Cool News
Capone Says THE DA VINCI CODE Will Make You Appreciate Kevin Costner's Acting "A Lot More"!!
Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here.
As I returned from my Wednesday morning, 10 a.m. screening of The Da Vinci Code this week, I immediately ran to my beloved AICN to see what my colleagues thought of the film only to be greated by Harry's message about a nationwide online press blackout. Oops. Selective enforcement is, indeed, a bitch. Here's my report about the (literally) snore-filled screening of the most scandalous, controversial, and divisive movie OF ALL TIME!!!! Ahem...read on...
Have you heard the rumors recently that there are, in fact, human beings on this planet who have not read or even touched a copy of Dan Brown's super-mega-best-seller The Da Vinci Code? Yeah, that would be me. It's not that I have anything against the book's popularity or Brown's writing style (which I'm told is fairly cinematic), and I certainly don't resent him for challenging the foundations of Christian doctrine. I've actually seen several films and read books on just this subject over the years. I just never got around to it. And by the time I thought I might get to it, the movie was on the verge of being released and I thought it might be better simply to see the movie as a movie rather than an adaptation.
The biggest benefit of not reading a book before the film comes out is that you avoid any preconceived notions about a film, such as whether Tom Hanks is rightly cast as hero Robert Langdon, a symbols expert on a book tour in Paris who suddenly lands in the middle of a myriad of mysteries regarding religion, murder and centuries-old puzzles. I'm not going to dissect the plot of The Da Vinci Code, partly because most of you probably know it already and partly because I don't want to give away too much to those of you who haven't read it (if you truly exist). Langdon and police cryptologist Sophie Neveu (Audrey Tautou) are framed early on for various murders throughout Paris, but one of the victims happens to be Sophie's grandfather (Jean-Pierre Marielle), who has left clues in his own blood near the Mona Lisa and other Da Vinci paintings in the Louvre as to why he was killed.
Events in the beginning of the film are a bit scattered. Since Tom Hanks is Tom Hanks, we know he's the good guy, but we never really learn that much about who Robert Langdon really is other than the fact that he's claustrophobic. I really had to strain my brain as to whether that fact would figure in later in the film. The film's first sin is that past collaborators director Ron Howard and writer Akiva Goldsman (who won Oscars for A Beautiful Mind) aren't exactly subtle when laying out their plot. There's also a murderous, albino monk named Silas (a genuinely creepy Paul Bettany), who self flagellates with alarming regularity and ferocity. We also have Alfred Molina as Bishop Aringarosa, who heads up a secret society who is using Silas to retrieve…something very, very secret. It just so happens that Langdon and Sophie are after the same mystery object, and the race to unlock the many clues left through the years by some famous men of science and reason is on.
Despite the beautiful location settings and the clearly intelligent script, The Da Vinci Code feels like it's plodding along, barely taking a moment to do anything but solve one clue after another. Despite their being chased by everyone from the mad albino monk to the police (led by Jean Reno), I never really felt like Langdon and Neveu were in any real danger. But the bigger problem is Hanks' delivery. It isn't weighty enough. In fact, some of his lines will undoubtedly illicit unwanted laughter in theatres around the world. I would never in a million years believe there was a role that Tom Hanks could not handle, but he's out of his depth here, and I wasn't completely aware of it until Ian McKellen enters the picture as Sir Leigh Teabing, and old friend of Langdon's whose knowledge about all things related to the Holy Grail paves the way for our heroes to finish their quest.
No one can deliver crap dialogue with more gravitas than Ian McKellen; he is the master. We believe every word that comes out of his mouth, and when he speaks of the greatest lie in human history, your spine will chill. And while I wouldn't take out a single scene with McKellen working his magic, the sequence in which we first meet Teabing feels like cheating. This is a film about using your mind and knowledge of the world's secrets to solve age-old riddles, but in Teabing's first scene he spills out so many secrets and answers that it feels like cheating. Langdon and Neveu haven't earned this information; it's just handed over to them. Granted, almost nothing Teabing says about the origins of the Christian religion hasn't been said before in the real world, but it's all just dumped in our laps rather than given to us a piece at a time as the heroes collect these facts themselves.
As strange as it may sound (spare me the hate mail on this point), seeing The Da Vinci Code made me appreciate Kevin Costner's acting a lot more, specifically in JFK. In that film, Costner plays a largely unremarkable man who is surrounded by a legion of far more interesting characters, but without Costner's ability to read lines and be a stable force in the film, the other characters would have nothing to revolve around. Tom Hanks doesn't have that power, at least not here.
I don't know whether it's a flaw in his performance, in the writing, or in the direction, but he seems to fade into the woodwork too often in this film. He is strangely unremarkable (even with his long flowing man-locks) and ultimately the blame rests on his shoulders for sinking this film. And this might be the film's great revelation. Most of the remaining cast is solid, but when your support beam is weak, the whole structure comes crashing down.
Capone
-
+ Expand All
-
... in the right role, of course. Otherwise, he's excruciating. It's the same thing w/ Keanu, as well. OH! By the way...FIRST! (Sorry)
-
And yes I have been that crass
-
it's still going to make an obscene amount of cash, which is apparently the hollywood benchmark for success
-
just point out how naff the book and film (as reviews suggest) are. Instead of moaning an protesting, they should take the opportunity to witness and answer peoples questions. I would have thought it's an evangelist's dream come true. That's the last from me for now
-
Generally good but plodding. Hanks is weak. Mullets are gay. And Kevin Costner will own all your asses!
-
It's payback for their being tight- ass pleasure spoilers.
-
I mean not as a person, just all his roles. ....except for Saving Private Ryan. And his SNL appearances. I don't see this film as any different.
-
So I guess I don't hate him. Maybe it's just Forrest Gump that pissed me off so much. And those 20 romantic comedies he did with Meg Ryan.
-
I haven't read the book, and had no interest in seeing the movie before word got out that its horrible. Now I will do my best to avoid it.
-
Even if it's bad it will make insane amounts of money.
I'm going to see it in a few hours, and if it's as plodding as Capone says I guess I'll catch up on some sleep hehe. -
I have posted on TBs before that I find him overrated (I liked Catch Me) but largely his performances are the same.
-
I haven't read the book either
-
is great. and Big. and tons of other shit. but when he has to save the world with every fucking role, nottasomuch. "Turner and Hooch 2: K-9 Boogaloo" NOW, motherfuckers.
-
I want this Ron Howard dude to give him back. Rob Reiner can keep Meathead, though.
-
but i hated terminal and will probably hate this flick. Still, i thought he was great in Forrest Gump, Big, SLeepless, Road to Perdition, Philadelphia, and Cast Away. I'm gonna get laughed out of the park for this, but I think Tom Hanks is something of a modern day Jimmy Stewert.
-
It is merely ridiculous, not craptacular like Waterworld. The whole "Please Kevin Costner, impregnate my hot wife" thing is rather tiresome of course.
-
I agree Hanks is like stewart, not on an acting basis, but the fact they're both perrenial good guys. Even when Hanks went 'bad' in Road to Perdition, he was still the good guy. Just a good guy that shot people
-
and I heard that was good.
-
Yeah, their mannerisms and acting are both completely different, yet they both have a lot of that same...i dont know..friendly charm. Both men are extremely charming, friendly, and have a sort of innocent quality to them. They really are quite similar in their appeal, I find. Of course, I'm a huuuuge Jimmy Stewert Fan, so its not that much of a surprise that I'd be a hanks fan, too, huh? That's about the best I can describe it.
-
Believe me, it was refreshing to see a movie about mature, adult thems, for a change, and carried out in a really mature fashion. Paul Newman is worth the price admission, alone, in this flick. Yeah, Tom plays something of a multi-faceted, good/bad guy, but I think its the best acting he's ever done, and there are a hell of a lot of scenes where you are either sympathetic to hanks, or you are rather scared of him. A totally underrated movie that I can't reccomend enough. Oh, and its by the same director as American Beauty. WATCH IT!!
-
I'm a right-wing nut and I still think that JFK may be the best movie I've ever seen. Take out the crappy and awkward scenes of family strife at the Garrison household (Stone should not have cast his own children in the film) and it probably wins hands down. It should have won Best Picture. What did it lose to...Silence of the Lambs??? Fuck that.
-
and therefore must never be forgiven, no matter how many oscars he wins.
-
Eddie Murphy sure was good on SNL.
-
>
Hmmm... could we be hearing the same thing come June 30th...?
-
THE DA VINCI CODE is WATERWORLD '06. And I actually *like* Waterworld a hella lot...
-
I swear, that man is the single worst actor in the world and totally kills every stinking scene he's ever in. He killed waterworld, for me; he killed speed; and he mostly ruins any scene he plays in. He simply cannot act without talking like some hopped up hippie. I really hate the guy.
-
I never really saw why so many people hated Waterworld. It wasn't mind blowing but I had fun with it...
-
and thsoe to the Batman sequesl he had a hand in and it really makes me want to stay away from this mess.
-
he said waterworld could happen. no one, these days mock that proposition, because it slowly starting to happen. because of global warming. The Day after tomorrow had some truth to it and it was mocked by those who said events like that could never happen. those who said those types of thing couldnt and will never happen are the neoconic leaders of the free world who see nothing wrong with drilling for oil and polluting the world this does have its effects long term. Avika goldsman also wrote a beautiful mind one of the worst films ever to win an academy award, some say. Apart from the missing which i thought was a boring and tedious movie, howard has delievered some very good films in the past. Apollo thirteen, parenthood and ransom wasnt bad either. I am sure there many more RH films, that i havent mentioned.
-
His scene with Walken in True Romance was worth the price of admission alone! And Frank from Blue Velvet was and is one of the best screen villians of all time. "Baby wants to fuck!" I will admit he's more miss than hit, but when he hits, it's genius.
-
How many americans went to forrest gump and came back thinking, that was greatest load of cornball rubbish, that I have ever seen. And were stunned that it won as many oscars as it did.
I saw Forrest Gump in a us cinema and a had a lump in my throat. When I returned to Ireland, I was stunned by the level of utter hostility the movie got in Europe, where it was dismissed as cornball rubbish with racist undertones. -
don't make me repeat myself.
-
I thought young people used the internet. Howard and Hanks are old farts! Did you know under that cap Ritchie Cunningham is bald?!
-
Yes, I understand that you like him in those roles. Apparently, Hopper thinks highly of those roles, too, since he's been playing the same damn character EVER SINCE! The guy has ZERO range and has a thoroughly annoying voice and mannnerism. Yeah, I realize that that last part of the sentence is subjective, but this guy cant even change his speech patterns, for pete's sake. HE CANNOT ACT. Compounded with his annoying habbits, and I find him thoroughly unwatchable. I'm sorry for being so hard on the guy, and I'm sure he's nice and all, but there is something about him that just rubs me wrong, I guess.
-
and i also thougth road to perdition sucked a big fat donkey ball.
-
that cemented my love for the film was when Forrest is told he has a son. That scene alone netted him the oscar, if you ask me.
-
what about super mario bros? wow what a king kupa. just kidding, your right same acting, same tone of voice, same over acting.
-
He should have played Robert Langdon! Why does Ron keep his brother in bit parts when Clint would own the screen?!!!
"This is tranya. I hope you relish it as much as I." -
May 19, 2006 11:53:25 AM CDT
You liked "Waterworld" and hated "Road To Perdition"?
by kurosawadisciple
Please pass the brownies you're eating....
-
that still made mega-millions I cannot watch Ron Howard's subsequent work without frothing at the mouth - his work has felt like the product of a perfunctory filmmaker for his past few flicks.
-
I feel the same exact way about Tom Cruise. He found one role that worked back in '86 and has been playing the same exact character ever since.
-
Seriously. No one else around here posts/promotes their own stuff. You do know there are more effective ways of advertising your gallery (in Paris) than posting on a mostly US/international site. Also way to streach the talkback and not say anything on topic or relevant. You are really pissing me off! Kill yourself.
-
I must lead a sheltered life. I never really heard of "The Code" until they started making the movie. The premise sounds very interesting but from what I've read on here and other sites, this is one slow moving train wreck of a movie. I saw a review this morning and a woman said that if someone's faith in religion is shaken by this movie, it would have to be a pretty feeble one. I'm a big fan of OpieCinema and I'll probably go see this movie but I think I'll give it a few days to cool down.
-
Robert Langdon's being claustrophobic was a major device in Angels and Demons, the character's first adventure before the Da Vinci Code, where we learn a lot more about him.
It doesn't do anything here other than just be there for continuity's sake. -
Ron "Happy Days" Howard has laced the film with intricate details from his beautiful mind. Only those by far and away, who have embraced parenthood and have the bodies of Apollo, will be taken ransom by these lyrics, that only a Grinch would appreciate:
"Monday, Tuesday, Opus Dei... Wednesday, Thursday, Opus Dei.... Friday, Saturday, Opus Dei... What a Dei?... What a Dei? We're gettin' all robed for you... These Deis are our...our...our...ours... Oh, Opus Dei......." ...
*I know. I'm a genius! -
Lovely fella, but absolutely over-rated. Sorry.
-
is being used to set up the Prequel 'Angels and Demons'... NOT directed by Howard and Still staring Tommy Boy, he will rule because he will have a competent director behind him...
-
I would likely convulse and puke while watching this piece of Hollywood crap. If you want to talk about "the greatest lie in human history" then the Da Vinci code is the lie and history will be its judge. I'm pretty ticked off at Ian McKellen and his latest statement, saying that the bible needed a "fiction" label on it. He needs to keep comments like that to himself.
-
Well, I absolutely have NOT read the book and will wait for the movie to hit cable. Dan Brown is a mediocre hack of a writer. Why the book is so popular is either a mystery or more evidence of the Apocalypse...take your pick. I read his "Digital Fortress" a year or so ago and it was so stupidly bad that I took "Da Vinci Code" off my future reading list. Hanks and Howard have made some good (great) films when they had decent source material. There's no mystery as to why some people are panning this film....the author can't write something that doesn't read like an 8th grader penning an episode of "Who's Afraid of the Dark?".
-
Naaaaaaaawwwwwwww, really?
-
....was pure garbage. found nothing at all to like in that movie.
-
I'd like to end all things that you like just to piss you off. Ya prick.
-
... just because you keep spamming them, you little bitch. Shut the fuck up.
-
But I don't know man. Directed by Ron Howard, strike 1. Written by Akiva Goldsman, strike 2. Same plot as National Treasure but not as funny, strike 3. National Treasure wasn't even that funny, strike 4. And you don't get four strikes, you only get three, so unless one of those was actually a foul I just can't get my mind around this one.
-
I thought.
-
Yeah, he's not always my cup of tea, I enjoyed him in Speed, but it wasn't groundbreaking. I don't think he's necessarily a bad actor, I just think he takes shit roles for the lack of anything else.
-
What a great uderrated flick. Everyone is great in that! Although he is doing his 'vaguely crazy, shouty, killer' schtick in it...
-
I loved the book, but I loved Angels & Demons much more, which is like the prequal to Da Vinci Code, and was another great story that centered around the same character. I was hoping they would make a movie out of Angels and Demons if this movie did well...but with the reviews that's been surfacing...it seems hope for A&D is shot
-
sorry emeraldboy ...and I never read Davinci Code - so I guess I'm doubly unique. Does that make me a 2 or a half?
-
No one plays a drunk like that guy. And yes, Blue Velvet was teh awesome.
-
the Tom Hanks-starring-best-seller-adaptation-DEBACLE that was "Bonfire of the Vanities", except for the saving the world part. Did anyone see the clip of THanks snarling at the producers as he walked on to present at the Oscars this year? Not a "nice Tom Hanks" scene. Let's see THAT guy in a film!
-
Big movies that were evpected to be great. Both based on very popular books. By all accounts the tone of both movies wrong/different from the books. Both have Hanks + mullet combo... Any more
-
You R th3 2uCx0rz.
-
I haven't read the book, but did you say that Ian McKellen is playing a guy named "Sir Leigh Teabagging?!?
-
Let's not forget: "Heineken? Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon is what you'll drink tonight!"
-
The movie, i mean
-
In 74-75 actor-producer Darren McGavin raised the bar for a broadcast TV horror series... which is your fave?
-
try this one.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=pv7YlUiI1-w -
But I'd still rather watch it than The Da Vinci Bore. But the trailer is so bad, at first I thought this was another made-up fanboy trailer. But no, it's actually the real thing. May the Gods of Atlantis have mercy on us all.
-
IS nothing but a series of personality traits. They really do just go from one clue to another, and they do have things just dumped on their lap. God, what a horribly written book.
-
Looks like it stinks like a dead fish! Stealth meets Xmen, underwater! Quit bothering those dolphins, freak!
-
movie than The DaVinci Code? Wow, didn't see that coming.
-
He seems like a really nice person (probably the reason for his rise and tenture in the biz), but the man has no discernable style. Please chime in if you feel different, but he's a paint by numbers director. If you exclude "A Beautiful Mind" and "Apollo 13" (the latter being so-so), you see a recent body of work (90's onwards) as producer/director littered with underperformers, bombs and unmemorable fluff like "Curious George", "Cinderella Man", "The Alamo", "The Missing", "Grinch", "Inventing the Abbots", "Far and Away", "The Paper", "The Chamber" and on and on. He's had more duds than a pack of South of the Border firecrackers. Again, he seems like a really nice guy, but maybe a helmer best left to direct-to-video family fare at this stage of his career.
-
Angels and Demons is definately the better book, with a better premise and a great non-stop chase with some potentially horrific imagery (the fire death). The ending does go a bit too mental for a film, but a decent writer and director could sort this. Digital Fortress wouldn't be too bad either. By the way Jan de Bont is going ahead with an adaptation of Meg (about a fucking HUGE shark). It'll probably suck given his form.
-
Meg (gay name), Jaws (cool name) or Aquaf@g (gay name). I think the answer is obvious...
-
But the real name is Megalodon or something, which is pretty cool. Jaws will always own though.
-
he he hehehe he he
-
Save for the scene stealing Ian Mckellen, the movie was FRIGHTFULLY DULL. The premise was good, as every other critic has been saying, but the execution was just plain dull. Ron Howard deffinitely makes the mistake of having the climax two thirds of the way in the movie, followed by 35 minutes of exposition. I have never read the book and had no clue as to the plot of the story, save for Jesus being married, and could already telegraph the plot as soon as they whipped out the last supper. Save for Mckellen, everyone faded into the woodwork and was as dull as milktoast. The movie isnt bad, but neither is it great, either. What it surely isnt, though, is exciting.
-
and The New World. I havent seen either of those films, but I'm sure I'm in for a treat this evening. By the way, I loved Kevin Costner in A Perfect World. Sure, he's just doing his Costner shtick, but its pretty enjoyable and poignant. Anywho, y'all have a good night!
-
Just got back from the film. What the hell was that?! Ron Howard needs to step back from making film for a short while. As ultimately, the film's flatness is down to his ability to get the actors to make the characters work. The script. Oh man. The editing, chump, chump, chump, chump. Someone has got it in for Dan Brown's book. But who? The Catholic church. Maybe. Maybe there's a secret plot to discredit him? No. The film is just plain good 'ol crap.
-
The original and best Da Vinci Code flick!
-
ROAD TO PERDITION was brilliant!And Dennis Hopper did some GREAT things!
-
Despite the lack of substance in THE DA VINCI CODE, and the obvious lack of authority the author, Dan Brown, has over the main topics in his own work, Christians should avoid this film. I was against a boycott at first because that's usually what purposefully controversial works want in order to gain extra publicity. Then again, the book has already been a best seller, so the film already has the publicity it needs, along with some help from the major media. Therefore, a call for a boycott by Christian leaders will drive home the point that any claims this book makes directly, or implies, despite being fiction, are contrary to the true history of traditional Christianity and its beliefs. What implications and claims does Brown's story make that traditional Christians should find insulting? Misrepresenting Christ as not divine, not God Incarnate, and denying his miracles, including the most important miracle, the Resurrection, is a major attack on Christ and traditional Christianity. Such attacks, along with the popularity of this book should concern Christians, and the many inaccuracies about Christianity that the author either claims as fact or are being confused as fact.
Brown's work is based largely on conspiracy theories and heresies the Church has dealt with since its beginnings. The biggest heresy is Gnosticism which denies the divinity of Christ. This is based on the so called Gnostic Gospels which were written much later than the original canonical gospels. Does a Christian really need to know anything else before knowing this is a work they probably shouldn't promote or support in any way? Forget that Brown's book makes the illogical and non-historical claim Christ was married. The bigger issue is that Brown's Christ is not Divine. Not the Son of God. Brown also bases his work on a pagan belief in 'the sacred feminine', which apparently also became a fad for hippies in the 60's. So, there's something for conservatives to consider getting 'outraged' at, also. It's essentially a story that promotes feminism, and reduces Jesus to just being a teacher. To justify this Brown takes liberties with legitimate history, either for the sake of the story, or just out of ignorance.
The positive thing about this film for Christians is that many good books refuting the premise of Da Vinci code have come out. I have read three, and found them to be very educational. There are two books that have the same title The Da Vinci Deception, with different subtitles , and The Da Vinci Hoax by Olson. The beauty of these books is that you don't have to read Brown's work. The books actually make a good case not to read Brown's work. In addition to its hostility toward traditional Christianity, author Mark Shea points out that Brown's writing "is not particularly exceptional and neither is his knowledge of art and history." Here's an example from Mark Shea's DA VINCI DECEPTION: "Brown routinely refers to the great renaissance artist, engineer, and scientist as 'Da Vinci' and thereby trains millions of readers to do likewise. But the reality is that Leonardo Da Vinci has traditionally been known as 'Leonardo' for the same reason that Jesus of Nazareth is called 'Jesus' and not 'of Nazareth' and Francis of Assisi is referred to as 'Francis' and not 'of Assisi'. This elementary blunder, enshrined throughout the book (and its very title) is a dead giveaway that , whoever Leonardo is, The Da Vinci Code will not be a reliable source of information about him."
Both Shea and Olson also point out many other examples of Brown's lack of authority on the subjects he writes about. First of all, the ridiculous idea that the apostle sitting next to Jesus in Leonardo's Last Supper painting is a female, when paintings of that period often portrayed youthful men with feminine features. Just a couple of facts among many that Brown gets wrong about Leonardo himself. Both authors also point out major inaccuracies about Opus Dei, which is not a secret organization, as Brown's story claims, and is made up of mostly lay people. Yet in Da Vinci Code, the assassin is a member of Opus Dei and is a monk. There are no monks in Opus Dei. Brown also essentially makes up an academic discipline called 'symbology', while showing a very shallow understanding of traditional symbols and true and deep meaning behind them. Another inaccuracy in the story is the claim that the cup of Christ is missing in Leonardo's painting, when in reality one can count thirteen cups for each person in the Last Supper. Another example of how this plot is truly no more sophisticated than that of a Saturday morning cartoon adventure.
From what I understand about the story, essentially being many long speeches and preaching by the main character, it doesn't sound like it will translate well into film. Not a good formula for a 'thriller' with a limited amount of action. The book fan-base will give it a good opening, but I doubt this film will have legs. -
It is a good movie, but Hanks was seriously miscast. His character is *minor spoiler for 4 year-old movie* an emotionless tough guy,for most of the film, and we're supposed to be surprised when he thaws towards the end and shows some heart, but were not surprised because he's Tom "Mr Nice Guy" Hanks, and he always plays a goodie. They should have went with a character actor. Someone who could go either way. In hindsight, i'm thinking of Viggo Mortensen, who was brilliant in History of Violence.
-
"WRONG!! WRONG!!" "I'm a small man - he's a GREAT man!" heheh... SOOOOO.... Even people who'd never even READ THE BOOK (which not too subtly states Langdon should be played by HARRISON FORD) thought that Hanks was totally MISCAST eh?? Why cast Tom Hanks in ANYTHING??? He's a TERRIBLE actor that hasn't been in anything decent since BIG! And Wrong Howard directing??? WHAT DRUGS ARE THESE PEOPLE ON?? btw speaking of which - I, too, HATED Road to Perdition but you know I didn't mind Waterworld that much... It was just Mad Max but on the water instead of in the desert - still not the huge steaming pile of SHIT that is anything with Tom Hanks! Tom ANYTHING really... We all know this film SHOULD have been directed by Frankenheimer, or even Besson - shit even TONY SCOTT could have done a better job, except he probably would have cast Will Smith...
-
Kevin Costner has done some great stuff!Let's give credit where it's due!!
-
That's how Dan Brown literally describes Langdon in the book. How is it that Brown ever became a published writer with character descriptions like this is baffling and depressing.
-
There were protesters outside the theater! Fucking picketers! I made sure I stoped to laugh at them then went in and bought my popcorn. Reviews are about right, mediocre, uninspired, average all around. Not terrible but not good either. Just meh. I think the real problem is in the script adaptation but the direction is obviously lacking cause all the actors seem confused and the performances just wrong. It's a great cast, but bad performances. Oh, and don't bother going to see it if you haven't read the book. Trust me.
-
*****Of the 144 reviews posted on Rottentomatoes.com, only 27 recommend seeing "Da Vinci Code.
-
it didnt have any pictures.
-
Yes.
(I don -
"I like it!" Hopper is ok when he's not trying to do an accent. BTW, haven't read the book either.
-
c'mon you guys are slipping...
-
Got through the first few chapters, but the writing reminded me of an 11th grader rushing to finish his paper the night before it was due. Awful.
-
Your comment about Aquaf@g made me spew milk from my nose. Now to clean up my monitor....
-
What a shit movie that's going to be. The annoying whiny 18-year-old rocker soundtrack didn't pull me in either.
-
OC meets Xmen with a little Stealth for good measure... Cue Nu-metal rockin' track! It made me dumber and dirty just by watching it. Going home for a shower. Peace.
-
"I need to get to a libary... FAST!"
-
trust me more than 117 people can be wrong, check out elections, racist groups, most oppressive religions, carrot top fans, OC fans...etc.
-
FANDANGO, BULL DURHAM, JFK, DANCES...all of them splendid performances. And no, I'm not trying to be facetious.
-
and not Tautou, should have been cast, as the girl in the novel was blonde and Delpy speaks far better English. I can't comment, because I haven't read the book, and I never will
-
from Steve Martin's atrocious narration in SHOPGIRL. Something like "Alone at night sometimes, he thought of her' sometimes, she dreamt of him. And sometimes, their thoughts intertwined and they joined each other."
-
haven't read this book & don't care about this movie, but SO glad the box office is doing so well just based on my limited knowledge that the idiotic christian right and fox news can't seem to realize that THIS IS FICTION and NOT A THREAT TO THEIR ARCHAIC BELIEF SYSTEM. this movie's success is vindication for, if nothing else, sanity ...
-
If you want to see Costner the actor, that's the film to watch. One of my favorites.
-
I thought he was just about letter perfect in the role. I saw the movie last night...in a packed theater in Dubois, PA. You city folk would probably call it a rural theater...but it's a multi-plex with 5 screens in a college town. Not EXACTLY Hicksville...but far removed from the elite in the cities. This packed audience was rapt, and respectful. Not ONE sign of a snicker all during the show. The folks in the packed theater at the earlier show were NOT deriding the movie on the way out...nor were WE on the way out. The 10pm show looked to be hefty too. The heartland loves this movie. Critics be damned. We don't need to assert our superiority to be important in the eyes of geekdom. We just love movies...and this was a truly ADULT movie, a work of fiction with adult ideas. Quite the novelty for a movie on AICN.
-
Wow. What a didactic, stultifying mess. A real shame. I felt embarrassed for the woefully miscast Tom Hanks. Audrey Tautou is super-hot, though. McKellen is genius throughout. But then he could read the phonebook and be great. Paul Bettany is... bizarre. Not sure about his accent. In any case, when your source material is a stinker like that book, and you're trying to be "faithful" to it, you're sunk before you begin. Howard should've used it as an outline and gone off and done his own thing, IMHO. Too bad.
-
But I think it comes from expectations. I had read the book, and expected a movie more along the lines of "A Beautiful Mind". It is being pitched as a summer blockbuster, which often means car chases, gun fights, and lots of rollercoaster action. This may have gotten a better response, critically, had it been released in the fall.
-
I thought people would say this film was a work of reactionary boggotry. Actually, no review I've read has even mentioned the religious element. They all just say it's crap.
I somehow think the Church will eb disappointed. his film doesn't inspire debate, it inspires sleep.
I'm saving my money for X 3. -
JFK SHOULD have won the Oscar for Best Picture in '91!!
-
"Is It Raining? I Hadn't Noticed". From Andie Mcdowel in "Four Weddings and A Funeral". The library line was dumb though.
-
I liked it. I didn't think Hanks was miscast... Just that sometimes, his character wasn't given enough to do. Audrey was really really good though. She really shined. But from a person who has not read the book, I have to say that in the movie form, the main puzzle was a little too obvious. But I do admire the way the author put all those real factual elements to create his story. I guess that's why people have problems with it because he made it seem possible. I will be reading the book now. Oh, and the ending was a little long...I find that a lot of book adaptations...especially faithful ones such as LoTR:RoTK, have endings that are a little too long.
-
It had to be said
-
Now I understand that this book/movie denies the divinity of Jesus, similar to how Islam views Jesus. But personally, I don't find any fault with the idea that Jesus and Mary were married and had a child. Just because it wasn't mentioned in the Bible does not mean it did not happen. I don't recall reading any passages in the New Testament about whether Jesus took a crap ever, but since he was in human form, I can logically conclude that he did. Again, that does not detract from his divinity. It would have been very weird for a 33 year old Jewish man (and a Rabbi at that!) at that time to not be married. His human "step"-father would have arranged a marriage for him long before and we can pretty much conclude who it was. But I guess some people would prefer to think Jesus was a virgin and anything less than that is sacrilege. Pretty stupid if you ask me. Then again, if it were revealed that he did indeed father a child, then I guess the priests and nuns in the Catholic Church who actually remained celebate would feel pretty lame and cheated. Well, the pedophiles wouldn't, but we aren't talking about them since they supposedly don't exist in the Church anyways. As for the fundamentalist non-Catholic Christians, they can shut up too. Anyone who claims themselves to be a Christian yet digs around in the "Old Testament" (and especially without reading the Talmud for a better understanding of the first books) looking for reason to condemn others are tools/fools. That list definitely includes Falwell and Robertson. As for the homeslice in this talkback that chose to attack Gnosticism as being heretical and bogus, take a college course some time and not from the 700 Club folks. The only book that dates remotely back to the time of Jesus is the Gospel of Thomas. It was written in Aramaic (sic)...the language that Jesus spoke/would have spoken. It was removed from the canon because Jesus specifically stated that we don't need a church. That didn't sit well with the later leaders of The Church. And thus that book has far more legitimacy - and was embraced and preserved by those "heretical" Gnostics - than any of the books contained in the New Testament. Another point in the favor of the Gnostics (some of them) is that they viewed Jesus as being the son of the Universal God and not Yeweh's son. They believed Yeweh was an evil god and not the true god based upon the fact that in the ancient religions of the Palestinian region, Yeweh was a trixster deity and subserviant to the main (good) god named El (who also had a goddess wife whereas Yeweh does not, unless you talk to the Mormons off-the-record). El, you know, his name is part of the name israEL. Speaking of a book that should be excised from the New Testament, how about Revelations? But I guess all those end-of-timers would be out of their money-making schemes if most believers learned that the Antichrist mentioned was actually Emperor Nero (Nero Caesar = 666) and he never came back from the dead as was foretold and thus the book sould not be taken literally as a foretelling of the end-of-time since its just an allegory to the plight of early Christianity under attack from that evil/insane man's rule. But I digress. Don't see Superman Returns! Heh...
-
I just got back from DVC and I have to admit that it wasn
-
I hear Dan Brown is working on a new novel about Abraham Lincoln, he reveals the 16th president was a cross dressing ninja schooled in the ancient dark arts. Apparently Dan
-
Just curious, are there moments so bad they become unintentional comedy?
-
Sorry, lamebrain, we're not inmates in Oz so your power fantasies will have to go on hold.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 383 total posts 380 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 111 total posts 111 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 75 total posts 73 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 71 total posts 68 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 77 total posts 55 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 54 total posts 48 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 165 total posts 41 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 41 total posts 41 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 500 total posts 35 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 28 total posts 28 posts