu May-11-06 01:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
8. "this movie looks shitty"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I just don't buy Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. Nothing against Tom he is an excellent actor just I think they could have cast the role better



Siena Blaze
http://www.myspace.com/sienablaze

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

jetblack
Member since Nov 14th 2004
44804 posts
Thu May-11-06 04:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
12. "waiting for the reviews. wanna see them reviews."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

---
Stoicism and chill.
---
Stay +.
---

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Thu May-11-06 05:12 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
15. "Anybody see the Da Vinci Code edition of God Stuff"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Corddrey nailed it...it's on YouTube, but the cut out the best part.

On how the book translated so well to film:

"Robert Langdon awoke Hanksily from his bed with a Hanks-like expression on his face."

I love Rob Corddrey.
_________________________________

rivers burn
and then run backwards
for her, that's enough

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
kurlyswirl
Member since Jul 13th 2002
16693 posts
Thu May-11-06 05:47 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
16. "God Stuff? lol"
In response to Reply # 15


  

          

It's "This Week in God."

I think I like "God Stuff" better, though! :-p

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

<-------I'm not your bitch, bitch!


kurly's Super-Duper Awesome™ DVD Collection:
http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&id=kurlyswirl

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Thu May-11-06 05:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
17. "shit"
In response to Reply # 16


          

God Stuff is from something I swear...

*whistles*
_________________________________

rivers burn
and then run backwards
for her, that's enough

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

McDeezNuts
Member since Jun 03rd 2002
5663 posts
Fri May-12-06 10:30 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
24. "I'll definitely go see it. n/m"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Walleye
Charter member
15523 posts
Fri May-12-06 12:00 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
25. "I'd be thrilled to see it tank"
In response to Reply # 0


          

The book was a steaming pile of shit, and I assume the movie will be too. I hope everybody involved in the project is embarassed to have their name associated with it.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Fri May-12-06 12:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
26. "^^^1st class hate right there"
In response to Reply # 25
Fri May-12-06 12:12 PM by Ceej

  

          

probably didnt even read the book.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Walleye
Charter member
15523 posts
Fri May-12-06 12:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
27. "I read it"
In response to Reply # 26


          

Good try, though.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Fri May-12-06 12:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
28. "Why didnt you like it?"
In response to Reply # 27


  

          

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
Walleye
Charter member
15523 posts
Fri May-12-06 12:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
29. "Because it was terrible"
In response to Reply # 28
Fri May-12-06 12:57 PM by Walleye

          

As a work of fiction, it doesn't really even rise up to the level set by thriller-factory type writers like Grisham and Tom Clancy. Even using that relatively low standard for constructing an interesting story featuring characters with depth, Brown falls pretty well short. The characters aren't even literary cliches, but film cliches: the dashing professor rips off pretty shamelessly from Indiana Jones, the doe-eyed ingenue, the creepy clerics, etc. Calling them overdone would be an embarassment to conventions that are just regular overdone: like morally conflicted lawyers.

In a similar vein, he can't manage to build suspense in any organic fashion. So Brown eschews that pesky "good writing" and decides to rotate plotlines through three page chapters for the entire book. Nothing is thrilling in and of itself, he just cuts off the action at the highest part of the arc and switches gears temporarily. That's not good writing; it's manipulation.

______________________________

"Walleye, a lot of things are going to go wrong in your life that technically aren't your fault. Always remember that this doesn't make you any less of an idiot"

--Walleye's Dad

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
shockzilla
Charter member
37800 posts
Sat May-13-06 06:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
31. "indeed."
In response to Reply # 29


          

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
Mau777
Charter member
2780 posts
Sun May-14-06 07:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
33. "Word."
In response to Reply # 29


          

The book is highly overrated.


RealTalkInfinite

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Sun May-14-06 03:03 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
34. "it was a horrible book"
In response to Reply # 29


          

the conspiracy was the only interesting part, and that was taken from another book. the plot, characters, etc., were high school level writing.


-----------------
ShawnDMESlanted is the King of all fantasy basketball and I am one of his lil Bitches

sign up, refer 5 people and get a free ipod nano: http://ipodnanos.freepay.com/?r=25335521

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Thu May-18-06 10:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
49. "What book did this plot come from????"
In response to Reply # 34


  

          

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                            
AZ
Charter member
12930 posts
Thu May-18-06 08:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
50. "Holy Blood, Holy Grail by Michael Baigent"
In response to Reply # 49


          

the plot for the da vinci code didn't come from that book, the conspiracy theory did

the plot was all by dan brown, which is probably why it sucks


-----------------
ShawnDMESlanted is the King of all fantasy basketball and I am one of his lil Bitches

sign up, refer 5 people and get a free ipod nano: http://ipodnanos.freepay.com/?r=25335521

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
MANHOODLUM
Charter member
27788 posts
Fri May-19-06 01:47 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
52. "'Holy Blood Holy Grail' is in WALMART now..."
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

I remember some years ago, I had to go into seemy little book dives to find that amongst all the "underground conspiracy" type books.

That shit'll be in Walgreens in a few months.

Avatar?
E-Boogs and Nayi

MANHOODLUM
Most sig'd okp.
No Aliases.

MANHOODLUM via Twitter
MANHOODLUM@live.com
MANHOODLUM@yahoo.com
Tommy Moran @ Facebook
MANHOODLUM@tmo.blackberry.net

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                                
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Sun May-21-06 11:29 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
80. "Ima check it out, thanks"
In response to Reply # 50


  

          

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

maternalbliss
Member since Jul 05th 2005
2553 posts
Sat May-13-06 04:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
30. "RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)"
In response to Reply # 0


          

>Is anyone intrested in watching this movie?
Yes and I will write a reveiw. I have not read Brown's book but I am aware of the Grail/Rennes Le Chateau conspiracy theory.


>
>I've read the book. When I saw the trailer it seem intresting
>that most of the parts kept true to the scenes in the book.
>The cast seem flawless. I'll shall watch it. Just to see how
>they transfer the book into a movie. Plus to be entertain by
>Audrey Tautou :-D

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ternary_star
Charter member
15211 posts
Sat May-13-06 07:11 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
32. "is it supposed to be 100% serious?"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

never read the book, but from what i've heard and seen of the movie, everyone seems to be taking it really seriously...but it seems hokey as shit to me...underground religious cult led by an albino serial killer and the whole thing about the clues to life being hidden in the last supper painting. seems like indiana jones without the fun. i dunno...just doesn't appeal at all to me.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

AnonymousCoward
Member since Sep 17th 2002
15394 posts
Mon May-15-06 08:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
35. "It will be worse than the shitty book"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Every talks about how poorly written the book is, but they tend to forget thet the PLOT IS BORING TOO. Well, maybe it's not boring, but the plot, even as action/thrillers go, is sub-par. The only reason you keep reading is to uncover his theory about the grail. You don't relly care how it ends for the characters.

http://clydefrazierapproves.com/
http://stylepoints.tumblr.com/

"Like 4 out of 5 things you say on OKP offend me." -FireBrand

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
tappenzee
Member since Sep 28th 2002
19839 posts
Wed May-17-06 01:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
41. "I kept reading because of the whole conspiracy theory"
In response to Reply # 35


  

          

but you're right, I really didn't give a shit about any of the characters or what happened to them.

Maybe Howard and Hanks can change that for the film

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

trane_soulfanatix
Charter member
50 posts
Mon May-15-06 10:35 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
36. "RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I think it'll be good. Me and my girlfriend is going to see it on friday. I loved the book, and i think it could do well as a movie!

http://www.myspace.com/traneofsoulfanatix

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

lonesome_d
Charter member
30443 posts
Mon May-15-06 01:27 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
37. "I would prefer to see a movie version of Foucault's Penduulum"
In response to Reply # 0


          

and I think that's abotu the nicest thing I can say on this topic.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ternary_star
Charter member
15211 posts
Wed May-17-06 10:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
38. "early reviews are pretty terrible"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed May-17-06 10:04 AM by ternary_star

  

          

http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23356

""Da Vinci" never rises to the level of a guilty pleasure. Too much guilt. Not enough pleasure." and Variety's Todd McCarthy states, "Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material"

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
86672 posts
Wed May-17-06 12:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
39. "A.O. Scott just ethered this film in the NY Times (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/17/movies/17cnd-code.html?ex=1305518400&en=c54f70bdffe3c257&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

A Code That Takes Longer to Watch Than Read

By A. O. SCOTT
Published: May 17, 2006

CANNES, France, May 17 — It seems you can't open a movie these days without provoking some kind of culture war skirmish, at least in the conflict-hungry media. Recent history — "The Passion of the Christ," "The Chronicles of Narnia" — suggests that such controversy, especially if religion is involved, can be very good business. "The Da Vinci Code," Ron Howard's adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling primer on how not to write an English sentence, arrives trailing more than its share of theological and historical disputation. The arguments about the movie and the book that inspired it have not been going on for millennia — it only feels that way — but part of Columbia Pictures' ingenious marketing strategy has been to encourage months of debate and speculation while not allowing anyone to see the picture until the very last minute. Thus we have had a flood of think pieces on everything from Jesus and Mary Magdalene's pre-nuptial agreement to the secret recipes of Opus Dei, and vexed, urgent questions have been raised. Is Christianity a conspiracy? Is "The Da Vinci Code" a dangerous, anti-Christian hoax? What's up with Tom Hanks's hair?

Luckily, I lack the learning to address the first two questions. As for the third, well, it's long, and so is the movie. "The Da Vinci Code" is one of the few screen versions of a book that may take longer to watch than to read. (Curiously enough, Mr. Howard accomplished a similar feat with "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" a few years back.) To their credit, the director and his screenwriter, Akiva Goldsman (who collaborated with Mr. Howard on "Cinderella Man" and "A Beautiful Mind"), have streamlined Mr. Brown's story and refrained from trying to capture his, um, prose style. "Almost inconceivably, the gun into which she was now staring was clutched in the pale hand of an enormous albino with long white hair." Such language — note the exquisite "almost" and the fastidious tucking of the "which" after the preposition — can only live on the page. To be fair, though, Mr. Goldsman conjures up some pretty ripe dialogue all on his own. "Your God does not forgive murderers," hisses Audrey Tautou to Paul Bettany (who play a less than enormous, short-haired albino). "He burns them!" Theology aside, this remark can serve as a reminder that "The Da Vinci Code" is, above all, a murder mystery. And as such, once it gets going, Mr. Howard's movie has its pleasures. He and Mr. Goldsman have deftly rearranged some elements of the plot (I'm going to be careful here not to spoil anything), unkinking a few over-elaborate twists and introducing others that keep the action moving along. Hans Zimmer's appropriately overwrought score, pop-romantic with some liturgical decoration, glides us through scenes that might otherwise be talky and inert. The movie does, however, take a while to accelerate, popping the clutch and leaving rubber on the road as it tries to establish who is who, what they're doing and why.

Briefly stated: an old man (Jean-Pierre Marielle) is killed after hours in the Louvre, shot in the stomach, almost inconceivably, by a hooded assailant. Meanwhile, Robert Langdon (Mr. Hanks), a professor of religious symbology at Harvard, is delivering a lecture and signing books for fans. He is summoned to the crime scene by Bezu Fache (Jean Reno), a French policemen who seems very grouchy, perhaps because his department has cut back on its shaving cream budget.

Soon Langdon is joined by Sophie Neveu, a police cryptologist and also — Bezu Fache! — the murder victim's granddaughter. Grandpa, it seems, knew some very important secrets, which if they were ever revealed might shake the foundations of Western Christianity, in particular the Roman Catholic Church, one of whose bishops, the portly Aringarosa (Alfred Molina) is at this very moment flying on an airplane. Meanwhile, the albino monk, whose name is Silas and who may be the first character in the history of motion pictures to speak Latin into a cell phone, flagellates himself, smashes the floor of a church and kills a nun.

A chase, as Bezu's American colleagues might put it, ensues. It skids through the nighttime streets of Paris and eventually to London the next morning, by way of a Roman castle and a chateau in the French countryside. Along the way, the film pauses to admire various knick-knacks and art works, and to flash back, in desaturated color, to traumatic events in the childhoods of various characters (Langdon falls down a well; Sophie's parents are killed in a car accident; Silas stabs his abusive father). There are also glances further back into history, to Constantine's conversion, to the suppression of the Knights Templar and to that time in London when people walked around wearing powdered wigs.

Through it all, Mr. Hanks and Ms. Tautou stand around looking puzzled, leaving their reservoirs of charm scrupulously untapped. Mr. Hanks twists his mouth in what appears to be an expression of professorial skepticism, and otherwise coasts on his easy, subdued geniality. Ms. Tautou, determined to ensure that her name will never again come up in an Internet search for the word "gamine," affects a look of worried fatigue. In spite of some talk (a good deal less than in the book) about the divine feminine, chalices and blades and the spiritual power of sexual connection, not even a glimmer of eroticism flickers between the two stars. Perhaps it's just as well. When a cryptographer and a symbologist get together, it usually ends in tears.

But thank the deity of your choice for Ian McKellen, who shows up just in time to give "The Da Vinci Code" a jolt of mischievous life. He plays a wealthy and eccentric British scholar named Leigh Teabing. (I will give Mr. Brown this much: he's good at names. If I ever have twins or French poodles, I'm calling them Bezu and Teabing for sure.) Hobbling around on two canes, growling at his manservant, Remy (Jean-Yves Berteloot), Teabing is twinkly and avuncular one moment, barking mad the next. Sir Ian, rattling on about Italian paintings and medieval statues, seems to be having the time of his life, and his high spirits serve as something of a rebuke to the filmmakers, who should be having and providing a lot more fun.

Teabing, who strolls out of English detective fiction by way of a Tintin comic, is a marvelously absurd creature, and Sir Ian, in the best tradition of British actors slumming and hamming through American movies, gives a performance in which high conviction is indistinguishable from high camp. A little more of this — a more acute sense of its own ridiculousness — would have given "The Da Vinci Code" some of the lightness of an old-fashioned, jet-setting Euro-thriller.

But of course, movies of that ilk rarely deal with issues like the divinity of Christ or the search for the Holy Grail. In the cinema, such matters are best left to Monty Python. In any case, Mr. Howard and Mr. Goldsman handle the supposedly provocative material in Mr. Brown's book with kid gloves, settling on an utterly safe set of conclusions about faith and its history, presented with the usual dull sententiousness. So I certainly can't support any calls for boycotting or protesting this busy, trivial, inoffensive film. Which is not to say I'm recommending you go see it.

"The Da Vinci Code" is rated PG-13. It has some violent killings and a few profanities.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Morehouse
Member since Feb 25th 2003
7568 posts
Thu May-18-06 09:25 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
48. "if i cared what critics thought, i'd never see anything that interests m..."
In response to Reply # 39


  

          


***********************************

myself is sculptor of
your body’s idiom:
the musician of your wrists;
the poet who is afraid
only to mistranslate
a rhythm in your hair...
-E.E. Cummings

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Mafamaticks
Member since Jan 12th 2004
4667 posts
Fri May-19-06 03:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
53. "RE: A.O. Scott just ethered this film in the NY Times (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 39


  

          

I think critics think it's cool to hate on this movie. It's getting mad press, so you know some niggas wanna shut it down.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
TheSauce
Charter member
1721 posts
Fri May-19-06 10:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
58. "Or it could be a bad movie"
In response to Reply # 53


          

That doesn't live up to the hype.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

adjoa
Member since Jan 23rd 2006
391 posts
Wed May-17-06 01:15 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
40. "Off to see it right this second!"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

Will post back in a few hours... yay for living in Europe, where movies come out on Wednesdays!

************
i know i got it, i don't know what y'all on (c) kanye

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Wed May-17-06 01:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
42. "I'll be interested in seeing how Akiva Goldsman adapted the book"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed May-17-06 01:41 PM by ZooTown74

  

          

which is nothing but exposition and action scenes. That said, and I know it's heresy to say this around here, but I actually enjoyed reading it.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Wed May-17-06 01:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
43. "The complete Variety review (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

>By TODD MCCARTHY

A pulpy page-turner in its original incarnation as a huge international bestseller has become a stodgy, grim thing in the exceedingly literal-minded film version of "The Da Vinci Code." Tackling head-on novelist Dan Brown's controversy-stirring thriller hinging on a subversively revisionist view of Jesus Christ's life, director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull, but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material; result is perhaps the best thing the project's critics could have hoped for. Enormous public anticipation worldwide will result in explosive B.O. at the start in near-simultaneous release in most international territories, beginning May 17 in some countries -- day-and-date with the official Cannes opening-night preem -- and May 19 in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Sitting through all the verbose explanations and speculations about symbols, codes, secret cults, religious history and covert messages in art, it is impossible to believe that, had the novel never existed, such a script would ever have been considered by a Hollywood studio. It's esoteric, heady stuff, made compelling only by the fact that what it's proposing undermines the fundamental tenets of Christianity, especially Roman Catholicism, and, by extension, Western Civilization for the past 2,000 years.

The irony in the film's inadequacy is that the novel was widely found to be so cinematic. Although pretty dismal as prose, the tome fairly rips along, courtesy of a strong story hook, very short chapters that seem like movie scenes, constant movement by the principal characters in a series of conveyances, periodic eruptions of violent action and a compressed 24-hour time frame.

The appearance of its easy adaptability may have been deceptive, however, as what went down easily on the page becomes laborious onscreen, even with the huge visual plus of fabulous French and English locations, fine actors and the ability to scrutinize works of Da Vinci in detail.

What one is left with is high-minded lurid material sucked dry by a desperately solemn approach. Some nifty scene-setting, with strong images amplifying a Paris lecture delivered by Harvard symbology professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) intercut with the Louvre murder of curator Sauniere by albino monk Silas (Paul Bettany), spurs hope that Howard might be on track to find a visual way to communicate the book's content.

But from the first one-on-one scene between Robert and French police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou, occasionally hard to understand), in which she convinces him that cop Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) intends to hold him for the murder, the temperature level drops, and continues to do so as the pair goes on the run to stay one step ahead of Fache while using their complementary specialties to decipher the meaning of the cryptic messages Sauniere scrawled on his body in his own blood before he died.

Part of the quick deflation is due to a palpable lack of chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, an odd thing in itself given their genial accessibility in many previous roles. Howard, normally a generous director of actors, makes them both look stiff, pasty and inexpressive in material that provides them little opportunity to express basic human nature; unlike in the book, they are never allowed to even suggest their fatigue after a full night and day of non-stop running, nor to say anything that doesn't relate directly to narrative forward movement. It's a film so overloaded with plot that there's no room for anything else, from emotion to stylistic grace notes.

The pursuit of a man and a woman barely known to one another was a favorite premise of Alfred Hitchcock, and one need only think of the mileage the director got out of such a set-up in films from "The 39 Steps" to "North by Northwest" to realize some of the missed opportunities here.

Temporary relief comes, an hour in, with the arrival of Ian McKellen as Sir Leigh Teabing, an immensely wealthy Holy Grail fanatic to whom it falls to explain, in unavoidably fascinating monologues, the alternate history the story advances. It is Teabing's thesis that the early Church, beginning with the Emperor Constantine, suppressed the feminine aspects of religion both stemming from pagan times as well as from the prominent role in spreading the faith he insists was played by Mary Magdalene, a role underlined by a close look at Da Vinci's celebrated "The Last Supper."

More than that, however, Teabing insists that Mary Magdalene, far from having been a prostitute, was actually Jesus' wife and that they had a daughter whose bloodline has persisted. McKellen seems to relish every moment and line, which can scarcely be said of the other thesps.

Given the widespread readership the book has enjoyed and the howls of protest from Christian entities beginning with the Vatican, it is hardly spoiling things to point out that the baddies here are members of the strict Catholic sect Opus Dei, including Silas and Alfred Molina's Bishop Aringarosa, defenders of doctrine determined to eliminate the threat to the established order posed by the so-called Priory of Sion, an organization secretly holding the "knowledge" that could cripple the church.

Even after the action moves from France to England, there's still a long way to go, and the final dramatic revelations, however mind-boggling from a content p.o.v., come off as particularly flat.

The darkly burnished stylings cinematographer Salvatore Totino brought to Howard's previous two films, "The Missing" and "Cinderella Man," prove rather less seductive in the largely nocturnal realms of "The Da Vinci Code." Hans Zimmer's ever-present score is at times dramatic to the point of over-insistence.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Wed May-17-06 03:28 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
44. "L.A. Times review (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

>MOVIE REVIEW

'The Da Vinci Code'

Director Ron Howard's film adaptation of the bestselling book premieres at the Cannes Film Festival.

By Kenneth Turan
Times Staff Writer

At the heart of Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" is the Priory of Sion, an organization set up to vigilantly protect "one of the most powerful secrets ever kept." Once Brown's thriller became one of the fastest-selling books of all time, a similar organization — call it the Priory of Hollywood — was set up to protect what's as valuable to the movie business as any secret: a property that had the potential of enormous box office receipts.

No, the Priory of Hollywood, like many of the elements in Brown's book, doesn't really exist, but it is difficult to watch the film version of "The Da Vinci Code" put together by director Ron Howard, producer Brian Grazer, screenwriter Akiva Goldsman and star Tom Hanks and not imagine that it does — and that they are the key members.

For what drives this film is not the sense of excitement that clearly motivated Brown when he realized he'd come up with a world-class premise, but a sense of responsibility. A need to guard the franchise at all costs has seeped into the very bones of this project, into everything from script to casting, and robbed it of the excitement a willingness to consider creative risks might have given it. When director Howard told Entertainment Weekly, "I'll tell you what I get a lot, I get people saying 'Don't screw this up,' there's a lot (of) anxiety about that," he was revealing more about the shape of his film than he may have realized.

Yet despite all this, it doesn't make sense to completely dismiss "Da Vinci" for its lacks any more than it would have to write off the novel because it's filled with clunky on-the-nose sentences like "Sophie felt herself staggering backward in amazement" and the always popular "Then everything went black." Both the novel and the film are helped, albeit to different degrees, by Brown's compelling premise. While the story plays better on the page than the screen and some of the film's elements work better than others, a proficient Ron Howard version of things is certainly competent if only occasionally thrilling.

One of the reasons Brown's theological thriller was successful enough to be translated into 44 languages is the nature of his thesis. Yes, "Da Vinci" is not shy about venerable genre elements like numbered Swiss accounts and narrow escapes. But its gangbusters plot of a supposed secret history of the Catholic religion linked with "the greatest cover-up in human history" resonated mightily with a conspiracy-hungry public that a) is more than happy to assume that forces of authority aren't leveling with us and b) wants desperately to be in on the secret and in the know.

If Brown's novel has something of the excitement of a nervy leap into the void (the book's level of success was hardly predictable), the script by Goldsman (an Oscar winner for "A Beautiful Mind") has some of the paint-by-numbers qualities of a Classics Illustrated comic book. Though there has been some monkeying with plot details, especially at the end, plus some noteworthy thematic exclusions and additions, the 2 hour and 32 minute film is careful to be as faithful as it feels it can be to all of the book's major plot elements.

So "Da Vinci" opens on screen with Louvre curator Jacques Sauniere (Jean-Pierre Marielle) being chased down the darkened corridors of his Paris museum by a monk named Silas (Paul Bettany) who has murder on his mind. Before Saunier dies he uses his own blood to both mark and arrange his body in such a way that French judicial police captain Bezu Fache (Jean Reno) feels it necessary to talk to Robert Langdon (Hanks).

Langdon, a Harvard Professor of Religious Symbiology (no, the position does not exist), just happens to be in Paris giving a talk to an appreciative audience. No sooner is he whisked away to the Louvre to view the body than a fetching young police cryptographer named Sophie Nevue ("Amelie's" Audrey Tatou) shows up. She soon clandestinely lets Langdon know that he is in great danger: Fache, a policeman with the bulldog tenacity of "Les Miserables'" legendary Jaubert, suspects him in the murder of Sauniere, who just happens to be Sophie's estranged grandfather.

The rest of "Da Vinci," on the screen as well as on the page, is a multi-faceted chase. As Fache and others, including Silas and assorted members of the Catholic organization Opus Dei (which is real but strenuously denies any sinister aspects), chase after Langdon and Sophie, they try and figure out why her grandfather was murdered and what it has to do with them. In the process they talk a lot about ancient Church history and seek the assistance of Sir Leigh Teabing (Ian McKellen), the reigning expert on the Holy Grail.

Teabing lives in Chateau Villette outside of Paris, and one of the pleasures the "Da Vinci" offers is the chance to see it and other key novel locations, including the interior of the Louvre, London's Temple Church and Scotland's Rosslyn Chapel. (Two other key locations, Westminster Abbey and Paris's Saint Sulpice church, agreed to be filmed in exterior shots only, with interiors shot elsewhere.) And Teabing's illustrated lecture on Da Vinci's "The Last Supper" makes the book's points about the painting much easier to grasp.

As to the film's other key visual elements, the cast, the results are equally mixed. To deal with the best first, Audrey Tautou is impressive as the intrepid Sophie, bringing the necessary urgency as well as a welcome conviction to this critical role.

"Da Vinci's" supporting cast is less successful for a variety of reasons. Both Reno and Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa are cast too on the nose to be compelling, and though Ian McKellen is always interesting on screen, his performance comes off as more relaxed than involving. Paul Bettany as the tortured monk is anything but relaxed, and while his performance is a strong one, it is not what the film needs: Silas should be out and out terrifying but he ends up more weird than deeply menacing.

Equally problematic is Hanks performance as protagonist Langdon. Likely cast for Priory of Hollywood reasons — who do you put in the biggest novel adaptation but the business' biggest male star — he is not, his much-commented upon longer hair notwithstanding, the best person for the part. There is something constrained about Hanks' work, he's too reactive, almost like his assignment was to be the film's master of ceremonies, introducing the audience to key plot elements. And the hint of dashing romantic charisma that should be part of his character's makeup if the relationship with Sophie Neveu is to hold us has never been one of Hanks' strengths.

As to director Howard, he too comes off as a kind of emcee, intent on not getting in the way of this juggernaut of a story. Changes in emphasis have been made, such as the downsizing of the pagan ritual of Hieros Gamos that plays a key part in the novel. And, perhaps in reaction to conservative Roman Catholic criticism of the book, a section has been added that emphasizes the power and importance of Jesus in the modern world. But finally "The Da Vinci Code" remains a calculated bet on a promising hand. The Hollywood mystery of the moment is whether it's going to pay off.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

HighVoltage
Member since Jan 04th 2004
16583 posts
Wed May-17-06 05:04 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
45. "rottentomatoes shits all over this movie"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

~~~~~~~~~~~~

www.itsallthewaylive.net

www.twitter.com/allthewaylive

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Wed May-17-06 06:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
46. "RE: The Da Vinci Code (The Movie)"
In response to Reply # 0


          

WOW. alot of negativity.

All I got to say is, you're your own critic. You decide, don't let others decide for you.


I never like reading other people's reviews and critics critiques of a film or album. Especially if it's someone/something you would like to watch/listen.

but then again, this is the PTP boards, so you can't get away from that.

Well, I'm still watching the movie, no matter what.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Allah
Charter member
47756 posts
Wed May-17-06 09:26 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
47. "I am going to see it..........."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

.............

_______________________
"Arm Leg Leg Arm Hate." c/o desus
_______________________
Divine Ruler
http://www.facebook.com/divineruler
__gigs__
__stuff__

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

topaz
Member since Nov 28th 2002
6236 posts
Fri May-19-06 08:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
51. "watched it today, enjoyed it"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

i haven't read the book though

-
Gang Starr / Nujabes blend - https://youtu.be/lsci1vu6ick
DOOM Tribute - https://youtu.be/qmBQ2BDefKM
Donut of the Heart cover in Javascript - https://youtu.be/afLc2CkC8lk

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

CMcMurtry
Member since Nov 28th 2002
17053 posts
Fri May-19-06 04:13 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
54. "The box office numbers will be through the roof"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I went to a noon showing today and the theatre was 3/4 full. And that was with showings at 1, 2 and 3.

I'm sure some people took the day off what with the long weekend but still. I've gone to a couple other movies the afternoon of the first day they open and there are never more than 15 people in the theater (even for stuff like Inside Man & V For Vendetta).

As for the movie itself, I found the story to be completely absurd and the way they told it was not at all suspenceful. I've been led to understand by those who've read the book that it's a good thriller and builds up suspence but there is very little of that here.

I liked Jean Reno and the Paris setting, but other than that, it was pretty ordinary.

@@1/2

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Fri May-19-06 09:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
56. "RE: The box office numbers will be through the roof"
In response to Reply # 54


          

I just watched it. It was ordinary if you haven't read the book...but then again...the movie version cut alot of the story (First 45mintues to an hour stayed true with the story, the last hour or so was cut very short). I enjoyed it, but it was nothing new. I love how it stayed true with location. Overall, nothing much. Just a regular Summer Blockbuster. The only reason this will sell well is because of the controversy behind, which in my mind, is nothing big. Well yea...I give it props.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
queenisisdivine
Charter member
7138 posts
Sun May-21-06 02:56 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
81. "I'm not sure it could be more suspenseful"
In response to Reply # 54


  

          

>As for the movie itself, I found the story to be completely
>absurd and the way they told it was not at all suspenceful.
>I've been led to understand by those who've read the book that
>it's a good thriller and builds up suspence but there is very
>little of that here.


I heard the book was a great read too but obviously reading leaves things up to the imagination and film is the exact opposite. How could it have been more suspenseful? Look at the storyline. They had to fill in those who haven't read the book so I think a lot of extra dialogue as opposed to action should have been expected. They're telling ancient stories and giving theories as to how religious controversy came about. I can't think of a way to make something like that any more "suspenseful". I think they did a decent job with what they were working with.



I'm so FoCuSeD
~>http://www.myspace.com/hiphopgyrl
~>http://ihearthiphop.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Fri May-19-06 09:33 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
55. "saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*"
In response to Reply # 0


          

Let me say up front, this is not a good movie.

I never read the book. I didn't hear about it until it was already extremely popular. Then I heard too much that led me to believe it was an oversimplified version of other books I enjoy. I like historical conspiracy stuff, mostly of the non-fiction variety. But this just seemed too "mass-market" for me.

Anyway. I got to see a free screening at work, so there you go. Or there I went.

The main problem with the movie is Tom Hanks and his character, separately. Hanks seems inappropriately cast (yes, I know I haven't read the book). He has a different feel than most of the other characters, like he's acting in a different movie. Then there's the things the character has to say. For the first half of the movie or more, seems like all he has to say is variations of "My God!" and "That's impossible." You know, after seeing the first few things he sees, he probably should suspend his disbelief.

The action is cartoonish, but I suppose any visual aids would be an improvement over the same thing on the written page. But everything from Audrey Tautou driving backwards through the Paris traffic to shooting at people inside close quarters to just generically staged gunpoint scenes, it all just seems like if they spent a little more time thinking about it they could have come up with something a bit more believable.

What made it a not completely terrible experience is that I'm just a sucker for the historical conspiracy stuff. However inaccurate it all may be. It does pick up a little bit after the halfway point. And Ian McKellan is really good. His is probably the most believable performance in the movie, and yet it is very much over the top. He's having fun, as usual, and you have fun watching him.

So, add all that up with the fact that I saw it for free, I'd say it's a mildly entertaining movie yet one I would have a hard time recommending.

I know most people seem to be saying that fans of the book would enjoy the movie more than those who didn't read it. However, I think it's the other way around. For the most part, I think the history and the codes and stuff are the most enjoyable part of the movie, but those who have read the book already know that stuff. If you already know the secrets, then there's really not much else to enjoy.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Fri May-19-06 09:43 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
57. "RE: saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*"
In response to Reply # 55


          

I AGREE. I read the book and the movie was somewhat boring. They cut some dialogue, scenes, and puzzles from the book. The only part that I liked was between Hanks and Audrey in the end. I mean, I enjoyed the movie, but it wasn't special. I don't recommend this to average people looking for a "Idiana Jones" type of triller or in many cases this is more like a "National Treasure" triller.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pap_Smear
Charter member
2463 posts
Fri May-19-06 11:32 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
60. "if they didn't cut some of the dialogue..."
In response to Reply # 57


          

you would still be watching that jawn

---------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
queenisisdivine
Charter member
7138 posts
Mon May-22-06 11:41 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
90. "exactly! lol"
In response to Reply # 60


  

          

>you would still be watching that jawn


I'm so FoCuSeD
~>http://www.myspace.com/hiphopgyrl
~>http://ihearthiphop.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
SienaBlaze
Charter member
2596 posts
Sun May-21-06 07:53 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
79. "RE: saw today, and as much as I wanted to hate it... *mild spoilers*"
In response to Reply # 55


          



>The main problem with the movie is Tom Hanks and his
>character, separately. Hanks seems inappropriately cast (yes,
>I know I haven't read the book). He has a different feel than
>most of the other characters, like he's acting in a different
>movie. Then there's the things the character has to say. For
>the first half of the movie or more, seems like all he has to
>say is variations of "My God!" and "That's impossible." You
>know, after seeing the first few things he sees, he probably
>should suspend his disbelief.
>



Thank you

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Pap_Smear
Charter member
2463 posts
Fri May-19-06 11:31 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
59. "Fuck the critics. They hate everything. I thought it was pretty good"
In response to Reply # 0


          

I read the book and thought Brown did a horrible job "proving" most of his theories, but I watched the movie the way I read the book; as a suspenseful thriller. That's all it really is.


---------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Sat May-20-06 12:02 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
61. "The better critics (like A.O. Scott above) said the same thing"
In response to Reply # 59


          

I haven't seen a critic that said the movie wasn't decent entertainment.

Sometimes this critic hate is as bad as the movie hate.


RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Pap_Smear
Charter member
2463 posts
Sat May-20-06 09:07 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
65. "Are you kidding me???"
In response to Reply # 61


          

what reviews have you been reading?

Every review I've read stated the movie was "boring" and ripped it apart from beginning to end.

Doesn't matter though. I still enjoyed it for what it is; entertainment.

---------------------------

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Sat May-20-06 11:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
76. "maybe I misread your post"
In response to Reply # 65


          

But your post hardly sounded like a glowing recommendation.

The part I must have misread was "suspenseful thriller." I thought you were just pointing out the genre.

In any event, you put "boring" in quotes. I never said critics didn't call it boring. I said they said what you put in your post, that the history is wrong and it's just a suspense(ful) thriller.

But A.O. Scott's review above says the following:

"Theology aside, this remark can serve as a reminder that "The Da Vinci Code" is, above all, a murder mystery. And as such, once it gets going, Mr. Howard's movie has its pleasures. He and Mr. Goldsman have deftly rearranged some elements of the plot (I'm going to be careful here not to spoil anything), unkinking a few over-elaborate twists and introducing others that keep the action moving along."

Translated: it's okay as entertainment.

I would like to hear what you think Mr. Scott got wrong in his review.

>Doesn't matter though. I still enjoyed it for what it is;
>entertainment.

Yeah, for what it is. The people who like the movie seem careful to limit what we judge it on. The history is in the movie, less so than in the book, but it's there. Is everyone just supposed to pretend it's not?

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Sat May-20-06 12:12 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
62. "RE: Fuck the critics. They hate everything. I thought it was pretty good"
In response to Reply # 59


          

Yes. Fuck the critics.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mashpg89
Member since Dec 08th 2004
2867 posts
Sat May-20-06 11:54 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
77. "Agreed"
In response to Reply # 59


  

          

I liked this movie. Da Pope is ghostwriting the reviews.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

DrNO
Charter member
25381 posts
Sat May-20-06 12:52 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
63. "."
In response to Reply # 0
Sat May-20-06 12:53 AM by DrNO

  

          

.

_
http://youtube.com/watch?v=4TztqYaemt0
http://preptimeposse.blogspot.com/

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 02:06 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
64. "Man, I feel for Akiva Goldsman..."
In response to Reply # 0
Sat May-20-06 02:07 AM by ZooTown74

  

          

I mean, true, the bastard will probably make more money in the last year than I will probably make over the next 10, but this had to have been a tough nut to crack.

Having read the book, it seems to me that he was told that no matter what, you are to stick to the basic plot points and dialogue of the book... no matter what. This must have been a tough adaptation, because while the story makes for a good, breezy read (all 454 pages of it), it doesn't make for a solid movie. I'm sure the adaptation seemed simple in the beginning, as once you start reading the book (and despite all the criticism from the elite lit, I think it was genius to write the book the way Dan Brown did), it seems like it's a fast, fun ride.

The movie version of the book only does that intermittently. The big, big, BIG problem with the movie is directly the fault of the book. The thing that Dan Brown does is introduce a concept, then spend 2-3 paragraphs describing what the concept is. And while it's informative on the page, on the screen it equals DEATH. Having Tom Hanks walk with Audrey Tatou while explaining practically everything just doesn't work well on the screen (the flashbacks, on the other hand, were fine). There was a lot of that going on, especially in the first hour, which took away from getting to know who the characters were.

Robert Langdon, on the page, is somewhat interesting, but when you read the book it is assumed that you already know his story from Angels and Demons, which is the book that precedes this one. I don't know how they could have done it, but there should have been some way to get a little more backstory on Robert Langdon beside his fear of closed spaces. On the screen, Tom Hanks plays Langdon surprisingly staid. At least in the book there was a *hint* of Langdon having some kind of life outside of his profession, and even when he was teaching his class there was a sense that the character knew how to have fun, despite being a "Professor of Symbiology." We don't really get that in the film. We barely get to know the guy before he's plunged into the story.

It would have been nice to see Tom Hanks add some zest to the guy. I'm not saying he had to take us back to the wild and crazy days of Bachelor Party, but come on, he should have been given some creative license to loosen Langdon up a little. I think that Hanks' much-discussed hairdo was supposed to give us some kind of inkling as to what kind of person Langdon is/was: perhaps a bit of a free-spirit with an academic mind to boot, but it's just not there.

I know Tom Hanks has said that Dan Brown believes that he himself is Robert Langdon. Well, if that's the case, I hope Dan Brown takes a good look at his character/himself before he completes the follow-up to this book and it's adapted for the screen, because this incarnation of Robert Langdon was Dull City. I'm not sure if recasting would have been the solution, as I think Tom Hanks has the chops and veritas to play the guy, but his performance felt unnecessarily constipated, in a matter of speaking.

Audrey Tatou also seemed a bit too subdued. In the book it read as if Sophie Neuveu was more active, more alive.... in the film it seems as if all she does is follow Langdon around, reminisce about her grandfather, and ask some questions.

And then there's Sir Ian McKellen, as Leigh Teabing.

Just as it was the case in the book, Leigh Teabing shows up and gives the story some life, some juice. He's an interesting character. Funny, smart, roguish. You know what kind of person he is the moment you first "meet" him. McKellen takes the role and adds his own... *charisma* to it... that same thing that he's used to great, seductive effect in the X-Men movies, especially X2. The scene in which he and Tom Hanks explain the church conspiracy to Sophie, while engaging in a friendly, intelligent, and competitive debate (imagine that), hinted at what the rest of the movie could have been, had both characters been given some life.

Paul Bettany wasn't as intimidating as I thought Silas should be. Watching the film, I never got the sense that he was supposed to be this menace, moving in the shadows to kill in the name of God. Bettany came across as this really skinny Albino with an unhealthy fetish for S & M and religion. And I know that I said the flashbacks were fine, but the way Silas' flashback with Bishop Arringarosa was handled, which was supposed to clue us into the depth of their relationship, was a bit sloppy. Speaking of Arringarosa, it didn't seem like Alfred Molina was given much to do with the role, though I know that some of his scenes from the book didn't make the film, probably because they didn't have much bearing on the story.

Speaking of the story, there were a few puzzle-solving/quick escape scenes that read well on the page but came across as completely implausible on screen. I have to admit that I did get irritated at the use of "Beautiful Mind"-esque visual effects to let us know that Robert Langdon was... thinking! And thinking REALLY HARD! I understand that this probably was the only way to get the notion across, since "watching Robert's mind work" it is quite important to the story, but a little went a long way. And I'm really not sure how else they would have conveyed the same information.

Again, the things that made the book an enjoyable, breezy read are the same things that drag the movie down: the loads of information and backstory, and the moments of Robert, or Sophie, or someone else thinking or solving puzzles just didn't translate well.

So, as was the case with Sin City last year, we have a slavishly faithful adaptation of a book to film, which ultimately hurts the film. While the movie wasn't "pins-in-ones-eyes" horrible (sorry, gang), it wasn't as good as it could have been.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Sat May-20-06 01:40 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
67. "Fuck Akiva (Note: This is an Akiva post not a DaVinci Code post)"
In response to Reply # 64


          

I'm going to start out by admitting committing one of the mortal PTP sins. I haven't seen DaVinci code. But one of the reasons I haven't and probably won't is because of Akiva. This post is in response of anyone feeling sympathy for the man and is not based on this film itself.

Akiva has had one good script and he stole the main structure of it from someone (Beautiful Mind). His dialogue is consistently heavy handed and he never brings the best out of the material. The only interesting parts of I, Robot came from the book and he didn't raise the material at all.

The Client, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, A Time to Kill, Lost in Space, Practical Magic, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, and now DaVinci Code. Couldn't be a more vanilla filmography out there. Dude has great source material and makes it average melodrama every time out.

The shit he's produced isnt much better: Lost in Space, Starsky and Hutch, Mindhunters, Constantine, Mr and Mrs. Smith, Poseidon. The fact that this guy is considered one of the era's better screenwriters is 100% why this era of Hollywood has been steeped in mediocrity.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 01:46 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
68. "1. I didn't say anything about Akiva being a good writer"
In response to Reply # 67


  

          

2. Any "sympathy" that I have for him is derived from his trying, as a fellow writer, to adapt and shape a novel that is thick with exposition and backstory into a coherent film. It couldn't have been easy.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Sat May-20-06 02:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
69. "Why is sympathy in quotes?"
In response to Reply # 68
Sat May-20-06 02:20 PM by SoulHonky

          

The titie was, Man I feel for Akiva. That's pretty much the definition of sympathy.

And while I know that he couldn't have gone the "Adaptation" route with it, but he could have done something. Would you say he tried to do a standard adaptation of a book that was widely considered to be too difficult to adapt that way?

Akiva's a bull in a china shop. He and Howard were hands down the wrong men for the job and I think any and everyone knew that from the moment they got the gig. It's like feeling bad for Keanu when he tries to take on a tough role and fails. They never should never have been there in the first place.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 03:19 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
70. "*sigh*"
In response to Reply # 69
Sat May-20-06 03:20 PM by ZooTown74

  

          

>The titie was, Man I feel for Akiva. That's pretty much the
>definition of sympathy.

No, the next sentence in that post explains why, **speaking as a fellow writer**, I felt it must have been tough for him to adapt this book ("this must have been one tough nut to crack."). In that sense, it's sympathetic. Or, if we must play the semantic game, empathetic. Nothing more should be read into it. No, seriously, it shouldn't.


>And while I know that he couldn't have gone the "Adaptation"
>route with it, but he could have done something.

I really don't think so. I think his hands were shackled (no, not literally) by those in charge (and I'm not just talking about Ron Howard and Brian Grazer, try people like John Calley, Dan Brown and Amy Pascal). I'm sure he was told, hey, there are over 40 million copies of this book in circulation, the people that come to see this movie are going to want to see just about every page up there on the screen. Well, that's a tough nut to crack *as a writer*, because in the book there are important passages which feature characters... thinking... and... remembering... and explaining. All of which doesn't exactly add up to excitement on the screen. The book reads very well on the page, but doesn't translate very well to the screen. It must have been a tough adaptation. Not in the Charlie Kaufman/Nic Cage sense, but it must have been hard to pull off.


>It's like feeling bad
>for Keanu when he tries to take on a tough role and fails.

But I never said Akiva failed, or Woe is Akiva, life must be hard for him. I simply said it must have been a tough adaptation, and *as a writer*, I can relate. Nothing more, nothing less.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Sat May-20-06 05:52 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
73. "*awkard pause*"
In response to Reply # 70


          

It was a tough book to adapt. He had a tough time adapting it. As a fellow writer, you see that it was tough.

And?

As a fellow fellow writer I don't see the point in mentioning that a guy had a tough time with a tough job. It seems like you are half-heartedly defending him (assuming he had his hands tied). I just don't think you have to give people exactly what the book was. They cut a lot out of the Harry Potter novels.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                        
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 06:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
74. "I'm going to finish here, and say that in no way am I defending,"
In response to Reply # 73


  

          

half-heartedly or otherwise, Akiva Goldsman. People can analyze and interpret (and desire to argue) as many sentences of my review of the film as they wish, but that wasn't the intent.

There is no 'and.' The end.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 01:25 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
66. "Saturday box office update"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

from Box Office Guru:

>Moviegoers flocked to the multiplexes on Friday to see the much-anticipated thriller The Da Vinci Code which grossed an estimated $30.2M in its first day of release. The Ron Howard film generated the biggest opening day gross since the $39.8M first-day tally of another blockbuster based on a best-selling book - last November's Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Da Vinci is now on course to gross more in its opening weekend than what the last films from Howard and Hanks collected over their entire runs. Last summer, Cinderella Man punched up $61.6M for the director while Hanks last starred in a live-action pic in 2004's The Terminal which took in $77M.

With intense upfront demand, The Da Vinci Code is likely to see its Friday take become a large percentage of its three-day tally. However, as an adult-skewing film, Saturday sales should be solid as well. For the Friday-to-Sunday period, Sony's religious thriller might collect $80-85M giving the summer season its first bonafide blockbuster hit.

Also debuting to strong results on Friday was the animated comedy Over the Hedge which captured an estimated $11.1M in its first day in theaters. The DreamWorks film opened a bit higher than the $10.7M opening day of last November's Disney toon Chicken Little which banked a $40M debut frame. For the weekend, Over the Hedge may find itself with $36-41M.

Horror fans spent an estimated $1.7M on the new fright flick See No Evil which should reach $4-5M for Lionsgate this weekend.

Among holdovers, Friday-to-Friday declines were 55% for Mission: Impossible III, 58% for Poseidon, and 44% for Just My Luck.
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
CMcMurtry
Member since Nov 28th 2002
17053 posts
Sat May-20-06 05:07 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
71. "Not surprising"
In response to Reply # 66


  

          

What was the budget on this flick? With Hanks & Howard's salaries, it must've been high, plus buying the book in the first place, but I can't see it being much over $100 mil, if that. They'll make it back by Wednesday.

Funny how that WWE movie bombed. It looks awful.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sat May-20-06 05:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
72. "RE: Not surprising"
In response to Reply # 71
Sat May-20-06 06:09 PM by ZooTown74

  

          

>What was the budget on this flick? With Hanks & Howard's
>salaries, it must've been high, plus buying the book in the
>first place, but I can't see it being much over $100 mil, if
>that.

It was estimated to be at $125million, according to Box Office Mojo.


>They'll make it back by Wednesday.

Yep.


>Funny how that WWE movie bombed. It looks awful.

It's bad when even the S & M horror movie crowd won't even go see your movie. ________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
SoulHonky
Member since Jan 21st 2003
25919 posts
Sat May-20-06 08:58 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
75. "Did See No Evil bomb?"
In response to Reply # 71


          

I actually wasn't expecting it to make that much. With little publicity and only an 8 million budget, it should at least break even. Now Poseidon, that's a bomb.

----
NBA MOCK DRAFT #1 - https://thecourierclass.com/whole-shebang/2017/5/18/2017-nba-mock-draft-1-just-lotto-and-lotta-trades

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sun May-21-06 01:03 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
78. "It's not a flop"
In response to Reply # 75


  

          

but WWE expected a slightly better gross, considering the fact that one of the big angles on their shows for the past few weeks has revolved around the release date "tormenting" Kane, as some kind of mystery event that happened on May 19 was supposed to have haunted him. Whenever a wrestler would say "May 19," Kane would kick their ass, which naturally meant that the audience in the arena was encouraged to chant "May 19" at Kane (who is a heel), at which he would get upset. The release date has come and gone, and we never found out what happened on May 19 that tormented and haunted Kane.

You guys want to talk about sloppy, lazy writing...
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
sithlord
Member since Aug 05th 2002
2832 posts
Sun May-21-06 06:05 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
82. "Yo, there were some protesters in Memphis!"
In response to Reply # 78
Sun May-21-06 06:06 PM by sithlord

  

          

About five of them standing in front of The Paradiso theater. I went to one of the first showings today and it was damn near sold out.

I asked one of the protesters if they were protesting "See No Evil" and he didn't know what I was talking about. I said, "it's this really violent movie about this mass murderer killing a bunch of people for no reason with no redeeming qualities whatsoever."
Dude was like, "uh, no...we're protesting the blasphemy in the DaVinci Code."
To which I responded, "Oh. I forgot that was playing. I think I'll go see that. Thanks for reminding me. Oh. Shouldn't you be in church?"

The movie wasn't bad, but it wasn't great. I might cop the book eventually. During the "big reveal" scene, I couldn't help but think back to Dogma, when Jay said, "so that means Bethany's part black?" It applies.

"I mean people think this business is all about money, sex and drugs. Well, it is. But you've also got to remember it is a business. So handle your business, pay your taxes and be on time.''
-The infinite wisdom of Juicy J of Three 6 Mafia

"What's wrong with revenge? It's the best way to get even."
-Archie Bunker

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                    
ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Sun May-21-06 09:37 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
85. "Well played, sir."
In response to Reply # 82


  

          

That's a pretty funny story. And not surprising in the least.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Sun May-21-06 08:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
83. "I liked it and it looks like 77 mil for the weekend"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I didnt like Tom Hanks when they casted him but I thought his performance was pretty good. He didnt come off as a superhero he pulled off the nerdy symboligist who got thrown into the mix of this manhunt.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Nettrice
Charter member
61747 posts
Sun May-21-06 09:10 PM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
84. "V"
In response to Reply # 0
Sun May-21-06 09:15 PM by Nettrice

  

          

I loved that symbol explained in the film (true or not). I never read the book and never had an interest in reading it even after seeing the movie that I enjoyed for what it was...a mystery movie. While I do feel that some parts of the film are factual most of it is fiction, purely entertainment. So now I wonder what the big deal is. Why do people put so much into a fiction-based book/film? Perhaps there's more truth than I thought.

...


I give them movie a B because it piqued my interest early on and keep me awake throughout (it's a long movie). I thought most of the effects were cool and it brought back memories of the Louvre. I have always thought that art was the medium used to educate the masses since early times and continues to be a tool used by those in power. The film/Brown asks a question: What if? The rest is imagination.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Frank Longo
Member since Nov 18th 2003
86672 posts
Mon May-22-06 01:09 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
86. "This movie is a perfect example of how to make a bad movie."
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

I never read the book, but man, I feel for those of you who did. You must have been bored out of your damn minds.

Let me start by saying I feel like this material could DEFINITELY make a very interesting movie. The conspiracies, the escapes, the treasure hunting...couple that with how HUGE the book is, and there's no way this film shouldn't at LEAST be entertaining.

And it is, to a degree. But it's all based on the strength of the material. Ron Howard has done his best to take interesting material and make it as dull and awful as possible.

Let me highlight all of the things he did wrong:

1. He ruined Tom Hanks in this film. Audrey Tatou as well, for that matter. Both of them have ZERO sense of discovery. They take everything they see as fact-- they are never surprised, they never are excited/scared to learn things, and they never grow. Tom Hanks is the KING of making discovering exciting/touching/etc., so I can't blame this on Tom Hanks. Someone told me the book is very much like this-- the character learns something new, they move on, with little to-do or reaction to the astounding secrets they're uncovering. So maybe this was done by Ron Howard to be more faithful to the book. But goddammit, you couldn't have taken out a few of those Beautiful Mind special effect shots on the letters and instead put a few more seconds of Tom Hanks discovering in wonder? Tom Hanks unlocks an ENORMOUS riddle, and his reaction is at best muted? Audrey Tatou discovers what she does (I'll keep it spoiler-free), and she merely sits down and thinks? There's no excitement/panic? There's SO MUCH emotional ground to be explored, and neither of them did. I can't blame them, for they're both terrific actors in my past experiences watching them. The blame has got to go on Ron for this one.

2. The cinematography is awful. Purely, truly awful. This movie is all about art-- the examination, discovery, appreciation of art, and what art can teach us. You're telling me, Ron Howard, that a film about art has to look like a piece of shit? You couldn't have, oh, I don't know, BRIGHTENED IT UP A BIT? Every single event in this film with little exception takes place in a very murky night. Every shot looks like mud was flung onto the camera lens and filmed through that. A film about art, and not a single frame on screen is pretty to look at. *shakes head*

3. The score was simply too much. It made everything-- including the non-reactions of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou-- seem VERY melodramatic. Ooh, I'm solving puzzles with my mind! *score plays frenetic suspense music* I'm sitting down in the back of a van! *score plays frenetic suspense music* I'm looking at a painting! *score plays frenetic suspense music* I mean, come ON already. Also, Paul Bettany hamming it up as Silas wasn't aided by the music either. I usually love Paul Bettany, but the dude just put on a "creepy face" and went to work with it.

4. When adapting a well-known book, you need to stay true to as much of it as possible. However, it's more important to capture the feel and the emotions that the book stimulates than to nail every single plot point on the head. I realize this may not have been Akiva the Hun's fault. But even so, unless the book is boring, unsuspenseful, and unemotional, they failed to capture what the book is about. I realize there are MANY critics of the book on this site, but millions of people apparently dig it, so there must be SOMETHING missing on the screen if it's a boring movie.

5. I can't get into the editing of this film. It hurts me to think about. Just bad.

6. The NY Times said they handles all the controversy and stuff with "kid gloves". I couldn't agree more. I haven't even read the book, but when three of Tom Hanks' lines in a row are "We don't know that, and many scholars and believers would disagree with this theory," it becomes very VERY clear that the filmmakers are trying to cover their asses. There's already so much in the film that if a Catholic was trying to find something to make them mad, they'd find it with EASE. A bunch of skeptical sentences trying to cover their asses aren't gonna solve anything, they just look like glaring "love me" calls.

Bottom line: It wasn't all bad, because the story for those who didn't read the book is fairly interesting. However, for those who did read the book, you'll more than likely be bored as sin. And for those of us who haven't read the book, you'll really understand that the only thing this film has going for it is material, because Ron Howard does his best to butcher a potentially interesting film.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Mon May-22-06 10:33 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
89. "RE: This movie is a perfect example of how to make a bad movie."
In response to Reply # 86


          

"be bored as sin"

Someone mention that here. It's true though, cause the stuff I wanted in the book didn't make it on big screen. They chopped some parts and rearrange the material! it's cool...but I felt your review.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
queenisisdivine
Charter member
7138 posts
Mon May-22-06 12:24 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
91. "^^^perfect review"
In response to Reply # 86


  

          

>I never read the book, but man, I feel for those of you who
>did. You must have been bored out of your damn minds.
>
>Let me start by saying I feel like this material could
>DEFINITELY make a very interesting movie. The conspiracies,
>the escapes, the treasure hunting...couple that with how HUGE
>the book is, and there's no way this film shouldn't at LEAST
>be entertaining.
>
>And it is, to a degree. But it's all based on the strength of
>the material. Ron Howard has done his best to take interesting
>material and make it as dull and awful as possible.
>
>Let me highlight all of the things he did wrong:
>
>1. He ruined Tom Hanks in this film. Audrey Tatou as well, for
>that matter. Both of them have ZERO sense of discovery. They
>take everything they see as fact-- they are never surprised,
>they never are excited/scared to learn things, and they never
>grow. Tom Hanks is the KING of making discovering
>exciting/touching/etc., so I can't blame this on Tom Hanks.
>Someone told me the book is very much like this-- the
>character learns something new, they move on, with little
>to-do or reaction to the astounding secrets they're
>uncovering. So maybe this was done by Ron Howard to be more
>faithful to the book. But goddammit, you couldn't have taken
>out a few of those Beautiful Mind special effect shots on the
>letters and instead put a few more seconds of Tom Hanks
>discovering in wonder? Tom Hanks unlocks an ENORMOUS riddle,
>and his reaction is at best muted? Audrey Tatou discovers what
>she does (I'll keep it spoiler-free), and she merely sits down
>and thinks? There's no excitement/panic? There's SO MUCH
>emotional ground to be explored, and neither of them did. I
>can't blame them, for they're both terrific actors in my past
>experiences watching them. The blame has got to go on Ron for
>this one.
>
>2. The cinematography is awful. Purely, truly awful. This
>movie is all about art-- the examination, discovery,
>appreciation of art, and what art can teach us. You're telling
>me, Ron Howard, that a film about art has to look like a piece
>of shit? You couldn't have, oh, I don't know, BRIGHTENED IT UP
>A BIT? Every single event in this film with little exception
>takes place in a very murky night. Every shot looks like mud
>was flung onto the camera lens and filmed through that. A film
>about art, and not a single frame on screen is pretty to look
>at. *shakes head*
>
>3. The score was simply too much. It made everything--
>including the non-reactions of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tatou--
>seem VERY melodramatic. Ooh, I'm solving puzzles with my mind!
>*score plays frenetic suspense music* I'm sitting down in the
>back of a van! *score plays frenetic suspense music* I'm
>looking at a painting! *score plays frenetic suspense music* I
>mean, come ON already. Also, Paul Bettany hamming it up as
>Silas wasn't aided by the music either. I usually love Paul
>Bettany, but the dude just put on a "creepy face" and went to
>work with it.
>
>4. When adapting a well-known book, you need to stay true to
>as much of it as possible. However, it's more important to
>capture the feel and the emotions that the book stimulates
>than to nail every single plot point on the head. I realize
>this may not have been Akiva the Hun's fault. But even so,
>unless the book is boring, unsuspenseful, and unemotional,
>they failed to capture what the book is about. I realize there
>are MANY critics of the book on this site, but millions of
>people apparently dig it, so there must be SOMETHING missing
>on the screen if it's a boring movie.
>
>5. I can't get into the editing of this film. It hurts me to
>think about. Just bad.
>
>6. The NY Times said they handles all the controversy and
>stuff with "kid gloves". I couldn't agree more. I haven't even
>read the book, but when three of Tom Hanks' lines in a row are
>"We don't know that, and many scholars and believers would
>disagree with this theory," it becomes very VERY clear that
>the filmmakers are trying to cover their asses. There's
>already so much in the film that if a Catholic was trying to
>find something to make them mad, they'd find it with EASE. A
>bunch of skeptical sentences trying to cover their asses
>aren't gonna solve anything, they just look like glaring "love
>me" calls.
>
>Bottom line: It wasn't all bad, because the story for those
>who didn't read the book is fairly interesting. However, for
>those who did read the book, you'll more than likely be bored
>as sin. And for those of us who haven't read the book, you'll
>really understand that the only thing this film has going for
>it is material, because Ron Howard does his best to butcher a
>potentially interesting film.


I'm so FoCuSeD
~>http://www.myspace.com/hiphopgyrl
~>http://ihearthiphop.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Mon May-22-06 01:41 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
93. "a spoiler or two"
In response to Reply # 86


          

Tom Hanks unlocks an ENORMOUS riddle,
>and his reaction is at best muted? Audrey Tatou discovers what
>she does (I'll keep it spoiler-free), and she merely sits down
>and thinks? There's no excitement/panic? There's SO MUCH
>emotional ground to be explored, and neither of them did. I
>can't blame them, for they're both terrific actors in my past
>experiences watching them. The blame has got to go on Ron for
>this one.

Yeah, that had to be the most anti-climactic, half-hearted "big reveal" I have ever seen in a major motion picture. He might as well have started it by saying "Oh, by the way..." I guess the only thing going for that scene was that the filmmakers just figured that Audrey Tautou was the only one in the theater who hadn't figured that part of the mystery out. But, for chrissakes, the answer to this huge explosive secret, and Hanks just reads it like he's reading the newspaper, and she reacts like she's just heard the same. I found that to be an egregious, indefensible misstep on the part of the filmmakers. Even if that's exactly how it is in the book, they should have known it wouldn't play on screen.

I still can honestly say I enjoyed the historical mystery elements, though as a movie there were just too many moments that just didn't work. I enjoyed the history stuff, but I enjoyed many of those lame History Channel documentaries as much if not more.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Mon May-22-06 04:10 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
94. "RE: a spoiler or two"
In response to Reply # 93


          

Is it me? or does it seem like Sophie doesn't have a clue what was going on! She seem so clueless, in the book she seem stronger and more intelligent. Robert seem like he knew almost about EVERYTHING, he also figured out puzzles/clues that Sophie should of known!

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Mon May-22-06 04:55 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
96. "SPOILERS (Book & Movie)"
In response to Reply # 93


          

>Yeah, that had to be the most anti-climactic, half-hearted
>"big reveal" I have ever seen in a major motion picture. He
>might as well have started it by saying "Oh, by the way..." I
>guess the only thing going for that scene was that the
>filmmakers just figured that Audrey Tautou was the only one in
>the theater who hadn't figured that part of the mystery out.
>But, for chrissakes, the answer to this huge explosive secret,
>and Hanks just reads it like he's reading the newspaper, and
>she reacts like she's just heard the same. I found that to be
>an egregious, indefensible misstep on the part of the
>filmmakers. Even if that's exactly how it is in the book, they
>should have known it wouldn't play on screen.

In the book Sophie is not a decendant of Jesus, she ponders the idea once out loud and Langdon shoots it down....otherwise that is in no way a part of the book.

In a way I think the film went with much better ending, but for the reasons already mentioned, they fumbled.

_________________________________

i kept thinking about the enchantingly beautiful fragments which could not be part of the finished whole.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
chicky259
Member since May 01st 2005
3581 posts
Tue May-23-06 08:30 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
103. "yes she was (spoilers)"
In response to Reply # 96


  

          

now i havent read the book in a year but i could have sworn that she was a descendent of Jesus that's why her and her brother were seperated

and why people killed her parents....i dunno...now im gonna have to reread the book because i think i missed something if u are right :/

http://www.myspace.com/chicky259

Before I was just living my life with a dream but now I live my life for my dreams

<<< RED was my boyfriend back then

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

                
SoleMan
Charter member
1079 posts
Sun May-28-06 10:06 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
108. "RE: yes she was (spoilers)"
In response to Reply # 103


          

She is in the book. In the movie he is not her brother, the files are in the basement, her mother was not married to saurine (Sp?) too many times was the film off from the book.
Silas and Fache did not fit the characters in the film either.
Poor adaptation over all

"My GPA at Georgia Tech? I don't know. My SAT scores bad." -Steph

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Mon May-22-06 04:59 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
97. "on the art/cinematography"
In response to Reply # 86


          


>2. The cinematography is awful. Purely, truly awful. This
>movie is all about art-- the examination, discovery,
>appreciation of art, and what art can teach us. You're telling
>me, Ron Howard, that a film about art has to look like a piece
>of shit? You couldn't have, oh, I don't know, BRIGHTENED IT UP
>A BIT? Every single event in this film with little exception
>takes place in a very murky night. Every shot looks like mud
>was flung onto the camera lens and filmed through that. A film
>about art, and not a single frame on screen is pretty to look
>at. *shakes head*

you are absolutely correct.
By far the BEST PART of the not so great book was reading about these legendary pieces of art and all of the clues hidden inside. But with Mona Lisa, Madonna of the Rocks, and even The Last Supper they flew past so much trying to cover pages and pages of description in 30 seconds of dialogue when the could have, gee I don't, SHOWN THE FUCKING PAINTING FOR MORE THE 5 SECONDS.

Plus I'm still waiting for Teabing's servant to turn the lights on.


_________________________________

i kept thinking about the enchantingly beautiful fragments which could not be part of the finished whole.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Mon May-22-06 05:49 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
98. "so dark the con of man"
In response to Reply # 97


          

I think they took that shit a bit too literally.

Which tends to be the problem with all Ron Howard movies. Not the literal-ness of it, but that they are always just so obvious. Instead of trying to come up with another way to express the murkiness of the story, he just makes it look murky.

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

EmDub
Member since Oct 14th 2003
6620 posts
Mon May-22-06 12:39 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
92. "Did anyone get a fealing"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

That they are going to make Angels and Demons (which I read somewhere was also going to be made a movie) seem like it happened after TDC. There was no mention of it in the movie, so I think they are going to try to make it happen after.


----------
I Love That Dirty Water...Boston Your My Home

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Mon May-22-06 04:17 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
95. "I think they may try aftre the sucess of this movie"
In response to Reply # 92


  

          

it was written before TDC but that hasnt stopped movies to be made. Kiss the Girls by James Patterson was written after Along came a spider yet they came up the way they did with KTG coming out first.

I'd like to see an Angels and Demons movie tho.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
xbenzive
Charter member
3183 posts
Mon May-22-06 07:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
99. "RE: I think they may try aftre the sucess of this movie"
In response to Reply # 95


          

You think they should have Tom Hanks play Robert again?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

            
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Mon May-22-06 10:34 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
100. "You know i hated him at first"
In response to Reply # 99


  

          

but after seeing the movie i thought he did a good job. then i came to these parts and read the criticism and i thought they were accurate as well. But with all that said Yes i would like to see Hanks come back for Angels and Demons and maybe they can get a little more personal with him, in terms of conveying to non readers what he is all about.

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

MistaGoodBar
Member since Nov 04th 2004
29351 posts
Tue May-23-06 10:20 AM

Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
101. "Looking for spoilers"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

What is the Mona Lisa's significance in the movie? Is that supposed to be a picture of Leonardo da Vinci?
How does that play into the theory regarding Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Sarah?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://mistagoodbar.com
Twitter/IG: mistagoodbar
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
okaycomputer
Member since Dec 02nd 2002
8090 posts
Tue May-23-06 06:20 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
102. "RE: Looking for spoilers"
In response to Reply # 101


          

>What is the Mona Lisa's significance in the movie?
Nothing much...a clue from the dead body is an anagram of "Leonardo DaVinci Mona Lisa" and then outside the glass protecting Mona Lisa there is another clue (written in black light pen) that reads "So Dark the Con of Man" which leads to the painting Madonna of the Rocks. All in all the Mona Lisa is in the movie for about 15-30 seconds.

>Is that supposed to be a picture of Leonardo da Vinci?
In the book they go much deeper into the background. It says that some people have speculated the she is DaVinci in drag.

>How does that play into the theory regarding Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Sarah?
DaVinci painted the Mona Lisa, DaVinci painted The Last Supper. It is The Last Supper that has all of the clues about Mary.


_________________________________

i kept thinking about the enchantingly beautiful fragments which could not be part of the finished whole.

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
mynbenda
Member since Apr 26th 2006
10 posts
Wed May-24-06 01:45 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
106. "RE: Looking for spoilers"
In response to Reply # 101


          

Yeh for real - I was wondering the same thing... and why would it be called the "Da Vinci Code" if it had no significance...

>What is the Mona Lisa's significance in the movie? Is that
>supposed to be a picture of Leonardo da Vinci?
>How does that play into the theory regarding Jesus, Mary
>Magdalene and Sarah?

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

ZooTown74
Member since May 29th 2002
43582 posts
Tue May-23-06 09:02 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
104. "Akiva Goldsman signed up to adapt Angels and Demons (swipe)"
In response to Reply # 0


  

          

We know, SoulHonky, he sucks. Go make a post about it.

From Variety:

>Even God loves sequels

Sony follows up 'Da Vinci' with 'Angels'

By MICHAEL FLEMING, DAVE MCNARY

Striking while the iron is sizzling, Sony has signed "The Da Vinci Code" scribe Akiva Goldsman to adapt author Dan Brown's first religious thriller, "Angels & Demons."
"Code" grossed $231.8 million worldwide in its first five days.

Though development of "Angels & Demons" is still in the early stages, the studio's also planning to reassemble "The Da Vinci Code" producing team of Brian Grazer and John Calley for the project.

No deals are set yet for director Ron Howard or star Tom Hanks to return, but both would have first crack at the project.

"Code" was Brown's second novel centering on Robert Langdon, a Harvard professor who's an expert in religious symbols. "Angels & Demons," published in 2000, introduced the Langdon character. When "Code" subsequently became a worldwide publishing sensation, "Angels" also became a bestseller.

In "Angels," Langdon's character tries to solve a murder and unravel a plot by an ancient group, the Illuminati, to blow up the Vatican during a papal conclave.

Sony acquired the feature rights to "Angels" as part of its 2003 deal with Brown for "The Da Vinci Code."
________________________________________________________________________________________
A thick b****
with big legs
yeah
it's Gutfest '89

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

    
REDeye
Charter member
6598 posts
Tue May-23-06 11:42 PM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
105. "waitaminute"
In response to Reply # 104


          

So in one book Dan Brown tries to save the Vatican, the next he tries to destroy it?

RED
http://arrena.blogspot.com

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

        
Ceej
Member since Feb 16th 2006
66746 posts
Wed May-24-06 07:18 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy listClick to send message via AOL IM
107. "irony, huh??"
In response to Reply # 105


  

          

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

.Mica.
Member since Apr 18th 2006
8846 posts
Wed Jun-07-06 10:23 AM

Click to send email to this author Click to send private message to this authorClick to view this author's profileClick to add this author to your buddy list
109. "now that ive seen this (major spoiler)"
In response to Reply # 0
Wed Jun-07-06 10:25 AM by .Mica.

  

          

why did they have it where he wasnt her granddad, unlike the book?

i guess it could be cause then the thing in the book about that dude being her brother and them having to keep them separate would have to be explained thus making the film (a bit) longer, but i thought it was stupid to make the granddad not *really* her grandad.

wtf?

+BEST BLOG EVER:
http://theworldaroundusblog.blogspot.com (updated daily!!)

+my fave okp beef: logical explanations vs lessonheads © okp KayCee

  

Printer-friendly copy | Top

Lobby Pass The Popcorn Pass The Popcorn Archives topic #103042 Previous topic | Next topic
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.25
Copyright © DCScripts.com