Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

DA VINCI CODE's Online Blackout... DeCoded & The Film Is Dull???

Hey folks, Harry here - with some sad news. I was really looking forward to THE DA VINCI CODE. The cast looks amazing, it has one of my top 3 favorite actors in the world, Ian McKellen and one of my top oogle worthy actresses in the world, Audrey Tautou ... as well as the wonderful Tom Hanks and a ton of other talent. It was being shot by the steady Ron Howard and written by Oscar winner Akiva Goldsman... ahem. I was invited to a late screening on Thursday night for this film, but Thursday night happens to be the birthday party of a dear friend - which I had already committed to attending. But I wasn't worried, because there was a screening last night at 7:30pm and another one this morning at 10am here in town. I figured, great, they're enthusiastic about word getting out on the movie, so I contacted Sony Publicity... going through proper channels to see if I could switch to one of these earlier screening... Where I was stonewalled and told that from the HIGHEST LEVELS of Authority at SONY - that INTERNET OUTLETS were forbidden to see the film until Thursday night... that print outlets were only allowed into those first two screenings.

Wow. Hadn't run into that policy since about 1999. I'm friendly with just about every theater owner in town and thought about just crashing one of the screenings, but then I found out that the Alamo Drafthouse South was screening a British print of A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - with their waitresses dressed up in Alex's droogs gear and I thought... Ah, fuck it. I'll see it this weekend.

Didn't really give it a lot of thought until I read the reviews over at Hollywood Reporter and Variety that came in from CANNES tonight. Kirk Honeycutt says, ""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"

OUCH! Apparently the only character that is at all alive according to these two is... big surprise... Ian McKellen, who doesn't appear till about halfway through the apparently plodding affair that clocks in at nearly 2 and a half hours.

One can only assume that SONY's blanket treatment of "online outlets" is to "damage control" the word of mouth that one of this years most anticipated films... may not be all of that. Of course... the trades have been terribly off-base when it comes to "Pop-fare" and maybe this is one of those cases where all the stodgy lecture like scenes will play like revelations to the audiences at large. I know I'm going this weekend, just to see what it is all about. Glad to have my expectations checked.

Meanwhile - here's a British reader's look at the film based on a screening there last night. Nowhere near as negative as the trades - but not overly enthusiastic either. Beware of spoilers...

Hey Harry,

British insider ?Triple B? here. Been a while since I wrote to you, but sneaked in to the UK screening of Da Vinci Code last night and thought I?d give you my opinion.

First off, I?m a big fan of the book. I read it in a couple of days whilst on Holiday, simply couldn?t put it down which is a big deal to me considering I?m not a big reader. Fortunately, I read the book before any casting on the movie was announced so I didn?t have any annoying preconceptions of Hollywood?s elite racing through my head as I read (Weirdly, I always saw Richard Attenborough in the Ian McKellen role).

For those wanting a quick summery, all I can say is that it?s a solid if not spectacular translation of the book. In actually believe that Ron Howard was the perfect choice of director for this one. He?s always competent behind the lens and usually delivers a well constructed movie. It may sound a little harsh to call him ?safe? but in my opinion that?s exactly what he is. Safe, dependable and not one to wildly stray too far from the subject matter at hand. In fact, I was pleasantly surprised just how faithfully they converted the book. Predictably however conceits have been made

The book worked so well for me thanks to Dan Brown?s masterful concoction of facts, science and historic research blended with a good old fashioned yarn. Now this movie ran for well over two hours but even at that length a lot of the science and interesting historical background work was cut leaving the story felling all the more far fetched and coincidental. In fact, my buddy who was with me summed it up best by calling it ?Goonies for Big Boys?. Ron Howard seems determined to keep the movies pace running fast which is admirable but in doing so we never get a true sense of discovery that was so evident in the book, merely a string of events slam in to each other all happening very conveniently and without any apparent work on behalf of our heroes. For example, in the book our hero actually NEEDS to do research. He goes to a library, befriends the librarian and sits to do research where he discovers a vital piece of information. It?s logical, well paced and interesting to follow. In the movie version our hero uses a mobile phone to access the internet (In true Hollywood style) and discover all he needs to know in under 30 seconds from google! This example of lazy plot structure stretches credibility and believability and really works against the films story. Because of the condensed nature of the books events, characters sadly suffer to. (Small spoilers lie ahead) We are hardly given any explanation as to why Sophie?s relationship with her grandfather was so strained and tragically in order to tone down the book?s contents for a teen audience, Silas?s back story is brief at best. Silas in fact comes off worst in the move to film. His scenes portray him more as a Scooby Doo villain than that of the horrifically misguided psycho that he should be. Paul Bettany does all he can and delivers a fair performance but I felt that both his and Alfred Molina roles were underdeveloped and thus quite confusing to those who haven?t read the book.

When I heard of Tom Hank?s casting I was initially against it, however it must be said that as Hollywood?s leading ?everyman? he once again brings it to the table. He doesn?t have to do much at all other than stand around looking confused and deliver long speeches about codes and symbols, but that being said he does what he does well and adds a little star power to the cast. Ian McKellen deserves special mention however. Excellent as always he was the perfect choice for the role and is never anything less than likeable, if not slightly unbelievable thanks to the relentless pace set by film and the series of events that follows. Jean Reno also stood out as a perfect casting choice; we saw plenty of him though it?s to his credit that I could have happily seen more of him on screen. Audrey Tatou proves relentlessly beautiful and unlike many of Hollywood?s A list, she has no problem delivering a believable performance. Once again though, I think she suffered through a lack of character development.

Whilst never dull, Ron Howard uses some of the same tricks and visual flair that he developed in A Beautiful Mind, ?Visualizing? characters thought processes to allow the audience to ?see? what they are thinking. This largely works though in the movie Robert comes off more of a genius savant than I remember him to be in the book.

Still, all in all, I did enjoy the film and probably would have liked it more if I hadn?t read the book. This movie is exactly what it needs to be to make a lot of cash at the box office. Solid, dependable, at times exciting though never risky, daring or even controversial enough to prove great. Go see, but don?t expect too much

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • May 17, 2006, 5:18 a.m. CST

    And so it begins...

    by WeirdEd

    It was a mediocre book, definitely didn't live up to its potential. And now with it unfolding before movie audiences, the entire thing is going to begin to lose its luster. This may have been the high-water mark for The Da Vinci Code phenomenon, not that high after all.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:19 a.m. CST

    Waitresses in Droogs gear?

    by theBigE

    That's supposed to be appealing???? If "Da Vinci" tanks, the movie industry is in big trouble!

  • May 17, 2006, 5:24 a.m. CST

    The Da Vinci Yawn equals Bomb....

    by MentallyMariah

    Sadly enough the word is true, my good friend I have known for a long time was at the same screening at Cannes and he test me the word "Da Vinci Yawn zzzzzz...." Gosh wow, another book adapation gone to hell...I guess X MEN 3 will make up for that!! Tom Hanks really looked bloated on the Drudge Report today and that saddens me...I really love ho ho's and twinkies but I can't really eat them anymore because I am afraid I might look a bit like Forrest Krispy Kreme

  • May 17, 2006, 5:25 a.m. CST

    the book was crap but i thought the film'd be better

    by newc0253

    the book was terrible, even by the standards of airport thrillers. but i thought a movie would manage to correct its most egregious flaws (clunky, expository dialogue; shitty characterisation). to be sure, richie from happy days is no francis ford coppola but i've never seen him make an unentertaining movie.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:26 a.m. CST

    DaVinci Code review online

    by Stollentroll

    http://www.variety.com/VE1117930534.html

  • May 17, 2006, 5:29 a.m. CST

    anyone who read the book should have seen this coming

    by Ryalto 3.0

    Da Vinci code was nothing but a cliched airport novel with some intriguing art history conspiracy theories thrown in. People only liked it because the author convincingly stuck it to the Catholics in the first half of the book. I can't imagine how the movie version could possibly be that exciting.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:31 a.m. CST

    hmm

    by movieman742

    Interesting that they won't let internet outlets review it. I really enjoyed the book and I am seeing it Friday night. I hope it's not as bad as some people think it will be. The only thing that doesn't make sense is that the book was really talky with alot of information to digest so I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about it in the movie. We'll see in a few days if it's good or not. Hopefully it is good.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:38 a.m. CST

    It's the film of the book

    by DougiePhresh

    Saw it last night here in Dublin; it's exactly as the book is - inoffensive and entertaining during, but pointless and irritating once it's over.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:38 a.m. CST

    no suprise

    by kingink123

    No suspense, unromantic, flimsy plot, elements that don't quite work? gee sounds just like the book.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:40 a.m. CST

    They didn't let me in. Here's a bad review.

    by Cosmik

    Jeeze, maybe there's something to that "Entourage" episode.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:44 a.m. CST

    I guess the church got to them...

    by viranth

    ...yeah, the church paid everyone off, in hopes noone will see the movie and abandon the church.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:50 a.m. CST

    THE BOOK IS BETTER THAN THE MOVIE?!? GET OUT!

    by AndrewWanKenobi

    I knew this was going to happen. Anyway, the Cannes audience are a bunch of pricks. Well just have to wait and see how OUR critics... (the American critics are the best in the world)... think about the most anticipated movie of the summer.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:09 a.m. CST

    What? The? Fuck? Are? All? The? Question? Marks? About?

    by redtom

    ...eh?????

  • May 17, 2006, 6:12 a.m. CST

    Please

    by Charles Martel

    I think, after watching even the Discovery Channel showing the theories being bunk, the "phenomenon" is over. Ladies and gentlement, the vast majority of this "book's" popularity came from its claims of authenticity (absolute lies) and its attacks on Christianity. If an author c an't even get the number of panes on the Louvre right, what chance does he have with the bigger picture? The fact is, people don't give a rat's ass about the movie - it was always about the anti-Christian (or, really, the misguided anti-Catholocism) of the book that attracted an audience in the first place. (And, no, I'm not Catholic - I'm Orthodox. Which is what makes the historical inaccuracies that much more amusing). Of course this wasn't going to be shyte as a movie - it wasn't shyte as a book, except to an audience that hates Christianity, and those that want to know what the "controversy" is all about. And, yes, Hanks, as confessed in the latest Esquire, is, technically, Greek Orthodox, and, yes, he does go to my church. He needs to cut that damned hair.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Meh

    by Jay Jay

    I can honestly say that I couldn't give a flying fuck about this film. Haven't read the book either and never will. Meh.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Will Hollywood Make A Similar Movie About Islam?

    by BoyNamedSue

    One perhaps suggesting the prophet Muhammad was NOT divine? NEVER, because we can't offend Muslims, who might react negatively and riot. But who Hollywood can offend are millions of backward hayseed Christians. I know it's fiction, but it's still blasphemy to me and something I want nothing to do with. I call on all Christians to boycott this film.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:18 a.m. CST

    And . . .

    by Charles Martel

    he's short. Or, maybe I'm tall. But he's nice, at least. Or tolerant on the few days he and his wife show up. But, they give a helluva lot to the local charities. Damn, you know . . . it's easy to rip on Hollywood types, their typical egocentrism. But, to be honest, he does come across pretty cool. But he STILL has to cut that damned hair. Looks better with a flattop, from my personal perspective.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Mediocre books usually make great films.

    by Cameron1

    Godfather is a shitty airport novel and look at that. Die Hard was fucking awful to try and read but the film was ace and I'd certainly put Howard on a par with McTiernan. I was expecting a fun rillercoaster, shame if it really is this bad.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:21 a.m. CST

    Mediocre summer movie season...

    by Jim Jam Bongs

    I predict that when the summer is over, Pirates of the Carribean 2 will be #1, and Over The Hedge #2. Superman Returns will do decently, but not as strong as Batman Begins did.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:25 a.m. CST

    boynamed sue you fucking retard.

    by Cameron1

    Davinci Code never suggests Christ wasn't divine. And yeh if a novel about islam sold 60 million copies Hollywood would have no qualms about adapting it. Calling on christians to boycott a piece of FICTION????? Shit if you lived in poverty in the middle east that attitude would easily be "behead the infidels". You fucking hypocritical dumbass.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Cameron1

    by Charles Martel

    Uh, yeah, it does. It puts forth the proposition, if you could call it that, that Christ was never considered divine until the Ecumenical Council at Nicea (325 A.D.) The problem is, good sir, is that Dan Brown claims all of his historical "research" is FACT. Have you even seen the book? It's one of the first pages. It is, in fact, an all out attack on Catholocism (but, like most Westerners, he mistakenly equates Catholocism with all Christianity). There is a big differenc, by the by, in calling for individuals to boycott heresy and calling for a "scriptuarlly" sanctioned execution. Try reading the Q'ran and the Hadith some time, big boy.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:38 a.m. CST

    re:Will Hollywood Make A Similar Movie About Islam?

    by ScaryJim

    hello ? Satanic verses, those cartoons published in the papers ? Bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan ? I wouldn't say anyones ever given Islam an easy ride, the same with Christianity or any religeon that has at one stage used aggressive force to convert people. Congratulations, you are just as ignorant as the people that tried to get the Satanic verses banned. If you staunch religeous people took your head out of your arses for a minute and looked at other religeons you'd realize you're all basically the same. Instead you all fight amongst yourselves leaving the Godless like myself alone. I supposse we can be grateful for that . Not too excited about the film, Umberto Eco's Focaults pendulum is an altogether deeper and more satisfying read, however if there's going to be a string of protesters outside that's almost a reason to go and see it...

  • May 17, 2006, 6:38 a.m. CST

    Hahahahaha

    by Cameron1

    I have the book right here it says decriptions of all artworks and architecture are fact, NOT the story. Holy Blood Holy Grail may suggest it's fact but Brown never does, he merely tries to ground the fantastcial elements in relaity, a sensible idea for any fiction maker. Oh dear another Q'uran misinterpretation abiut calling for execution. Pitiful Martel, pitiful. Read the Qu'ran and tell me where it says anything more violent than the bible suggests, yes SOME hadiths call for execution, and so do the KKK. The point is boynamedsue's attitude would be equal to the insane extremists muslim had he been brought up in reperession and poverty.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:40 a.m. CST

    Bruised ego, Harry?

    by Trazadone

    Wow, the talkbacker above got it right. Someone DARES to prevent Harry from seeing a free screening of something, so what we get on AICN is a bad review. What's with all the entitlement? I'm a big fan of movies too but that doesn't entitle me to free access to unreleased movies any time I want. I know a lot of people at my local cineplex as well, but I don't take advantage of it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:44 a.m. CST

    ?

    by Grando

    The ?'s are becuase the review was written in Word and then copied and pasted into an email. Oh, and since Harry didn't mention it. He's writing for Penthouse now......

  • May 17, 2006, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Cameron 1

    by Charles Martel

    You equate the KKK with the Q'uran? Oh, wait, you think that since the KKK says one thing, that is a fundamental belief of Christianity. You are obviously an idiot. Here's a Hadith for you: Volume 1, Book 2, Number 35: Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "The person who participates in (Holy battles) in Allah's cause and nothing compels him to do so except belief in Allah and His Apostles, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty (if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise (if he is killed in the battle as a martyr). Had I not found it difficult for my followers, then I would not remain behind any sariya going for Jihad and I would have loved to be martyred in Allah's cause and then made alive, and then martyred and then made alive, and then again martyred in His cause." This is from USC's database - not exactly "pro-Christian" or "anti-Islam." How does one engage in jihad and possibly die or gain booty unless it is a physical war? Clearly, you know nothing of Islam. That's ok, you also believe that since the story of "The Da Vinci Code" is fiction, Dan Brown's claim that all representations of art, history and ritual in the book as fact doesn't mean that he is representing those things as fact. After all, he says the story is fiction. The Bible, unlike the Q'uran and the a'Hadith, does not contain a standing order for killing non-believers. Of course, that would mean you would have to understand the concept of progressive revelation in Islam, and the actual history behind the writing of the Q'uran and the a'Hadith. But, that would probably be asking too much of you.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:49 a.m. CST

    The book really is crap.

    by CatVutt

    It's just flat-out poorly written, and I didn't bother finishing it. I find I'm better off avoiding most books the end up on the Best Seller lists. I'm constantly disappointed. As far as Christians being 'offended'. What a fucking joke. For starters, it's probable that less than 10% of the complainers actually read the silly book. (Not that I'd blame them as, again, it really is crap. For a couple of legitimately well-written and great reads that integrate tons of historical oddities, I would highly recommend Wilton Barnhardt's "Gospel" and Umberto Eco's "Foucault's Pendulum". "Gospel" is the more hilarious of the two, featuring a fictional lost 'gospel', the text of which is interspersed throughout the novel. Ingenious and hysterical.) Someone who has a real belief in ANYthing should never be threatened by or turn away from legitimate alternate or opposing opinions, let alone fully acknowledged FICTION that makes use of tweaking history. I have no use for anybody whose faith is so shaky that they feel somehow attacked or offended by a campy little film.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:49 a.m. CST

    Martel, you are an idiot or dishonest you can choose.

    by Cameron1

    I compared fanatical muslims to the KKK NOT the Qu'ran, can you actually read? Well done for comfirming what I said about hadith's though.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST

    Looking more and more like X-MEN 3 and/or SUPERMAN....

    by Negative Man

    ...Will rule the Summer. Oddly, my bet is on X3. Too many non-geek marks out there that don't give a whit about the comic history of it all. Heck, I started reading UNCANNY X-MEN in 1980 and don't give a whit about the comic history. Too many years and too many translations to think it would stay pure. As long as Wolvie doesn't have bone claws (now THAT was frickin' stupid since they established the x-ray pics that showed the claw mechanics...) and Colossus is NOT GAY (ULTIMATE X-MEN is a horrid retelling...all the Ultimate titles are in the end, save THE ULTIMATES...oddly...), I'll be happy. Fastball Speacial not perfect? No shit! Comic Wolvie 5'3", movie Wolvie 6' or so...comic Colossus 7'+, movie Colossus 6'2"...comic fastball just won't work. Period. Sentinels? Would look frickin' stupid (even more than the TRANSFORMERS will) on screen. Big purple robots work in comics, not live action. Not to non-geeks. And that's where the money is. That's why we will never see Mr. Sinister or Apocolypse on screen. Because they are A) Lame characters outside the comic realm. And B) Generally suck as characters, period. If there is another trilogy, look for a refined Hellfire Club, Genoshia-type or a toned down Proteus storyline. Shi'ar, blue spot on the moon, Brood, Mojoverse, Strife or what have you...just...won't...work...for the general audience. Superman will get the primary curousity factor. Geek factor is not real high, but worth a few bucks. Supes will make more money of the 35+ years old, as opposed to the 34 and below that will see X3. Bet on it.

  • May 17, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST

    by ScaryJim

    Charles, do you not think that it is a bit over the top to suggest that your (or even anyone's) religeon should be respected in the same way as ones own? I personally think any religeon, organization, cult, business should be open to scrutiny. And what difference does it make to you if a non believer scrutinizes your religeon? surely a non believers opinions are worthless ?

  • May 17, 2006, 7 a.m. CST

    Has anyone read Angels and Demons?

    by pandamaster83

    It's pretty good until you reach the absolutely insane, laughable ending. And the fact that the potential new pope conveniently has a pilot's liscence. Jeez.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:02 a.m. CST

    ***SPOILER, LOOK AWAY FANS OF RONNY HOWARD***

    by alucardvsdracula

    Well, what a total surprise, this movie sucks, who'd have thought it huh? ANYTHING directed by RON HAPPY FUCKING GINGER BOLDY HACK FAR AND AWAY DAYS HOWARD is bound to suck.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:03 a.m. CST

    ScaryJim.

    by Cameron1

    It's the popularity these people can't stand. If the book had been a failure they wouldn't give a shit. Brown was very fucking savvy because he realised that pretty much everyone in the west has some sort of relationaship and knowledge of Christianity, whether they believed it or not. Write a book which taps into that and you make yourself lots and lots of dosh. Things like the Holy Grail and The Last Supper are not just popular artefacts for christians, but for everyone.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Yes, Cameron1

    by Charles Martel

    Fanatical muslims? This is the textual basis for the faith. A bit different than the KKK. As such, not an appropriate comparison. And, yes, I can read, you, apparently, cannot. The a'Hadith quoted clearly stated the position of killing non-believers. Muhammad condemned pacifism as a disease of Christianity. If you prefer, there is this: Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Messenger have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection (Surrah 9:29); or perhaps: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Unlike Christianity, wherein the calls to attack in the OT were of specific times and orders, the call to kill non-believers in Islam is a STANDING ORDER. It is a call that never went away, nor was it confined to a specific people or time. Taken together with the a'Hadith, as shown above, it is a religion unlike any other - it calls for the energetic elimination of all opposing religions/views. This is called the Shari'a.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:08 a.m. CST

    ScaryJim

    by Charles Martel

    I have no problem with honest debate or discussion. The problem is, Brown presents his "findings" as fact in his book. Not the story, but the "rituals, history, artwork" etc., as fact. And he lies. Repeatedly. To have an honest disagreement is one thing, to fabricate, and to repeat debunked propositions as "fact" is another.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:21 a.m. CST

    ScaryJim

    by Killah_Mate

    You mean Umberto Eco makes for a deeper and more satisfying read than Dan Brown? Get out! What will they think of next... No, I haven't read The Da Vinci Code and I have no intention of reading it, ever. I've read three clunky, expository, overwrought pages of it, confirming what I already suspected: quality is irrelevant, controversy sells. (Same goes for the Satanic Verses, for that matter.) Fuck it. So much Harlan Ellison and PKD still unread, so little time...

  • May 17, 2006, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Sunni's and Sufi's

    by Cameron1

    You can't lump all Muslims together Charles, as much as you might yearn to do it. It makes you look like a true fool who only speaks in general terms. If I lumped all Christians in with Crusaders it would be just as ridiculous. Perhaps you need to go live with some Muslims for a while and see how they are just as peaceful and loving to non believers as any Christians, yes there are far more zealots in Islam but that's not just a function of there beliefs. Many aspects need to be considered. You take the asy option of condemning a whole religion becuase you obviously cannot handle subtelty. Such a shame as you are clearly quite clever, just blinded.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:30 a.m. CST

    Akiva Goldsman... didn't that dude write Batman & Robin

    by BendersShinyAss

    Why not just let John Logan write it. owch.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:32 a.m. CST

    another quote

    by Cameron1

    "And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers" Not a order to kill, just saying if you don't believe you go to hell. Well that's every major releigions belief. It's not as cut and dried as you want to believe Charles, sorry.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Camerion 1

    by Charles Martel

    The textual basis is the same. It cannot be denied, nor have members of either sect denied such basis. The words speak for themselves - and these quotes are not taken out of context. (Unlike the Bible, the Qu'ran is written in a way that is more like a collection of quotes, anyway. Yes, I have studied it, for years, now. As well as the a'Hadith). The difference between Sunnis and Shi'ites has to do with the lineage of authority, not doctrine. And the Sufi's adopted certain aspects of mysticism and Mithraism (which, at that point in time - mid-9th century-had borrowed heavily from Christianity) which has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. You can talk subltety all you want - interpretation is not a consideration, here. Tradition, much like in Christianity, plays a large part in the interpretaion (much to the chagrin of Proddies). History speaks loud and clear: the first "crusaders" were the Muslims wreaking havoc across northern Africa (slaughtering thousands of Christians in Egypt and Ethiopia) and into Spain. If not for my namesake, they'd have moved into Europe. And, if not for the Greeks, they'd have come in the back door. And not for lack of trying. Think of the Muslim slaughters of Jewish communities for over a thousand years, or towns like, oh, I don't know, Smyrna and Thessolonica. Yeah, those were isolated incidents . . . the simple fact is that your use of the term "subtlety" doesn't abrogate the calls of the textual foundation of the faith. And, unlike Hinduism/Buddhism/Christianity/Judaism, etc., Islam calls for the active elimination of all nonbelievers. The current president of Iran is actually the only Muslim with the balls to declare, out loud, what the faith requires. At least, the balls to declare it to be translated into English (guys like Arafat just said it in Arabic in the hopes the English speaking world would never find out). And, you know, I bet there are a lot of cannibals that are cool dudes - doesn't make what they do or what they believe ok. I'm talking about the textual foundation of the faith - if certain Muslims don't want to be true Muslims (that is, follow the textual foundation of the faith), that's fine. I have no problem with that. But the Qu'ran and the a'Hadith say what they say, and that cannot be changed.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:35 a.m. CST

    Cameron1

    by Charles Martel

    And you don't understand progressive revelation, and its relation to the history of Muhammed and Islam. But, again, that's your historical and textual ignorance speaking for you.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:38 a.m. CST

    forget Brown

    by ScaryJim

    And you still have a bible which bears no resembelance to it's original incarnation, it's been continually re edited for political means, the most popular king James version not taking shape till the 1600's. Parts have been mis translated and whole Gospels have been ignored. Thats 1,600 years of change to the word of God and new testaments authors. So whether you believe it as fact, there is no doubt that as usual man has changed and misrepresented it to fit his needs over time. Obvious examples are the smearing of Mary Magdalens character and the constant blurring of lines between what is stated as fact and what should be read as metaphor No doubt the same could be said for the Koran if I could be arsed to research it or had had to live as a muslim for 5 years of my life as I did as a Christian.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Hanks is Greek Orthodox? Small world.

    by Orbots Commander

    So am I (first generation Greek immigrant, family came to NY when I was 2). Guess it's because his wife is of Greek decent, as she made it known on some cable promo for Big Fat Greek Wedding. Anyway, I read DaVinci Code and could barely get through it. It was pretty bad even grading it on a curve of trashy novels. Dan Brown is not much of a writer. But I'm surprised the movie isn't better. Usually, the Hollywood rule of thumb is, the worse the book, the better the movie tends to be. It may have not worked out in this instance. The summer movie season isn't looking to good so far: one mediocrity (M:I 3), one flop (Poseidon), and one potential quick flame out in DaVinci Code. Ah, well.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Ian's the villian and Audrey is Jesus's last decendant.

    by minderbinder

    There you go, I just saved you eight bucks you would have spent on this piece of shit. The book has its moments, but overall it's a mess. Takes forever to get going, wastes tons of time on exposition, and the ending reveal of who the bad guy is is horrible. Sure, there's room for improvement, but probably not enough.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:45 a.m. CST

    The book...

    by AtomicLobster

    ...is bad enough to make your eyes bleed. Written by somebody who can't write for people who don't read. Which would be fine, except that its ridiculous success clearly indicates we are living in bizarro world. Maybe the film will bomb and rebalance the scales of the universe, but I doubt it.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:46 a.m. CST

    the problem with this film is

    by Reelheed

    theres not enough explosions.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Martel

    by Cameron1

    So you judge the current incarnation or Islam by it's actions in the past, but don't do the same for Christianity. My word I didn't think you'd admit such hypocrisy. There's many many things the bible says is law which pretty much every Christian doesn't adhere to that doesn't mean they aren't real christians just that as times changed so have beliefs.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:50 a.m. CST

    ScaryJim

    by Charles Martel

    Well, that's not exactly true. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the translations of the OT have been amazingly accurate over 2000 years, and the textual foundation for the consistency of the NT is greater than several other texts (such as Ceasar's wars). I know there are a lot historians who try to debunk this (the Jesus Seminar) but there are many questions to ask of their methodology (which they wouldn't apply to similar texts with less extant copies). The fact is, despite the myths, the NT has remained virtually unchanged for 2000 years. Doesn't make it true, and it hasn't been changed for "politics." And other "gospels" weren't "ignored." The so-called Gnostic gospels weren't gospels, and didn't exist until, at the earliest, the late 2nd century (looking at Iraneaus). And, truly, the books we know as the NT were cited, with great frequency, with letters and various epistles dating to the late 1st century and early 2nd century, meaning they were already well-known by that time and taken as authoritative in the faith. So your position that the Bible has "changed" or been "manipulated" is unfounded.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:52 a.m. CST

    Ron Howard.

    by Nice Marmot

    I was over at my mother-in-laws house yesterday, as I am now her new gardening bitch. She was watching Ellen, who had Ron Howard on. She said he was a 2-Time-Oscar-Winner. What the hell did he ever win Oscars for???

  • May 17, 2006, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Cameron1

    by Charles Martel

    Your opinon of what Christianity requires of its followers aside, and your obvious lack of understanding regarding Biblical scholarship and history also set aside, there is a difference between theological calls for action and representations of historical incidents. That the God of Abraham in the Bible may call for the elimination of one tribe at one time does not mean that the members of that tribe should be killed for all time. That the god of Muhammed calls for the elimination of all non-believers (or their subjugation and forced payment of the jizya tax) is another situation - it is a standing order to all believers to continually act in accordance with a specific command. In the Biblical example, it is a relation of an historical event - in the latter example, it is a commandment to be followed. Big difference - though I see you have trouble with such elementary deductions.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:59 a.m. CST

    Oh yeah, The DaVinci Code too . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    I'm with everyone who thought the book was just OK, but they would make a kick ass movie out of it; more suspenseful, more action, the albino way more dangerous & psycho. I hope it's really not as boring as reported here. I can easily see the media trying to bring it down with the book STILL being in the top 10 & everyone foaming at the mouth over it. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:59 a.m. CST

    poor sidestep there Martel

    by Cameron1

    The fact remains that plenty of commands in the bible are not followed by Christians today (not talking attacking non believers) and by your reasoning they are not true christians as you believe muslims who don't kill non believers are not true muslims. Being neither Christian or Muslim I can step back and look at this objectively, you, however, can't. Sadly this makes you look indescribably foolish because even now you will reply with something insanely biased governed by your faith (faith which means you cannot think objectively or reasonably) . As I said before, pitiful Charles, pitiful.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:59 a.m. CST

    If Cannes critics hated it, most of us will love it.

    by SpyGuy

    I mean, you're honestly going to buy into people who like Sharon Stone and treat her like The Second Coming? Okay, whatever...

  • May 17, 2006, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Marmot

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    Director and Best Picture for Beautiful Mind.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:05 a.m. CST

    Christians...Pacifists???...

    by Kid Z

    ... Uh, let's see... Spanish Inquisition... Witch Hunts... over 1500 years of burning "heretics"... destruction of the Great Library at Alexandria... the Crusades... pogroms... the massacre of the Cathars... colonialism... the Holocaust...yeah, reeeal peaceful bunch of folks there! Osama WISHES he could be half as bloodthirsty and murderously efficient, I bet!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:06 a.m. CST

    INTERNET OUTLETS were forbidden to see the film until T

    by tHEmOOG

    thus harry posts negativity. Go get em harry

  • May 17, 2006, 8:12 a.m. CST

    Thanks Kung Fu Hustler

    by Nice Marmot

    Damn, that was too easy, what a fucking brain fart!!!

  • May 17, 2006, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Really?!!?

    by PwnedByStallone

    You mean they made a shitty movie out of a shitty book?? Shocker of the year! Dan Brown writes at the level of an eighth grader and steals his idea from preexisting texts. Is it any wonder the movie stinks too. Still this is Canne we're talking about. You know, the ones who gave the Palm D'Or to Elephant.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:25 a.m. CST

    Cameron and Martel

    by Kung Fu Hustler

    When you throw words like foolish, elementary, and pitiful at each other, you devalue your own arguments and make you both look like intellectual tools trying to be the smartest kid in class. Give me and the rest of us a fucking break with you attempts at one-upsmanship.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:44 a.m. CST

    I could smell trouble when...

    by Neo Zeed

    I saw Tom Hanks on one of the late night talk shows, promoting this flick. The clip they showed was some dull scene where he was lecturing a classroom on historical symbols. Lame.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Whether the DaVinci Code lies ...

    by chrth

    On one hand, it lies from the very beginning: it tells us that the Priory of Sion is a fact before the book even starts. But it's not, it's a fictional creation (something I caught just by reading the list of its leaders--gee, it just happens to be non-stop famous people!). On the other hand, he does leave some questions open. However, the real problem with the book is that even if DaVinci did portray Magdalene in the Last Supper (and he didn't--count the apostles), just because DaVinci believes something doesn't mean it's TRUE.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:57 a.m. CST

    Not Again, another bad summer

    by 7movies4plays

    It's time to dig up Charlie Chaplin, maybe Buster Keaton and of course Richard Pryor. I bit last time on MI3, I mean it was bad, not worse then most but bad. Poseidon, the first movie took too long to have the boat tip over. I had penciled in the Davinci, but now I'll wait for its arrival at the dollar show. Hell, I saw 16 blocks for 1.50 lucky slevin is next and Da vinci should be there by July. Now, if X3 and Super man Suck I'm going back to DVD collection for the summer. OUT, now where did I leave my avid machine.

  • May 17, 2006, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Kid Z

    by Killah_Mate

    They aren't arguing about which religion is more aggresive; as I understand it they're talking about how relatively bloodthirsty the Bible and Qu'ran are (the texts themselves). It's quasi-theological nitpicking, don't get involved.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Speaking of Ron Howard as a director...

    by chrth

    I thought Apollo 13 was great, but yeah, he did ruin the 'Failure is not an option' scene by cutting to the next scene too quick.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:14 a.m. CST

    I?ve Noticed Something?s Wrong and I?m...

    by hipcheck13

    ...counting on Harry?s proofreader to fix it - otherwise I?ll feel bad for filling everyone?s reading time with too many ??s and not enough apostrophes.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Looks like the best book adaptation since THE CHAMBER

    by LilOgre

    I hate to say it but I knew this film would suck. It looks like one of those mid-90's Grisham adaptations that followed THE FIRM - PELICAN BRIEF, THE CHAMBER, even THE CLIENT (which I think Akiva wrote). I posted that way back in January when Mori was trumpeting how this was going to be the biggest film of the year (it still could be big) and that the teaser looked great. The book is meh but the great parts - artistic analysis and historical conversations - do not lend themselves to a filmed adaptation.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Ron Howard HATES Black People

    by brokebackcowboy

    To anyone who has already seen this at a screening .. do you recall any black people in this movie? Because Ron Howard never puts black people in his movies. Backdraft? No. Apollo 13? No. Willow? No black dwarves. He only selects scripts that offer no opportunity to cast a black person in a prominent role. I know about Ransom but that was just a fluke. None of the criminals were black - what's up with that?

  • May 17, 2006, 9:19 a.m. CST

    SPOILER

    by Lou Stools

    Was at the screening, and I thought the film lost all credibility when Clint Howard showed up as the Pope.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:20 a.m. CST

    What about the Moses myth?

    by brokebackcowboy

    I know Jesus and Mary hooked up, but the big story is the 10 Commandments. The tablets were not written by God. Moses himself chiseled them and punked the people. Dang, religion is crazy.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:22 a.m. CST

    And its 149 minutes!

    by LilOgre

    Who knew. I think some people read the novel in less time.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:24 a.m. CST

    The Depths Of Ron Howard's Hatred of Black People

    by brokebackcowboy

    Imagine Entertainment produces all of M. Night Schockmalan's movies. I don't recall any black people in them too. Oh yeah, Samuel Jackson. Never mind. Lemme check if Ron Howard was involved wit dat.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:26 a.m. CST

    AHA!!! Unbreakable was produced by Touchstone and

    by brokebackcowboy

    Blinding Edge ... not Imagine. Ron Howard indeed hates black people. Yo yo Opie wassup wit dat???

  • May 17, 2006, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Ron Howard likes black people

    by brokebackcowboy

    Okay I just realized Imagine produced Spike Lee's The Inside Man. Ron Howard's aiiite.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST

    How do you warn of spoilers when everyone read the book

    by www.valiens.com

    Also, that it sucks?--not a spoiler. It's a Ron Howard film. He is the epitomy of mediocrity. Still, I didn't think the movie would be worse than the book. The book has a great pace but the dialogue is childish at best. It's actually a fairly bad, quick read. If the movie doesn't even get the pace right...ouch.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:32 a.m. CST

    If this review is accurate

    by Trazadone

    I'm not surprised. Ron Howard's kind of a jerk, isn't he? I mean I'm sure he's personally a nice guy, but I just feel this wave of bland homogeneous "brush your teeth"/"drink your milk" prissiness combined with this barely-concealed need to be incredibly pretentious and condescending. But he's apparently good with actors. Everybody in "Beautiful Mind" is so great that you forget or don't notice the incredible liberties the movie takes with math and with psycho disorders. (Somebody told me.) Can't the book-buying public get interested in REAL history and REAL problems? There's always some bullshit like this moving around in the background culturally. Sometimes it's Erik von Daniken and his "Chariots of the Gods?" question-mark-fueled tomes; now it's this. And that incredibly rich, earnest doughboy Hanks who has some prissily condescending traits anyway.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:39 a.m. CST

    well...

    by John Dalmas

    ...finally read the book last night. Definitely had momentum with the way every small chapter ends in some kind of mystery or cliffhanger, but jesus that was awful writing. Dialogue, characterization, sentence-by-sentence descriptions, the way the omniscient narrator withholds information from the audience which the characters are privy to... just awful. Student writing type stuff. However, that made me think it could be a really excellent movie, as it has a strong mystery, narrative momentum, and pulp is oftentimes given added depth when turned into a movie. But I doubt akiva goldsman and ron howard are the people to work that transformation here. I'm still going to see it just because I don't want Catholic groups to think their protests are responsible for low grosses.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    More Important: Is a GNR song....

    by pilferk

    in the movie? Because it looks like, if there IS a new Guns n Roses tune in the movie, that would be the most exciting part of it.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:40 a.m. CST

    People are out to bash this one

    by viranth

    This movie will be bashed by negative people. I'm pretty sure the reviews that have surfaced so far, have been written by people that DIDN'T like the book. Why should their opinion matter? I enjoyed the book and I'm looking forward to this movie, I also think the movie will as good as the book. And I also don't get why people don't like the book, and why people say "he can't write". Well, do you guys have a best selling book? I thought so.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:44 a.m. CST

    Angles and Demons

    by lofe101

    i thought that the davinci code was just meh compared to angels and demons. there was way more thrill and excitment in the demons. i like both of them but thought that the davicini code was more for chicks and the demons was more for dudes. now im sure most people on this site are dudes so they will probably feel the same way as this movie will suck. Silas was a pussy compared to the Hassasin. but ya all know (well the ones that actually have girlfriends/wifes) that there going to drag your asses to this one. i made a deal with my girl. i go to the code and she comes to see X-men. good trade i guess.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:48 a.m. CST

    what a minute!!!!!

    by lofe101

    did i just read that clint howard was the pope. youve got to be kidding me. weres george carlin when you need him.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:49 a.m. CST

    why people say "he can't write"

    by John Dalmas

    Sorry... is your argument that a best-selling book must be well-written, or that sales somehow equal good writing? In that case Bill O'Reilly, Dr. Phil, and L. Ron Hubbard are all better writers than William Faulkner, Philip Roth and Saul Bellow. The fact that it is such an enormous bestseller is more likely indicative of sub-par writing, as it appeals to people who don't typically read books as a primary form of entertainment or art. I'm not saying a best-selling book can't be well-written; far from it. But there's no reason to think that because something sells a lot of copies it's good writing. Look at 'Dianetics' for christ's sake. And yeah, the guy writes terribly. He had a great conspiracy idea and dramatized it into a very rapidly paced thriller, but the characterization, dialogue, and narrative strategies were awful. Fuck, one description of the hero was as "Harrison Ford in Harris Tweed." That's damn shitty writing.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Writing vs. Storytelling

    by symphy

    You can be an amazing writer, or an amazing storyteller, or neither, or both. But they're distinct. Even some of my favorite novelists like King have gone out of their way to say they're good storytellers, not "writers". Dan Brown is a storyteller as well, which is why his stuff is fun to read. Like Koontz. :)

  • May 17, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    p.s.

    by symphy

    Da Vinci Code was at least written better than Digital Fortress. Good God the last 30 pages had me tearing my hair out with frustration over the crappiness, but I still finished it. Personally, if you're looking for superior writing, I'd recommend "The Time Traveler's Wife" (Niffenegger) and "Middlesex" (Eugenides) as my two favorite novels of the past 5 years or so.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    So, since Harry didn't get any "pwesents"...

    by Atticus Finch

    he'll piss all over the film. Big surprise. Instead, why doesn't Harry have the balls to report on why John Carter got shitcanned?

  • May 17, 2006, 9:57 a.m. CST

    If Ron Howard is the Ned Flanders of directors

    by Godardwhowhatnow

    "I'll take my Ice Cream plain, with nothing on it!" If 'capable' is the best compliment you can give the guy, then you can keep him. Whenever I watch one of his movies, I'm always get the same feeling- there are pretty moving pictures blinking in front of me, with a wonderfully coherent narrative driving them to a carefully predefined destination, but I feel absolutely nothing but bored contempt for the whole affair. Except everyone else seems to love it. It's the same way I feel about the show Desperate Housewives. Ron Howard is the only guy who could make blasphemy DULL and lifeless. Or maybe it's Akiva Goldsman, what the fuck do I know.

  • May 17, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST

    atticus

    by John Dalmas

    Is John Carter shitcanned?

  • May 17, 2006, 10 a.m. CST

    The Da Vinci Code

    by Ingeld

    Capote's review of Kerouac applies here. "This isn't writing; it's typing."

  • May 17, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST

    No right answer to what defines good writing.

    by viranth

    Personally I think the book is good, and I'm willing to stand up for the book. I usually don't read that many books, so it was Dan Browns books that got me into reading again. Anyways, I like how he describes things, I visualized the settings he wrote about and to me it was a good experience reading what he wrote. Last book I read was "Inside delta force", loved every page of it. I'm pretty sure people say that guy was a bad writer too. My next books I'm reading will be by Sven Hazel, looking forward to those. Not because of how he writes, but because of the stories he tells, which brings me to the final point here; the story is what matters. So by looking at the reviews of the movie, I say everyone has an agenda. They might be religious and don't like the story, or they are jealous why they can't write so "simple" and get rich.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Howard as Director.

    by Ingeld

    In general I agree with those who find Howard's films to be good but not excellent. He knows the craft, but he seems to lack the vision or the spark. He is like Hitchcock without all that genious and inspired creativity baggage. Still, I thought Cinderella Man was a cut above Howard's usual work.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:17 a.m. CST

    They're making a sequel.

    by board shitlez

    I Know What You Did Last Supper.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:18 a.m. CST

    I demand pics of waitresses in Droogs gear.

    by Veraxus

    I just HAVE to see that.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:19 a.m. CST

    viranth

    by John Dalmas

    Now you're just not making sense. Everyone who doesn't like the movie has an agenda? Either their religious nuts or they're "jealous they can't write so simple and get rich"? So your assumption is that ONLY those two things could account for someone not liking the movie or book? That's ridiculous. A lot of people don't like the book because the 'story' is poorly delivered and not credibly realized. The same, I imagine, for some people who won't like the movie. What you're ignoring in your assessment are people who like good movies and good writing because they appreciate the forms when done well. No, the story is NOT all that matters. HOW THE STORY IS TOLD is at least as important (otherwise, every great novel could simply be a summary of the story); "the medium is the message," etc. "Inside Delta Force" isn't really subject to the criteria of good literature, as it's a non-fiction account of soldier's lives and its main purpose is to be informative while, hopefully, entertaining. I read that book too, and enjoyed it. There's very definite aesthetic criteria that can define good writing, and if you're not interested in any of that, just stick around for sixty years and see what's still in print.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Board Shitlez

    by symphy

    That was funny.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:20 a.m. CST

    Man...I loved this book but...

    by Lost Skeleton

    the reviews are killing it and I am sorry. Rottentomatoes is usually right since it is a collection of critics. I love my guilty pleasures as much as the next man (I will see X3 and Superman even if they get a 20%) and don't get me started on my Michael Bay fan club (Bad Boys 2 was just plain sick in a good way) but I will not stand for a "dull" summer flick, especially since the book was so damn good and didn't seem dull at all.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:25 a.m. CST

    BoyNamedSue...

    by Lost Skeleton

    Muslims do not think that Muhammad was divine. They just feel that he was a prophet by which God spoke through like Moses and (they feel) Jesus. Muslims do not accept the divinity of Jesus or any other prophet (I do by the way so don't go all angry Christian on me brother in Christ) Just saying...and if I am wrong...someone correct me.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    Ron Howard is a bland director.

    by superninja

    Tom Hanks and Audrey are the wrong choices for leads in a film whose script takes itself waaay too seriously. Given the sensationalism of the novel, this called for some camp. Which is why everyone is praising Ian McKellen (excellent actor). About Dan Brown's lies about historic facts, there is nothing wrong with people being offended by this. FACT: Dan Brown set out to deliberately deceive his audience, not merely provide entertainment.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:30 a.m. CST

    My question: what part does Clint Howard play?

    by Uncapie

    ????????????

  • May 17, 2006, 10:31 a.m. CST

    board shitlez

    by lofe101

    that was a good one. defenitly gave me a good chuckle.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Why is that the ' is replaced by a ?

    by Russman

    I notice this happens alot with a lot of applications. Anyone know why that happens and how come noone has fixed it? I'm assuming it can be fixed... or have I assumed wrong. Anyway, I like Ron Howard's stuff, but I don't really think that this was a good fit for him.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:32 a.m. CST

    "Brown set out to deliberately deceive his audience"

    by John Dalmas

    ...sort of like organized religion sets out to deliberately deceive the human race.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:36 a.m. CST

    20 % on rotten tomatoes

    by clockpolitiks

    Only a couple of reviews so far...but still, thats not good.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:42 a.m. CST

    Lets Go Sabres!!!!!

    by lofe101

    Sorry had to say it.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Clint Howard was awesome in The Wraith!

    by chrth

    HE DA MAN! (And his Apollo 13 role was actually well-acted)

  • May 17, 2006, 10:47 a.m. CST

    "Night Shift" was a decent Ron Howard flick.

    by ExcaliburFfolkes

    Can't think of too many others.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:48 a.m. CST

    JoBlo got a review..

    by Lost Skeleton

    just saying

  • May 17, 2006, 10:52 a.m. CST

    re: John Dalmas

    by Ingeld

    "...sort of like organized religion sets out to deliberately deceive the human race." Yes, it would be just like that, if that statement of yours was true, of course.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Uh, wrong, viranth. You can define good writing.

    by Orbots Commander

    Hemingway, Dickens, Tom Wolfe, Stephen King, Ann Rice, Lawrence Block, John D. Macdonald: all good writers. Dan Brown? Bad writing

  • May 17, 2006, 11:10 a.m. CST

    of course it's true

    by John Dalmas

    If you were able to indulge a rationale analysis of the history of Christianity (after Christ) and the behavior of those who control it, you'd come to the same conclusion. See, since the dawn of time people have been terrified of dying. And there have always been other people willing to take advantage of that fear for the purpose of gaining power, control and money-- they traffic in religion. Perhaps you feel that an old man living like an emperor in bejeweled, palatial splendor has something to do with a carpenter who commanded his followers to give up their worldly possessions and follow him around doing charitable works, but I don't. And a tertiary examination of what the church and its popes have wrought over the centuries reveals an institution of lies, intolerance, murder, the denial of emperically observable reality, the subjugation of education, and just recently the widespread sheltering of pedophiles. Yeah, they're not deceiving anybody.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:20 a.m. CST

    everything is right and wrong

    by bib fortuna

    See godhatesfish.com for just a few of the Bible laws that most people have decided not to follow. That's decided that the rule was not worth following. Why can't Muslims decide for themselves not to believe some things? They obviously do because not every Muslim kills non-believers. Oh and I read the book, liked it and can't wait until the movie. I don't get all the hype, since even though there is a page before the book starts that states certain things as facts, anything within the covers of a novel should be considered fiction. Brown is brilliant for exploiting some people's weaknessess and need to protest and he'll make tons of mone y while laughing at the uproar he created.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:22 a.m. CST

    they've decided, i mean

    by bib fortuna

  • May 17, 2006, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Dan Brown haters... please explain...

    by Russman

    why you think the book was poorly writeen? I'm curious.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:27 a.m. CST

    THIS MOVIE WILL DO GANGBUSTERS THIS WEEKEND

    by warpspasm

    $$$$$$$$$$

  • May 17, 2006, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Russman: why the ?s instead of 's

    by Celicynd

    The reason it happens is Microsoft uses smart quotes that replace the standard quotes you type. If you were to type "word", it would replace the quotes with opening and closing quote symbols. Since they're not normal characters, they get replaced with ?s. (The reason this happens with the apostrophe is that it's a single quote mark and follows the same rule.)

  • May 17, 2006, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Bezu is a Zebu! Bezu is a Zebu!

    by onefalsemove

    Faiche, Faiche, Faiche!!!! Religious Symbologist, then I'm a Cinema Architect.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:42 a.m. CST

    All Ron Howard movies are dull.

    by Homer Sexual

    Ok, yeah, you all loved Apollo 13 and Beautiful Mind. I just find all of his movies to be competently directed but extremely superficial and dull. Just my opinion. I read, but didn't especially like, DaVinci code. I thought it was a well-enough written potboiler, but nothing special and I didn't find it thought provoking at all, except that the sex cult provoked thoughts in me of "Eyes Wide Shut" and "what-ever, this is dumb." I predict mucho dinero, nonetheless.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Yes, Harry, Audrey is indeed OOGLE worthy.

    by DarthCorleone

    Just don't oogle her in public. Of course, if you were to OGLE her, it might be o.k.

  • May 17, 2006, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Ron Howard doesn't hate Blacks

    by zdigital

    stop putting down Ron Howard and his brother. Don't you remember "Cool" from Parenthood? Did you know that his cinematographer was BLACK? maybe you should think about the material. i don't think there are any African Americans in the novel. Also, SPOILER ALERT, i heart Tom Hanks' mullet deflects a bullet in the film...

  • May 17, 2006, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Currently at ZERO at rotten tomatoes. Ouch.

    by minderbinder

    So why is Brown a bad writer? Paper thin characters (not to mention that the characters in his different books are exactly the same, just with diffent names). His cheesy end-of-chapter "cliffhangers" are just painful. Seriously, you build suspense with "He couldn't believe his fucking eyes, it was the most mindboggling thing he had ever seen...", then make the reader wait 30 pages to find out that it doesn't live up to the hype. His descriptions use product specs he lifted from google as a crutch (gee, listing the hosrepower of that jet makes the book seem SO smart and high-tech). He goes with tired stereotypes to make characters seem evil, such as the "bad" guy always being old, handicapped, or ugly. His insistense that all the details are true is annoying (and simply a lie), but he still uses the "but it's just fiction" line when people call him on his bullshit. And in DVC, when the ending becomes blatantly obvious, he cheats the audience by insisting that it couldn't be a possibility...only to forget that he'd already debunked the ending earlier in the book. I also don't like his pacing, sometimes he moves things along, but other times the characters seem to loiter in the same location endlessly. Is that enough for you?

  • May 17, 2006, 12:10 p.m. CST

    John Dalmas, thanks for helping me out.

    by Ingeld

    You said "organized religion sets out to deliberately decieve the human race." Then you said "a rationale analysis of the history of Christianity (after Christ)." Well which is it? When Christ said to Peter, "You are a rock and on this rock I will build my Church" was this son of a carpenter deliberately setting out to decieve the human race? If it wasn't Christ who was out to decieve then and when did it happen? Did it happen uniformly at the Council of Nicea or at Antioch? A organized religion is usually too big to be a a vast conspiracy that is perpetuated over thousands of years. Some may be in in it for the power, but many if not most are in it out of genuine belief. I may disagree with their beliefs, but I accept their motives. The fact that all organized religions have corrupt people or are subject to hypocricy is not tantamount to them all holding a secret agenda of deceit, lies and trickery for the gaining of power over the human race. Cynicism can be overdone as easily as gullibility, but for some reason the extreme cynic is admired more than he is critiqued.

  • May 17, 2006, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Brown wants it both ways.

    by Ingeld

    He wants to say that Christ was not God, but that because he married Mary Magadalene she is a Goddess figure.

  • May 17, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    The textual problem with the DaVinci Code

    by chrth

    Is the fact that characters are constantly explaining stuff to people so the audience can get it. Are we really to believe that a Harvard professor of Symbology doesn't know that the Star of David is an amalgamation of the male and female triangles?

  • May 17, 2006, 12:21 p.m. CST

    Two words... Akiva Goldsman.

    by Darksider

    How much talent does it take to fuck up guaranteed money makers that someone else has already written for you? Akiva Goldsman knows.

  • May 17, 2006, 12:37 p.m. CST

    The only reason...

    by viranth

    The ONLY reason why you read books by "good" writers, is because their books sell. If a book gets picked up by schools and used as examples in the media from time to time, it will sell enough to make sure they keep printing it. The list of names you mentioned Orbots Commander, that's probably some of the most selling writers of all time. But when you guys say "good writing" I'm thinking Russian literature from the 1940s or whatever, some heavy depressing stuff about the horrible stuff they're going through. I mean, that's the kind of books that you have to read through school! John Dalmas, I didn't say everyone. I said the reviewers. (If I didn't write that, that's what I ment). Anyways, these early reviews might not have such impact on the opening weekend, since most people who have read the book most likely will see the movie. The religious people however, don't want anyone to see this movie, maybe they say they don't mind people seeing it, but they are afraid of losing people from their church. Not sure how it's done in the states, but here in Norway the church gets money from the gov't for each member, so if members leave, the church loose some of their money. As far as I know, variety and Hollywood reporter are american magazines, owned and controlled by who knows who. If the people in charge are religious and don't support this movie, they will definately let someone religious review it. And yes, I see your point on good writing, I just don't share your views =)

  • May 17, 2006, 12:44 p.m. CST

    I can't wait for "CSI: Rome" staring Michael Imperioli

    by P33KA

    Michael Imperioli as a scientest and a priest exposes murder after murder using symbology Detective: There is a swastika burned on his chest! Imperioli: No that a plus sign...(David Caruso like pause) doing cartwheels. Cue: The Who theme song

  • May 17, 2006, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Clint Howard in ICE CREAM MAN II

    by Uncapie

    I'd buy that for a dollar!

  • May 17, 2006, 12:52 p.m. CST

    The Fusilli Mode

    by Crash Crator

    *****Rottentomatoes.com has this at 0% rotten (six reviews, all negative). Is this a Da Vinci Bomb or not?

  • May 17, 2006, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Clint Howard was the bomb on My Name Is Earl!

    by minderbinder

    Who's with me?

  • May 17, 2006, 1:05 p.m. CST

    The Ebony Code

    by Crash Crator

    *****Brokebackcowboy, Ron Howard doesn't hate black people. He just doesn't see the need for them when there's perfectly good white people out there.

  • May 17, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    ?????????????

    by gonzobob

    Indeed ?!REDTOM? INDEED? ???????????????????????????????????????

  • May 17, 2006, 1:13 p.m. CST

    The biggest fiction of them all in this book

    by Ingeld

    is that there is no such academic discipline as symbology.

  • May 17, 2006, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Another bad sign

    by Blanket-Man

    I just called Muvico here in Maryland, which supposedly sells more tickets than any theatre in the US, and they've cancelled their 10 PM and midnight Da Vinci screenings for Thursday night. "We've been told we're not allowed to show it early." Uh-oh.

  • May 17, 2006, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Mediocre director, dodgy scriptwriter - not surprised

    by elab49

    the film has turned out as duff as the atrociously written source material. I never really understood all the hoo-hah about the religious stuff - they should just have concetrated on how badly written it was. Actually - maybe that explains the match-up with Goldsman?

  • May 17, 2006, 1:32 p.m. CST

    Most people could care less about reviews

    by holidill

    Da Vinci Code will kick ass at the theaters this week. It will have a big drop off the next week and keep going down until it makes about $230 million. Over the Hedge will be a consistent prescence in the top 10 for a while, but Da Vinci Code will be the # 1 movie this week. Most people care less about reviews. They see a movie if they are interested and apparently there are a lot of people interested. The # 1 movie of the summer though... Pirates of the Carribbean 2 Dead Mans Chest.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:04 p.m. CST

    Did he say that?

    by GaiustheBrave

    "Dan Brown's masterful concoction of facts, science and historic research blended with a good old fashioned yarn." Yeah, Dan Brown's research went so far as "The Templar Revelations" and Pagels. How do I know this? He contradicts some of his "sources" in matters of fact that would not have changed the story. Honestly, I don't see what all the hubbub is about. "Templar Revelations" has been out for years, and basically refuted by every person with one ounce of sense, most notably historians of every ideology. The point: Fun book. But, not worthy of thirty "is it real" specials. There's my two cents.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Cannes (Luscious and others)

    by indiephantom

    You don't have a clue about the Cannes film festival, obviously. There are no "Cannes" critics. These are the same critics that reviews movies everywhere else and just happened to see it in Cannes first. It is not even in competition, so the Cannes jury (which this year includes Wong Kar Wai, Tim Roth, and Samuel Jackson by the way) has nothing to do with the reaction to this film. It is not competiting and their awards are still a week away. Also Cannes did not award "Crash" (Cronenberg's yes--Haggis' no), "Million Dollar Baby" or "Brokeback Mountain". They weren't even screened there. Get a life.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:13 p.m. CST

    Wnanahara7: Next time, read the talkback first

    by chrth

    Before posting and sounding like an idiot. The ?/' has already been discussed, the fault is the site, not the reviewer.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    figures

    by quadrupletree

    Well I have to say I wasn't holding out a lot of hope for this film anyway, but it still sucks to be proven right on this cause I'm a big fan of the book. Personally I thought the casting of Hanks was wrong, not that I hate him but he's just wrong for the part. And I'm not a fan of Ron Howard AT ALL. looks like what, 0 for 4(ish) so far this summer? IMHO. No wonder box office is lack luster...

  • May 17, 2006, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Oh, and I can only agree that it's stupid to call for

    by GaiustheBrave

    a boycott of a movie. If it offends you, don't see it. Very simple. If people become non-believers (in Christianity) because of one movie, after sitting through science courses for years and studying ancient history, then you're probably better off without 'em. Honestly, when the Church says you shouldn't see it, it's like a parental warning at the beginning of a movie, saying the following is not for children under 18, and contains strong sexual content. There's two more cents. Now I'm out of change.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:33 p.m. CST

    ingeld

    by John Dalmas

    No problem, glad to help you out. I don't think organized religion merely has some corrupt people in it, I think the very nature of the enterprise is corrupt, built on control and a denial of empirical reality. I don't feel better about people who are motivated out of belief-- 'belief' is the whole problem. A belief is a lever that, once pulled, moves almost everything else in a person's life, and if the belief cannot find a rational place in reality, it often moves people toward very dangerous behaviors. Our situation is this: many people in the world believe that the Creator of the universe has written a book. We have the great misfortune of having many such books on hand, each making an exclusive claim to their own infallibility. Each of these texts urges its reader to adopt a variety of beliefs and practices, some of which are benign, many of which are not. While all faiths have been touched, here and there, by the spirit of ecumenicalism, the central tenent of every religious tradition is that all others are mere repositories or error, or at best, dangerously incomplete. Intolerance is thus intrinsic to every creed. Certainty about the next life is incompatible with tolerance in this one. And the problem isn't with one religion, it's with faith in general. Our world is fast succumbing to the activities of men and women who would stake the future of our species on beliefs that should not survive an elementary school education. The fact of death is intolerable to many people, always has been, and faith is little more than the shadow cast by their hopes for a better life beyond the grave. And if the idea that many Christians do good works as a result of their beliefs is meant to be mollifying, I can only say that if you have to be motivated by a belief in an eternal reward in order to do good, then you're not good. On to your Jesus quote: If Jesus ever said "You are the rock upon which I build my church," I don't think he ever said, "Make sure that church becomes one of the wealthiest organizations the world has ever seen and that it's papal hiearchy live in palatial splendor. Also, make sure none of the priests of my church engage in sexual congress with women. In fact, deny women any role of active power. Also, make sure any time observable reality contradicts your church teachings, such knowledge is suppressed, and its messenger is flogged. Also, do your best to keep education soley in the hands of the church so that people have no knowledge with which to evaluate our teachings or the world around them (pre-rennaisance, but still). Also, make sure you instigate an Inquisition which tortures and murders people who don't share our beliefs. Also... etc." Clearly, the list can go on and on, up to this present day, when the pope hid pedophiles under his robes. Anyhow, good luck with reality. I've got to leave my computer for the evening, but I'll check back with you tomorrow.

  • May 17, 2006, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Quality of DB's Writing - Russman

    by TVGuy Returns

    Hey all. I only browsed the other comments so this probably has been addressed above. However, Russman asked why so many people say the the quality of the writing in the DaVinci Code (book) is poor. Well, here's my take. The chapters in the book average about 2-3 pages long. Almost every chapter ends with an attempted cliffhanger. Nearly none of these cliffhangers have any actual suspense. My recollection of one of these cliffhangers is that the adventurers realize that the next clue is in the room next door. They wonder what to do. End chapter. New chapter - they go into the next room and find the next clue. Over and over you have these melodramatic buildups to inconsequential events. Also, it is just plain bad writing to end one chapter and start another without transitioning to a new locale, set of characters, change in POV or dramatic focus, etc. DB does this several times in the book. In addition, several times DB has one of his characters think something and then say it out loud one paragraph later. It is interesting if a character thinks something and then says something different (especially if it is slightly different, thereby revealing to the reader what the character wishes to hide from others). However, DB's characters will think something and then say it out loud, word-for-word. This is escentially filler. Another annoying thing about DB's writing is how he has his lead character gloat (internally)over how all the chicks want him because he is a sensitive metrosexual. In the book, our hero recollects about some sexual advice he gave in a college seminar he taught - the girls swooned and the boys were confused. Most of the women I have discussed this book with either laughed at or just plain hated that scene. Finally (actually I could go on, but why bother) the puzzles in the book may have seemed tricky to DB, but are laughably easy to figure out (especially if you had the education which our hero supposedly had). A reasonably intelligent reader will figure out a clue and then have to wait 3-4 minichapters until our adventurers catch up. A little background on me: I have a life long interest in the occult and read the source material for this book back in the 80's. I wasn't going to bother to read this book, but we had houseguests over the holidays (last Dec/Jan) and one of them brought this book with her and asked me to read it. If anyone is interested in why I believe the theory behind the book sucks as bad as DB's writing skills, let me know. Otherwise, I won't bother writing up another large post.

  • May 17, 2006, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Why is it blocked? Because it SUCKS.

    by Jeditemple

    Over-hyped pile of crap and lies.

  • May 17, 2006, 3:13 p.m. CST

    KillahMate

    by Kid Z

    ... you're right... it's like arguing about nursery rhymes, "NO! Mother Hubbard could kick Mother Goose's ASS!" Idiots...

  • May 17, 2006, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Greeks...

    by Kid Z

    ..."coming in the back door!" (Chortle!)

  • May 17, 2006, 3:18 p.m. CST

    The book does not attack Christians

    by stvnhthr

    It attacks anyone with a working brain or an ounce of knowledge about history. It is scary how many people see this as anything more than a movie version of the National Enquirer.

  • Our Bonfire of the Vanities for this generation.

  • May 17, 2006, 3:26 p.m. CST

    John Dalmas

    by Ingeld

    Ah, empiricism, which in itself is a belief system resting on the foundation that what one can sense is the last word on truth. Unfortunately, if empiricism is the arbiter of reality than you will have to eliminate the notion of truth itself as real or any concept or idea, for that matter. What happens between the time your physical body senses something and your mind fixes it with a meaning is the movement from objective to subjective realities. You cannot escape it. Truth, trust, loyalty, love, humor, the very things that we use to define ourselves as human do not exist in an empirical world. Moreover, the ability to conceptualize any idea according to rational thought requires a whole host of assumptions about knowledge and truth

  • May 17, 2006, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Interesting phenomenon...

    by ejcarter9

    ... I saw American Haunting this weekend. I haven't read any reviews or rankings or anything about it, besides knowing that it was a horror movie and one commercial for it. I thought it was a pretty effective movie. It wasn't until I'd seen the reviews that I found out it was generally poorly received. Up til then I had told a few people that it was a good movie. So what does that tell us?

  • May 17, 2006, 3:43 p.m. CST

    ejcarter9: that your standards have been dulled

    by chrth

    by the recent crap hollywood has released ;)

  • May 17, 2006, 4:10 p.m. CST

    They should have...

    by NNNOOO!!!

    adapted Tom Robbins' "Another Roadside Attraction" instead.

  • May 17, 2006, 4:14 p.m. CST

    You Guys Cost Films their Viewers

    by cabsau

    I don't blame Sony. All the sites like this are definitely adding up to losses at the box office. There's a lot going against movie going these days. Only one part of that is a movie being over-exposure to the public. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is posting movie reviews and spoilers. We find the information, become compelled to keep looking for more information and in the end become apathetic about going to see the film. I didn't like this novel but I thought that with this production the movie will surely be worth a watch. But now...Why would I go see a 2.5 hour bore fest. Besides I've been reading about this movie on the web for a year now. I'm kind of over it.

  • May 17, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST

    You Guys Cost Films their Viewers

    by cabsau

    I don't blame Sony. All the sites like this one are definitely adding up to losses at the box office. There's a lot going against movie going these days. Only one part of that is certainly a movie being over-exposed to the public. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is posting movie news, set visits, reviews and spoilers. We, your audience, keep reading the stuff like addicts and in the end become apathetic about actually going to see the film. I didn't like this novel but I thought that with this production the movie will surely be worth a watch. But now...Why would I go see a 2.5 hour bore fest? Besides I've been reading about this movie on the web for a year now. I'm kind of over it.

  • May 17, 2006, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Historical Research?

    by UncleEthan

    This is an ok review, but thecomment about Brown's novel containing anything remotely resembling one ioata (I think that's how you spell iota) of fact is totaly wrong. Take it from someone who does have a basic understanding of things historical- the book is total shite. I know people have latched onto the goddamn thing, but the history and "research" is total and complete shit. Seriously. One example is Opus Dei does not mean "The Way" in latin...it means "The Work". While odd, maybe, Opus Dei adherants donot dress like monks either.

  • May 17, 2006, 4:23 p.m. CST

    Cabsau, that points to a good marketing strategy.

    by Orbots Commander

    If I were a filmmaker or studio executive, rather than going the Peter Jackson and Bryan Singer route of frequently posting updates on a movie's production and/or creating video diaries, I'd go the opposite route (aka the Spielberg method): I would minimize all press contacts, have everyone sign secrecy contracts, and only release dribs of information prior to release. If Davinci Code were maybe a better flick, people would have flocked to it, as Sony has controlled press access to it. That's not a bad strategy.

  • May 17, 2006, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Good Point Orbots

    by cabsau

    Although some projects are the exception. (Lord of the Rings, Narnia and Harry Potter) I believe one big problem with King Kong for example was most definitely over-exposure. That monkey should have stayed under raps. (The movie should also have been shorter and less romanticized.) Now my point is not that people should suffer bad films. But that I believe a lot of us are no longer interested enough to decide for ourselves if we like or don

  • May 17, 2006, 4:55 p.m. CST

    0% rating on rottentomatoes.com

    by Fish Tank

    That aint good :-(

  • May 17, 2006, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Oh this Films Attendance

    by cabsau

    will be okay. It has a large audience already built in. Heck the book was not well done and it still managed to make it to be an all time best seller. I don't get it. Oh UncleEthan... 1. Read Holy Blood Holy Grail. 2. What real historical fact is there to back up the stories in the bible?

  • May 17, 2006, 5:08 p.m. CST

    cabsau: I think the real factor is money

    by chrth

    In all seriousness, is it still worth it shelling out $10 a ticket to go see a film in a theater? Throw in a spouse/family, popcorn and soda and you could own not only the DVD but a new DVD player for the same cost of a movie. Add the cost of gas and the annoyance factor (do I really want to sit in sticky seats with obnoxious teens talking on their cell phones?), I'm surprised anyone goes to the movies anymore.

  • the bible? Uh, cabsau, you might not want to go that direction. Outside of Genesis, pretty much everything in the bible of a historical nature (Exodus, the Kings, the Babylonian Captivity, the Second Temple) has been vetted by other sources. Jesus is referred to in other contemporary texts (although more in reference to his followers) and the letters of Paul were just that: letters. Granted, there might be some details missing (was Moses actually Egyptian? was the Yahweh cult merged with the Ahkenaton cult? etc) but typically scholars view the majority of the old testament as a historical document.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:16 p.m. CST

    NIce Marmot he won his Oscars for Beautiful Mind

    by Cosmik

    Best director, best picture

  • May 17, 2006, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Exactly chrth

    by cabsau

    That's part of it; getting to be a bigger part. What the hell happened that after all things considered it costs a family of four; a lot of inconvenience, four hours and $60.00 to go see a movie? Movies are a lot of things but they should not be a luxury. ...and excuse I'd rather spend $10.00 on the Rosemary chicken with vegetable medly and a glass of wine rather than a coke and popcorn for chrissakes.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    I think for the most part the only thing going against

    by superninja

    movies these days is that they're mediocre. Sure, AICN may be annoying to the industry, but pointing out that the movies suck and talking about how the movies suck doesn't change the fact that the product, generally speaking, sucks. Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:25 p.m. CST

    I do read reviews. But I only take a

    by superninja

    few of them very seriously. There are so many reviewers now that if you find a few that match your taste in films, you pretty much know what to avoid.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:37 p.m. CST

    Well since we're on the topic...

    by cabsau

    I mean no disrespect. I'm a lowly human being. I do not have the answers. But speaking more in terms of historic evidence proving the stories in the bible. The Bible indeed discusses well known historic events. But much of it like Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Lot, Noah, ...where's the historical evidence? Outside of a few religious texts there's no physical evidence that Moses, Noah or Jesus for that matter actually existed. And don

  • May 17, 2006, 5:40 p.m. CST

    One reason why DB's novels are not considered literary

    by Snowden's Secret

    is because the characters are not developed. We learn everything we need to know about them in the first few pages of their debut. In a Philip Roth novel, for instance, we gradually learn more and more about their psychology, motivation, and why they make the choices they make. Each character is a completely unique individual with an entire, fully fleshed-out life. DB's novels, like most mysteries, are plot-centric, which is why mysteries have gotten a bad rap since the genre was invented. This does not take anything away from the fact that the book was a wonderfully enjoyable read. It's one dimensional, but I thought Brown did a nice job of creating a suspenseful page turner. Nobody should feel embarassed that they liked it. It's one of the most enjoyable reads out there, and it's fun to discuss because so many people have read it, and the pseudo-historical events are thought-provoking. I just read my first Salman Rushdie novel (Fury) and was completely blown away. I highly recommend him to all readers. He's literary yet can also be enjoyed on a literal level. His plots are complex but he also develops his characters to an almost Rothian level.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:47 p.m. CST

    Hey Kid Z

    by Lamerz

    Fuck you.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:52 p.m. CST

    It IS a good book, but not a masterpiece

    by performingmonkey

    Some people think it's going to be this master work when it IS just another thriller novel (albeit a very good one) except it makes 'controversial' stabs at the Church. That's IT! But Howard and Hanks are wrong for the movie. AND it should have been given an R rating and added a couple more action sequences. All they do in the book is run away from the police. Parts of the book reminded me of Indy and the Last Crusade, particularly where he smashes the floor in the library (Dan Brown DEFINITELY saw that. And why wouldn't he? He's doing a book about the Grail, that's a movie about the Grail). If it wasn't for Last Crusade doing the Grail they should have made this into the fourth Indy movie. When I read the book I imagined Ford in that role. A few years ago he would have been perfect as Langdon. Hanks is miscast IMO. Anyhow, I like that Da Vinci Code pisses people off. Some people need to be pissed off in their safe little oblivious lives. They don't want to believe that the Church is full of lies and deceit when anyone with half a brain knows that anyway.

  • May 17, 2006, 5:54 p.m. CST

    okay, I saw the trailer...

    by Pops Freshemeyer

    and while it didn't make me want to see the movie, it did make me wonder why Tom Hanks looks like Vincent Vega. Is his character a huge Tarantino fan or something?

  • May 17, 2006, 6:42 p.m. CST

    I'd give the book a 7 out of 10

    by Rupee88

    It is worth reading, but far from "great". Too bad the movie sucks.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Another Roadside Attraction!

    by minderbinder

    I was thinking that too. MUCH better take on the whole "so what happened to Jesus" thing. Or hell, just make a movie of Holy Blood, Holy Grail, it just had all the good parts without the shitty treasure hunt bits.

  • May 17, 2006, 7:51 p.m. CST

    the book was too damned PREACHY

    by Maniaq

    Beyond the technical problems with DB's writing already mentioned, my biggest problem with the book was that it was about 90% rabitting on about some alternative theory or explaining the significance of something or whatever and only about 10% ACTUAL PLOT!! The plot itself started off with a lot of promise but got pretty boring v.quickly... So this was all gonna have to be changed for purposes of making an actually entertaining movie. Unfortunately, I'm sure it was decided you HAVE to stick as closely as possible to the novel to keep the masses happy and that was ALWAYS going to make for pretty damn boring cinema. Go figure... btw can the Jesus and Mohammed freaks go argue some place else! Dont care! DON'T CARE!!!

  • May 17, 2006, 9:25 p.m. CST

    It's up to 6%!!!!!!!

    by chrth

    Go read the one positive review and tell me the studio didn't pay him (or he did it voluntary) just to get his name in the advertisement. Fucking Rupert Murdoch.

  • May 17, 2006, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Chrth, Rupert Murdoch own FOX

    by Brock Samson

    DaVinci was put out by Sony. Why the fuck would you bring up Murdoch anyway? Take off the tinfoil.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:03 a.m. CST

    Just saw Da Vinci at the Arclight....

    by trojanwilliams

    Its not nearly as terrible as the reviews would have you believe. A solid B+ film. A bit too slow early on but it will still make a ton of money at the B.O. Only thing that might hurt it is the length & limited showings. Ian McKellen does good work and carries the movie through the last 2/3. Oh and please stop relying on Rotten Tomatoes for an accurate average review. Metacritic is much much better. They actually give real review rankings instead of putting movies into good or bad categories. As we all know things are not always black or white. Oh and I know already I liked a big budget film so - plantity plant plant. There

  • May 18, 2006, 1:23 a.m. CST

    Da Vinci: Recoded

    by Crash Crator

    *****It's 18% Fresh at Rottentomatoes.com as of 1:22 AM, May 18, 2006. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

  • May 18, 2006, 1:33 a.m. CST

    BEWARE... TRADES/MEDIA OWNED BY RIGHT WING CATHOLICS

    by moto

    To a certain extent. There is much controversy over this film, and when you have a media that is owned and controlled by conservative corporations, you will sadly be seeing reviews like this from many of the big trades. Just too much turmoil between the Catholic faith and this work of FICTION. Film will easily make $300 million domestic at least.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:42 a.m. CST

    Reading this TB explains exactly

    by kobain

    what is wrong with humanity these days. "The bible is historically accurate" "no, it's not" "is too" : it's not" "The muslims are demons" "Dan Brown is blasphemous" "I'm christian and the Da Vinci Code offends me" "Boycott the MOVIE!" bleh. I was going to write "America" instead of "humanity" but then again, reading news from around the world, you get to see that everybody's crazy. It's all "my god is better than yours" either from whatever-Christian definition, jewish or muslim.. this sounds so much to "you're either WITH us or AGAINST us" give us a break! I'm originally from South America, as as most South-americans I was raised "catholic", was baptised, and I was almost forced to take First Communion. In the present, I'm a skeptic; or better yet, I would say that I'm more leaning towards an all out Atheist (THE Guilt-Free Religion hehe) I find life a lot easier this way. Anyway, wouldn't it be much simpler to just go thorugh life respecting what other people think? come on, how can you get enraged when someone believes that jesus was married because it goes against your beliefs? are you THAT insecure of your own beliefs? I really, really do not believe one word of the bible (was that one written by Ron L. Hubbard?) but I do not try to make others see my POV. If going to the church does it for you, then jump in the car, I'll give you a ride there. When will people stop complaining and start accepting what others think without crying war! please, stop it with all the complaining. Look where all this rivalry has gotten us! Papers that can't publish a damn cartoon because they're afraid this will encite muslim riots! Movies suffer boycotts because the pope says so (how godfath-ish is that?). Meetings being held at public places to debate if schools should teach evolution vs. creationism (this one has got to be the most idiotic debate EVER). People crying because some bumd-ass decided to remove a sculpture of the Ten Comandments somewhere (come on, I don;t believe they were planted by a god, but most of the commandments make a compelling argument for a sane and civilized society). I did NOT say the "under god" part while reciting the pledge, but I'm not against other people saying it (whatever rocks your boat, bud) arghhh am I going anywhere with this post? absolutely not. but feels damn fine to vent a little.

  • May 18, 2006, 2:43 a.m. CST

    Bastardised, Watered Down, Shitfest

    by Ecto-1

    Alright there Harry, and fellow Talkbackers. I got to see this last night. Now, I really enjoyed the book because as a practicing Pagan (Wiccan) I thought that Dan Brown presented many thruths about the supression and manipulation of my religion by organised religions, ie the Church. Now, I didn't for a moment think that the hollywood studion system would make a faithful adaptation of this work taking into account that many of them are practitioners of an organised religion... More so when it's being directed by 'average at best' Ron Howard and adapted by fucking Akiva Goldsman. Right, like Goldsman is going to faithfully adapt a work that condems his own religion... So what we end up with is a bastardised watered down shitfest. The biggest thing that I take issue with is that one of the issues in Dan Brown's work was of the supression of women by an organised religion. But in the adaptation the character of Sophie Neveau is completely changed to play second to Tom Hanks... And that brings me nicely to Robert Langdon (Hanks). Here is a character who has wrote a book about the supression of women and Pagan religion by the dominant organised religion. Yet when Sir Leigh Teabing (McKellen) talks about how Jesus was essentially a self styled Prophet with no ties to 'god', wasn't Deified until 400 years AFTER his death, the supression of Paganism and subsequent massacre of women by organised religion: Langdon rejects this as old wives tales!! Even going as far to suggest that Pagans incited the violence towards the organised religions. And at another point he says that through sex Pagans are trying to get to Heaven! Heaven is not a Pagan concept. Really, this book should never have been made into a film because we all know that the more controvercial aspects of it would be glossed over, and indeed they have. Dan Brown should have held on to the film rights as lets face it, he's made plenty of money from the book sales and the various spin-offs. I really do hope that people come away from this film questioning the dominance of organised religions in relation to the persecution of others, but sadly is is a small hope. My suggestion: read the book and avoid the film. We can see the EXACT same thing happening with the 'adaptation' of Phillip Pullman's His Dark Materials Trilogy, in that any suggestion that an organised religion is bad, is being removed.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:06 a.m. CST

    Damn, the summer's barely started and it's not

    by Doc_Strange

    looking good for summer flims so far. Hollywood's gonna be screaming like a bitch because a lot of these movies aren't going to be well recieved which in turn will kill the BO and Hollywood will once again make pirates the scapegoats and not take any responsibility. I really wanted to see this film too. guess I'll wait for the overall reviews.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:12 a.m. CST

    William Gibson...

    by the goose

    "I see organised religions as basically franchise operations. They're like chicken franchises... But that doesn't mean there's no chicken." (from No Maps For These Territories)

  • May 18, 2006, 3:39 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night

    by Babyshamble

    It's great. Very faithful to the book and an enjoyable twisty thriller. It isn't dull it just doesn't have big, dumb action sequences which seem to be a prerequisite for summer movies. Definitely left me in the mood for some mindless x men 3 fun though. I loved mi:3 (apart from the scooby doo masks) too so I'm having a great summer so far. Although lacking any actual sun. Damn the british weather!!!!

  • May 18, 2006, 4:37 a.m. CST

    havent read the book, really dont care

    by satansteve

    so jesus had kids. big deal.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:40 a.m. CST

    I found Passion of the Christ more offensive

    by SSR

    That crap not only said God and Satan were real but said this guy called 'Jesus' was the son of God! And that we should all worship him because he died for us! Even though he didn't, because he got resurrected! I've never seen such a load of horseshit in my life!

  • May 18, 2006, 6:56 a.m. CST

    SSR, shut up! They'll come after you!

    by scrumdiddly

    Religion is so primitive...

  • May 18, 2006, 7:46 a.m. CST

    Let 'em come

    by SSR

    I'll just ask those fuckwits to forgive. Then I'll tell them the sky is falling and they'd better go hide in a cave and sacrifice a goat. Or something.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:47 a.m. CST

    minderbinder I hope you were joking because if not you'

    by half vader

    -re a super fllying fuckwit for dumping it on us. I'd like to come over to America and spend 8 bucks on a big fucking bottle to break over your head. Not everybody in the world has read the book and almost no-one has seen the film. Arsehole. It's hard to avoid the spoilers when you don't see them coming you fucking troll.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Brock Manson: Do some research next time

    by chrth

    Murdoch owns the NY Post.

  • May 18, 2006, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Up to 23%!!!!

    by chrth

    Now that 'Spirituality and Practice' and 'Compuserve' have weighed in.

  • May 18, 2006, 11:14 a.m. CST

    I just saw it.

    by Drworm2002

    I just came home from seeing it and I ahve to say, it wasn't bad. I mean they changed some things. BFD...they had to, unless you wanted to sit and watch a 4 hour movie. They keeped the feel of the book. That is what matters most. The one thing I didn't like about the movie going in was Tom Hanks was playing the lead. Reading the book I felt it was more of a Stellan Skarsg

  • May 18, 2006, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Ah, crap book that was preachy as hell

    by the_pissboy1

    The book's dialogue and themes are repeated ad nauseum. It's like the writer of the book had no idea how to writer without being simply expository. And repetitive. Book was shit, the movie doesn't stand much of a chance.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Ignorant twats

    by maximusdecimus

    Any self respecting Christian should boycott this piece of shit. Let Howard, Brown and Hanks have their piece of fiction. Just dont put money into their pockets in return for telling you that your faith is a load of shit. Fuck 'em. Oh, and Ian Mckellen added a nice little smart remark to offend Catholics everywhere, he should fuck off and mind his own business. They wouldn't try this kind of crap with Judaism or Islam. Just goes to shows to show what a sad bunch of chickenshits they are.

  • May 18, 2006, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Willow? No black dwarves

    by Meremoth

    You are wrong my friend, Recently I had the displeasure of viewing that movie and quite clearly saw one black warrior dwarf. I'm not sure where the rest of his clan was but he stuck admist the cracker dwarfs.

  • May 18, 2006, 3:25 p.m. CST

    McKellen is right -- The Bible SHOULD have a disclaimer

    by SpyGuy

    As should all religious texts, considering that the beliefs therein are supposed to be taken on FAITH, not on hard facts. That is, unless you heard voices from a burning bush or parted the Red Sea yesterday...

  • May 18, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Hold it!

    by maximusdecimus

    I was referring to a remark where he said that the catholic church should be glad the book suggested that Jesus was married because it would have proved he wasn't gay. Mckellen was trying to sound smart but ended up sounding ignorant and embittered. I have every right to speak up for my faith when it is being attacked for no reason. Fuck off!

  • May 18, 2006, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Faith?

    by the_pissboy1

    How is anyone's faith changed if Jesus was married and nailed some broad?

  • May 18, 2006, 6:06 p.m. CST

    your faith is not attacked by a work of fiction

    by the_pissboy1

    Wow, you need to lighten up. It's just "Dogma" with Audrey Tautou in the Linda Fiorentino role.

  • May 18, 2006, 6:45 p.m. CST

    jesus and gandalf sittin in a tree.. k-i-s-s-i-n-g!!

    by white owl

    this book was decent. i wont see the movie because ive no friends to see it with. angels and demons was far superior until, as stated above, the horrible ending when SPOILER the fauxpope drove a helicopter in the sky and blew up a bomb.. and he lives! I'd still rather see than adapted to the big screen than this tripe.

  • May 18, 2006, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Down to 16%!

    by chrth

    This is kinda fun

  • May 18, 2006, 7:46 p.m. CST

    Everyone is so pissed...

    by Drworm2002

    but there was one great point that was made in the book, that I didn't see in the movie. I belive Jesus was Married. I mean 2000 years ago, no one would listen to a 33 year old Jewsish mand that wasn't married. He would have be a sham to his family and to his community. and if you think about it, Jesus was the bastard Child of G-d. I mean Mary was Married to Joseph.

  • May 18, 2006, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Ebert liked it.

    by Novaman5000

    I think I might, too. And all you people offended by fiction? Get over it. This film has every right to exist. "The Passion of the Christ" could be considered just offensive to anyone who believes Jesus WASN'T the Messiah, yet you Christians lapped that shit up and didn't understand all the protests. There are other beliefs in the world aside from what Christians believe.

  • May 18, 2006, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Stellar 17% freshness rating at Rotten Tomatoes

    by darthbinks1220

    Should open to around 65-70 million with massive 55-60% dropoffs in it's subsequant weekends. Will gross over 400 million worldwide, and still be considered a bomb.

  • May 19, 2006, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Sure, my standards might have been lowered...

    by ejcarter9

    ... but I rarely see movies on the big screen anymore, just those that I NEED to see, ROTS, X-men, etc. But I went in to American Haunting without knowing what I SHOULD think of it and therefore enjoyed myself. Was it something I'll see again? Maybe, maybe not. I know that I actually recommended it to at least two people before finding out the Tomatometer score and other online opinions. But instead of saying that my standards have been lowered, maybe another explanation is possible. That movies are what they are, that they're not an attempt to constantly one-up the previous week's release and that the movie-going community as a whole has become hyper-critical and has expectations that are through the roof. Of course, these are the same people who seek out every tiny detail of a movie BEFORE seeing it, thereby robbing themselves of the chance to get engrossed in the story. American Haunting was a passable horror movie that had some good tense moments and pretty well sucked you in. But if you went into the theatre knowing that it was a 13% movie, wouldn't you be looking for the REASONS WHY it was a 13%er instead of enjoying it for what it was? But that assumes that I would've even gone in, knowing the score, which I'm sure I wouldn't've. So are my standards lower, or are yours higher? And which of us is wrong? I enjoyed a movie, so I know it's not me.