The Da Vinci Code

[scaeagles]

There is all sorts of an uproar in the religious community over this movie coming out.

It is fictional. While Brown did much research for the book, his twists many things (again, I don't say that he is trying to present it as fact) to make his story work.

Is there a reason for such an uproar? I find it interesting, actually, because I have learned all sorts of new things in reading information on the Gnostic gospels and Constantine and the history of the Christian Church in general that I didn't know before. I am only learning this because I am curious as to the reality of the situation that Brown has fictionalized in his book.

I guess I can understand that many fear the book and movie are taken as fact. I just am not worried about it too much.

[Alex]

It is somewhat silly to get too defensive about the book. Except for one thing: an awful lot of people think that the book has some basis in truth. Having been aware of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and its debunking for years before The Da Vinci Code came out I quickly dismissed it but a lot of people think that just because Dan Brown did a lot of research (he might as well do something well, writing certainly isn't a skill) it means there must be some truth to it.

I've had a lot of discussions about this stuff in the last few years and the amount of unexamined acceptance is high. I can see how the Catholic Church (and faiths that share similar basic tenets) would start to get irritated. Especially since the basis of the book, of Holy Blood, Holy Grail and the conspiracy written of is that the Catholic Church has willfully, knowingly, and violently suppressed the truth about the religions origins.

You all know that I find the beliefs of the Catholic Church silly (as I do all religions) but the supposed conspiracy is much sillier.

[BarTopDancer]

You mean it's not real?!?! CRAP! What am I supposed to believe now? :(

[Ghoulish Delight]

Doesn't the book start off by saying something like, "This is all true."? And Brown himself certainly hasn't gone to great lengths to disuade people from that impression.

But whatever. Conspiracy theories like this will always have legs. The beauty is that to those that want to believe it, denial and lack of evidence is the very evidence that it's true. So it seems rather pointless for the church to be screaming about it and begging for disclaimers since that just falls into "protests too much" for someone who's going to believe the conspiracy anyway.

[Not Afraid]

I've heard some of the uproar - at least bits and pieces of it but I haven't gotten into my own fact finding study. I heard a lot of these larger theories in school while studying art history, so it's nothing new. It just wasn't really in the popular zeitgeist until now.

I tend to sort of roll my eyes at most religious uproar. I'm just a product of my Fundi upbringing I guess. But, Orham Pamuk, Salmon Rushdie, Dan Brown - it's FICTION. (But, I tend to think that parts of the bible are, at best, historiclal fiction at this point.)

What is "the church" worried about anyways? Heaven forbid they are found out for simplifying and dumbing down history. Baaaaa!

Again, my eyes can't help but roll.

[Not Afraid]

This is one of the recent pieces (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5388608) I'vd hears about the uproar. Of course it's NPR. ;)

[flippyshark]

You mean it's not real?!?! CRAP! What am I supposed to believe now? :(

Do what I do. Don't believe anything. :D

I think the extent of Dan Brown's research involved pulling Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Margaret Starbird's The Woman With The Alabaster Jar off his bookshelf. He lifts paragraphs practically verbatim from them. Neither of those tomes is considered scholarly. They're pop history of the most speculative kind, not uninteresting, but not earth-shaking.

My favorite part of Alabaster Jar is the bit about Walt Disney being a long standing member of this secret society dedicated to the "sacred feminine." This book, and it ends up in Dan Brown's novel as well, talks about how Walt hid symbols related to Mary Magdalene in The Little Mermaid, quite a feat, considering how dead he was at the time.

[scaeagles]

Yeahm GD....Brown surely wants to make it seem as if his book is based on fact. I guess the problem is is that it has some historical accuracy in talking about real historical events. He just changes some of what really happened in the parts of those historical events.

I thought the forward of the book, however, included a disclaimer that it was fiction. Perhaps I am mistaken, and can't check because I had borrowed the book from my father-in-law and don't have it in my possession any longer.

[Alex]

I don't think it is so easy to just say "ignore it, it's fiction."

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion started out life as fiction. Fiction that captured the imagination of certain populations and over time came to be accepted as fact. Would we be correct in telling all of the Russian Rabbis and Jewish leaders who tried to debunk to just "chill out, it's just fiction."

Now, do I think that The Da Vinci Code is going to be nearly as harmful as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? No, the Catholic Church is certainly in a much stronger position than ghettoized Jews in Russia were. And if people were just taking The Da Vinci Code as simple fiction I would think the best course is to just ignore it. But a lot of people aren't taking it that way.

They think it is a dramatized account of something that is true or could easily be true. And the central truth presented is a refutation of the central beliefs of hundreds of millions of people. I think it is fair for them to stand up and say so.

Just as it would be if I were to right a massively popular bestseller, that purported to be mostly true, and was just a retelling of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

Fiction that touches a cultural nerve like The Da Vinci Code has, has a way of becoming mythology. And mythology has a way of becoming history. Not history that will be accepted as such in the halls of academia but history that will be accepted as such down at the corner coffee shop.

[Not Afraid]

Well, the Frontspiece says:
The Da Vinci Code; A Novel.

He opens with 2 facts:

The first about the Prioir of Sion, the fact that it is a real organization and that there were some pretty renown members, including Da Vinci.

The second is about Opus Dei, some recent controversy within the organization and the location of the new headquarters.

The only other disclaimer is that All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.
However, it IS a novel and therefore a work of fiction. But, fact and fiction certainly do thend to meld over time.

[scaeagles]

I agree, Alex, but why not spend energy on something practical, such as encouraging viewers/readers to read the debunking of what Brown has written?

That being said, how many people who go to see the Da Vinci code would ever be interested in reading up on the real historical record that Brown has altered in his story? Probably not a whole lot. So perhaps the only way various churches have to get their message out is in the media crying out about heresy.

[Alex]

Well, the Frontspiece says:

The first about the Prioir of Sion, the fact that it is a real organization and that there were some pretty renown members, including Da Vinci.



And even in such a straightforward statement he either lies or, at best, uncritically passes along untrue information.

There is no historical evidence of the existence of the Priory of Sion until 1956 when the group was founded by Pierre Plantard.

[Not Afraid]

Here's the exact text from the book. (http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/excerpt.html)

FACT:
http://www.danbrown.com/images/transparent.gifThe Priory of Sion—a European secret society founded in 1099—is a real organization. In 1975, Paris's Bibliothèque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo da Vinci.
http://www.danbrown.com/images/transparent.gifThe Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic group that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a practice known as "corporal mortification." Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City.
All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate.

[Alex]

Except that the first paragraph is entirely not fact. That is the initial claim of Pierre Plantard who founded the Priory of Sion in 1956 and changed the story several times over the last decades. Every "fact" in that paragraph is widely accepted as completely false or part of a hoax. Les Dossiers Secrets have been discounted by every reputable scholar as obvious (and poorly done) fakes inserted into the library.

[flippyshark]

Well, the Frontspiece says:
The Da Vinci Code; A Novel.

He opens with 2 facts:

The first about the Prioir of Sion, the fact that it is a real organization and that there were some pretty renown members, including Da Vinci.

The second is about Opus Dei, some recent controversy within the organization and the location of the new headquarters.

The only other disclaimer is that
However, it IS a novel and therefore a work of fiction. But, fact and fiction certainly do thend to meld over time.

The first of those two facts is not very factual at all:

http://www.alpheus.org/html/articles/esoteric_history/richardson1.html

Oh, Alex, JINX (We seem to be on a similar wavelength)

[Gemini Cricket]

I liked Dan Brown's book. But I took it for what it was. Escapist entertainment. Some feel he's a terrible writer, but he's no doubt a very smart man to have this book be as popular as it is.

I felt empowered by it in ways. I felt the idea that Jesus could have just been a man and nothing more to be compelling. I also agree with his theory that there is a lot of misogyny in the Catholic Church and that painting (no pun intended) Mary Magdalene as a whore is a prime example. Heaven forbid that a woman could have been an apostle...

I'm looking forward to the movie. Although Tom Hanks was not my first choice to play Langdon.

Religious communities need to realize is that protesting a film only intensifies interest in it. ie. 'Last Temptation of Christ', 'Sister Act', 'Passion of the Christ' etc... They did not make a huge call for a boycott of 'Brokeback'. Doing that would have advertised the film even more (if that's possible).

[flippyshark]

There was protest around Sister Act? Yeesh.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Ah, the book people love to hate. :)

Personally, I had no problem with it, thought it was a fun read, although I liked Angels and Demons much better.

Concerning the first paragraph, I think it needs to be read more carefully. It states that there was a real priory of Scion, which Flippy's link also says. It then goes on to say that a document was later found that linked a bunch of famous names to the Priory. This is also true. It conveniently leaves out the fact that that this document was found to be a hoax, but then again, it never states that the document that was found was legit, only that it was discovered.

In other words, the two sentences in the first paragraph are technically true but when they are put together, they don't say what they are appearing to say, if that makes sense. At least that's my take on it.

[Prudence]

It's not like the Catholic Church has helped its cause any. Frankly, many people don't have a clue about the first couple centuries of Christianity, think the New Testament gospels were written contemporaneously with Christ's life, and (particularly Protestants) are shocked to learn about apocryphal texts. (This is likely an exceptional audience.) Based on my experience with people I know, this can translate as a sense that information has deliberately been hidden from them, rather than their own failure to investigate. And gosh, if the Church is "hiding" the gospel according to Thomas, why, they might be hiding anything!

There's just enough not-actually-known, plus some not-widely-known, and maybe a pinch of deliberately-kept-unknown, that conspiracy seems, if not probable, at least possible.

Heck, even I sometimes indulge in a few "what aren't they telling me?" fantasies. That's what makes historical fiction fun.

However, the Catholic Church doesn't exactly have a reputation for transparency right now, so I can see where they'd worry that this would increase mistrust and skepticism.

[katiesue]

I liked the book. It is in the fiction section of the bookstore and libraries so umm perhaps it's fiction? It was just an interesting fun read. I don't think most of the people who read it take it as fact - I'm sure some do but I'd guess not most.

I've always thought that the whole bible is fact stuff was a bit silly. It's been translated and transcribed how many times? And history is always re-written by the victors.

And please please Tom Hanks is in no way shape or from "Harrison Ford in tweed". And what is up with his hair?

[Not Afraid]

Personally, I had no problem with it, thought it was a fun read, although I liked Angels and Demons much better.



Actually, I like Angels and Deamons better as well. But, neither were anything more than a fun and, mostly, meaningless romp with just enough of the compelling to keep me interested. I sort of equate the Dan Brown Books with Ane Rice's first 2 vampire novels. Fun reads, great excapism, lots of faux fantasy and history and something to read as a good snack between some more serious fiction.

[Gemini Cricket]

Sometimes I feel that the filmmakers welcome all this boycott talk. Like they say, there's no such thing as bad press...

[€uroMeinke]

I thought it was a fun read, and while I knew all along it was a work of fiuction, I think Dan Brown did a fine job of creating an alternate mythology. And see3ing that mythology is a thing that resonates more with beliefs that facts (as does religion) I supose it's not surprising the Catholic Church might take up arms. On the other hand, it does seem like a great opportunity to tell the church's history in it's own words - as embarrassing as some of it might be at parts.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Actually, I like Angels and Deamons better as well. But, neither were anything more than a fun and, mostly, meaningless romp with just enough of the compelling to keep me interested. I sort of equate the Dan Brown Books with Ane Rice's first 2 vampire novels. Fun reads, great excapism, lots of faux fantasy and history and something to read as a good snack between some more serious fiction.

Which is exactly what I, and I would assume most people, took them as. Nothing wrong with a little fun escapism from time to time. We all have AP's, right? :)

I find it entertaining that the same religious people who are against this movie for its fallacies have no problem with creationism being taught in school.

[Ghoulish Delight]

In terms of historical research, Umberto Eco puts Brown to shame. And that's an understatement. Focault's Pendulum is quite the tome.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

In terms of historical research, Umberto Eco puts Brown to shame. And that's an understatement. Focault's Pendulum is quite the tome.

You definitely have me interested in reading that book.

[tracilicious]

Religious communities need to realize is that protesting a film only intensifies interest in it. ie. 'Last Temptation of Christ', 'Sister Act', 'Passion of the Christ' etc... They did not make a huge call for a boycott of 'Brokeback'. Doing that would have advertised the film even more (if that's possible).

True that. I haven't read it, and probably wouldn't have seen it. Now that I've read this thread, I might just to see what the fuss is about.

[Alex]

Concerning the first paragraph, I think it needs to be read more carefully. It states that there was a real priory of Scion, which Flippy's link also says.

In other words, the two sentences in the first paragraph are technically true but when they are put together, they don't say what they are appearing to say, if that makes sense. At least that's my take on it.

Except he also claims that the Priory of Sion was found in 1099 which is demonstrably false as he should well know. So if he was trying to be clever and mislead us all into believing something to be true without actually saying so, he slipped up there.

It is all well and good for you to say that you personally never took it as anything more than fiction. But I have had conversations over the years with literally dozens of acquaintances and coworkers who came away from the book believing that while the (what is now) Tom Hanks/Audrey Tautou part of the story is obviously fiction the underlying elements about Opus Dei, the Priory of Sion, the Knights Templar, etc., must have been mostly accurate and based on historical research.

And that's what pisses me off a bit. Not that Dan Brown says "I've built this great piece of mythology" but rather "I've built this great piece of mythology based on some very interesting historical mysteries."

To me it is kind of like the Million Little Pieces debate where there was a significant side saying that it didn't really matter so long as it was an impactful read. I disagree, something can be a fun read and still be somewhat dangerous (though I think The Da Vinci Code is only slightly in this category).

Of course, it doesn't help that the book is atrocious for even hack genre fiction. I read a lot of hack genre fiction and it had me groaning throughout (the only reason I read it was to see what all the hooplah was about). I tried reading Angels and Demons on the way home from Singapore and found I prefered to just stare at the seat in front of me instead.

But what I wonder is: when is fiction just escapist fiction and when is it harmful? Because if a successful novel told the "true" story of how the Human Rights Campaign was originally founded as a cover for homosexual pedophiles then I imagine that HRC would not be saying "oh, posh, why should we care? It's just fiction."

[Prudence]

I've had discussions with literally dozens of co-workers and acquaintances who are convinced that deoderant gives people cancer and that giant Costa Rican spiders have travelled here on bananas and are hiding under toilet seats and biting people. I'm not going to hold authors responsible for the public's apparent lack of common sense.

Plus, there are any number of novels that start off with "no really! This is all true!" I think it's a silly conceit most of the time, but I don't hold the author responsible for concocting a tale that apparently some people find plausible. I don't think this is at all like Million Little Pieces, as in that case the author was (as I understand it) publicly claiming it to be his true biography. If Dan Brown has been claiming in interviews that his work is actual history, then I'll have to revise my assessment.

[Alex]

Not Afraid quoted above where he makes actual claims of history that aren't true.

I'm not saying Dan Brown should be "held responsible" for what people believe about a work of fiction. I'm saying that if a lot of people are going to believe that Costa Rican spiders are travelling here in bananas and this is not true then Chiquita has valid reason to be working to counter the spread of the information.

I'm not saying that the Catholic Church is doing so in the best way but I think it is completely understandable that they aren't just saying "oh, it's fiction, who cares?"

I'm also not sure what you're point is? Oh, people are stupid, just leave them be?

[Gemini Cricket]

There are a couple of things I'm looking forward to about this movie's release:

- I'm interested in seeing what opening weekend gross will look like.
- I'm wondering if the film will soften any of its content to appease upset religious folk.
- I'm looking forward to Tatou's performance, it'll be weird to hear her in English. (I admit that I've only seen 'Amelie' and 1/2 of 'Engagement'...)
- Ian McKellan

:)

[Snowflake]

There are a couple of things I'm looking forward to about this movie's release:

- Ian McKellan

:)

Yes! I love him! :snap:

[Prudence]

And those "actual claims" are with the pages of the novel? That's what I understood from the discussion. If so, that's the nature of the conceit. If he's going on talk shows and claiming historical fact that's taking it further.

I'm saying I don't think publishers and producers should decline to publish or produce entertainment because people might think it's true. The Catholic Church is upset about something nearly every day it seems. If people believe the Church is out to get them, I'm thinking that might be more the Church's fault than Dan Brown's. If they want to start a "we're not really like that, come to Mass and get a free puppy" campaign, that's understandable (to me.) In my opinion, saying "don't watch it 'cause it's eeeeeeeeeevil" doesn't help their cause any and thus is a bit silly.

And yes, I'm not really concerned about people who can't be bothered to sift fact from fiction.

[scaeagles]

If he's going on talk shows and claiming historical fact that's taking it further.

This is where I get concerned. Apparently Brown is going on various shows and during interviews he is making is seem as if this is NOT fiction. There is most certainly a problem there.

[Prudence]

I don't watch talk shows that don't involve questions of paternity or gender of origin, so I haven't seen that.

Even then, if I had to single out a party for scolding it would be the shows airing these interviews, particularly if they claim to be actual news outlets. Not that I don't think it's silly and deliberately provocative to go around maintaining the gloss of "research," mind you, but between the two I'm more annoyed with the shows that seek out and join in the promotion of fantasy and fact. But that that just leads back to the "news" discussion held elsewhere.

Regardless, I think the Church had a much stronger case when they went after Holy Blood, Holy Grail. (They did that, right? I'm not mis-remembering?) That particular tome is shelved in nonfiction. :rolleyes:

(Although that book conveniently allows me to personally discount my father-in-law's economic and political theories without actually having as broad an economics background as he does. If he thinks HBHG is trooooooooo! all trooooooooo! then why should any of his other opinions persuade me?)

If *I* were in charge of publicity for the Church and I actually didn't want people to see (or believe) the film I'd either ignore it or take the "what a charming work of fiction. Would you like to know more about the actual history?" approach. Instead they've taken the "don't go! It's evil!" approach, which will likely be as effective in the US (land of "you can't tell me what to do! It's a free country!") as their stand against condoms and divorce.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I'm saying I don't think publishers and producers should decline to publish or produce entertainment because people might think it's true. Nor is Alex. He's just saying he understand why the church would have motivation to convince people otherwise.

The Catholic Church is upset about something nearly every day it seems. If people believe the Church is out to get them, I'm thinking that might be more the Church's fault than Dan Brown's. If they want to start a "we're not really like that, come to Mass and get a free puppy" campaign, that's understandable (to me.) In my opinion, saying "don't watch it 'cause it's eeeeeeeeeevil" doesn't help their cause any and thus is a bit silly. And the more rational (therefor less press-worthy) members of church are doing just that. Holding classes and giving sermons to study what is an isn't true in the book and what it means.

[Alex]

And yes, I'm not really concerned about people who can't be bothered to sift fact from fiction.

Is this true of everything or just when you don't care about the fiction people are choosing to believe?

Do I care in the sense that people should be prevented from believing things that aren't true? No. Do I care in the sense that every reasonable opportunity should be taken to set them straight? Yes.

Pretty much every organization in existence is quick to shout some form of "heresy" whenever they feel the larger culture is embracing something that they feel attacks them.

Jewish groups did it last year with Munich. Gay groups did it when Laura Schlesinger had her TV show. The Albinism Alliance (or whatever they call themselves) are upset by the portrayal of an albino in The Da Vinci Code. The rest of society tells them "just ignore it" unless they feel they are part of the offended group and then suddenly it is an issue that should be battled.

Again, I don't think most of the people saying "chill" on this issue would be so sanguine if the book and movie were based on the "truth" of Holocaust denial (perhaps it is a myth created by the Zionist Overlords to help ensure the establishment of the state of Israel following WWII). If thousands of people put the book down, or left the movie theater saying, "I know it is fiction but that is a pretty interesting theory. How do they explain the fact that the gas ovens aren't big enough for human entry?"

I suspect we'd all find that very troubling and not just something to be ignored as the gullibility of stupid people.

[Prudence]

Is this true of everything or just when you don't care about the fiction people are choosing to believe?


As far as I know, it is true of everything.

[Gemini Cricket]

I have no problem with a church telling its congregation not to see a film. I do have a problem when they try to force the filmmakers to have it carry a disclaimer on it or if they try to ban it outright. I also have a problem if a religious organization tries to stop theatres from showing the film ie. 'Brokeback' in Utah. I don't go to church because I don't want to be preached at, when you take the preaching to me outside of your building, that's when you'll hear the feedback from me.

[Not Afraid]

Personally, I think it is a bit more interesting that people WANT to believe it. Is it the fact that the book is taking on an organization that has such a broad influence on our culture and we want to see it with egg on it's face?

It is an entertaining book - or at least I found it to be so - but I've read lots of books with "different" takes on culture and history and I never fully believed them as fact. They may have lead me to do more research on a topic, but bostly they were simply a good read.

I've thought more about the "fact" page that starts out the book. If a fact page appears in a work of fiction, is it still fact? I have to admit that I initially took it to be factual information and it did set the tone for thinking, perhaps, there was some fact in the story he was telling. There are many revisionist historical theories out there that would proport that some of the "fictional facts" about Christ are plausable. I experienced some of them in college in the mid 80's.

Oh, and vampires DO exist, don't they? ;)

[Alex]

Only on Thursdays. Unless they're Daybreakers.

[Snowflake]

Well, I've got a freind here who is a total fanatic for the book (I thought it was eh, okay). Upshot is, we'll be going to see this thing on Sunday. I just bought tickets and will be doing my least favorite thing, seeing a film on it's opening weekend. There are some great casting choices, McKellen, Molina and Audrey Tatou. So worst case, it will be fun. I do like (overall) Ron Howard's films.

[scaeagles]

I heard that the critics at the Cannes film festival were less than impressed. Of course, that's true about most movies that they see at Cannes, but I guess they really disliked it.

I don't frequntly agree with most movie critics. I am not a movie critic, so what seems old to them is usually not to me, because I don't view a lot of movies.

I am just wondering how the reception at Cannes bodes for the movie at the box office.

[Moonliner]

Damn, I meant to post this before any reviews came out so I could look all prophetic.... Oh well just pretend you read this a few days ago when I was thinking about it...

The "critics" are going to hate The Da Vinci Code simply because they have to. It's the same cycle that just about all overly hyped movies go through. Lots of good press leading up to the opening and then when the movie turns out to be just a movie and not the second coming they pan it.

So I expect lots of bad press, followed by a bit of wait and see and then if the numbers hold they come back with how great it is totally ignoring the bad reviews otherwise it just fades away....

[Alex]

Past history (as opposed to future history I guess) suggests that a movie's reception at Cannes has little impact on how well it will do at the Box Office in the United States.

For example, of the last 10 winners at Cannes, only four have made as much as $35 million in the United States (Farenheit 9/11 and The Pianist). A third (Dancer in the Dark) made a bit over $30 million. None of the rest topped $15 million. Four didn't even make it to $1 million.

[scaeagles]

Alex, you watch a lot of movies if I recall. Do you find that most reviewers are snobbish? Seriously. It seems like most don't relate to the common, average movie watcher. The movie reviewer in the paper I get cannot review a movie without referring and making comparisons to at least three others throughout the review. If I haven't seen those other movies, I have no common frame of reference.

I don't see many movies, so I guess my expectations are lower? I don't expect art or a perfect story as most reviewers seem to. I expect to be entertained.

Perhaps it is not unlike things in life that I consider myself to be knowledgable about. For example, I hate seeing poorly coached basketball games, when many who watch basketball casually wouldn't notice it.

[Alex]

Some are. Movie criticism is ultimately about one person sharing what they like or don't like and trying to explain why (and hopefully writing well in the process). It isn't so much about trying to tell you whether you will like it. To the extent that you are influenced by critics, part of that process is determining which critics seem to share tastes with you.

Yes, see a couple hundred movies in a year as I do and you can't help but begin to view them as part of a larger tapestry and ponder on that. If you only see one movie in your entire life then you'll probably be entertained by sixteen minutes of watching a man ride his bike in a circle (as people in the earliest days of cinema were).

Because of the reviews I write for MousePlanet I will see pretty much every single movie released by Disney's three labels this year. I can't help but be affected by the fact that this means that fully a third of the Disney releases I see are sports related and therefore tend to draw on similar themes. If you only see one sports movie then you'll probably think that The Mighty Ducks is pretty good, but if it uses the same themes and plot elements of another, better movie why not mention that and hopefully you'll watch the better movie instead.

A lot of people say to me "why don't you just shut off your mind and go with it? It is just stupid entertainment." My response is that I can't imagine why anybody would ever want to just shut off their mind and go with stupid entertainment. I do my best to explain why I don't like or do like something. There are almost always factors entirely internal to the movie that make it, in my view, bad or good but there are also frequently external factors. Perhaps movie B in complete isolation isn't all that bad but movie A covers the exact same territory much better? Deep Impact needs to be reviewed on its own terms but it also wouldn't make much sense to review it without mentioning Armageddon.

When I review a movie I do try to review it in the context of what it is trying to be. It is unfair to use the same criteria of quality in judging an adaptation of Romeo and Juliet that you would use for a Hong Kong action movie. But I don't think a movie gets a pass just because it is aiming for the lowest common denominator.

Bottom line, though, if you find that a critic (or all critics) aren't a good indicator of what you personally will like then they are of no use to you and you shouldn't rely on them. It is all subjective. You'll find that a good critical response to a movie is not much of an indicator of what will do well at the box office. That said, it is a much better indicator (but not perfect) of what will still be remembered as a "classic" 30 years down the road.

[flippyshark]

Well said, Alex.

I don't go to a lot of movies anymore, and when I do, I seem to spend a lot of time thinking, jeez, I've seen this before, MANY times.

I like to read movie criticism, but it has nothing to do with making a decision to see a movie. I just enjoy hearing other points of view. I particularly like it when a critic either lambastes something he or she despised or rhapsodizes about something that worked. As long as the writing is good, I'll keep reading, even if I don't agree.

Before any given trailer is over, I know if I want to see something or not. If I am really jazzed about it, no number of poor reviews will keep me away. Oh, and if its a shark movie, I'm going. (*sigh*)

I am only mildly curious about Da Vinci Code, and really mostly about how much of the controversial stuff gets left in. It's most likely a rental for me.

I admit I AM curious about how much of the "shocking" ritual orgy flashback will be in there.

[Not Afraid]

I'm curious about seeing the film but, God help us all if I actually get to the movies. Hell might freeze over.

[wendybeth]

The only thing I'm curous about is if they'll actually show:

the curator doing the full-frontal naked guy thing. I'll bet they wuss out and have him in a thong or something.

[libraryvixen]

The only thing I'm curous about is if they'll actually show:

the curator doing the full-frontal naked guy thing. I'll bet they wuss out and have him in a thong or something.

Did you consider the age of the curator.... and in a THONG?!?!? :eek: *shudder*

[Gemini Cricket]

I think the way it is shown is that there's a huge spotlight on his crotch. So he is naked but we see a washed out package...

[Snowflake]

I think the way it is shown is that there's a huge spotlight on his crotch. So he is naked but we see a washed out package...

Whew! That is fine with me! Ew!

Anyway, I listened to the BBC on the way to work this morning and the critics are just trashing it. Long, boring, no humor and laughable at the end.

I've already got tickets, so it will be interesting, but it sure was funny to hear the various critics recapping the screening and analyzing the film to the last sprocket hole.

Donna

[scaeagles]

Nothing like fueling the fire.....

Bible should have a disclaimer saying "This is fiction." (http://newsbusters.org/dv.html?q=node/5402)

I guess no publicity is bad, but I think that comment might not go over too well.

[flippyshark]

Nah, that's still good publicity for much of the audience this movie is aiming for. This comment will mostly offend evangelicals, who are probably not going to see it anyway. (Well, I'm sure a few of them will, just to report back to their friends, congregations and so on.)

[Alex]

I like Ian McKellen more and he has earned absolution for Last Action Hero.

Of course he goes a bit too far saying it should be labelled as fiction, it isn't fiction since it seriously claims to be true. It should be labelled as hoakum (just as Holy Blood, Holy Grail should be). In my library the Dewey Decimal System is:

000 - General
100 - Semi-hoakum
200 - Hoakum
300 - Academic-hoakum
400 - Languages
500 - Natural Sciences
600 - Technology
700 - Pretension
800 - Literature
900 - Geography and (revisionist) History

[flippyshark]

Please tell me you don't put Dewey Decimal labels on your books at home.

(I'd place the Bible into the Cultural Mythology section, with the Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads, the Mahabarata and so on. That's if I had such a section. As it is, I have a couple of shelves of Bibles, biblical criticism, biblical archaeology and related. So, the Bible is clearly a topic of great importance to me, even if it is not an object of reverence.)

I don't own a copy of Da Vinci Code. I borrowed someone else's.

[Snowflake]

I like Ian McKellen more and he has earned absolution for Last Action Hero.

Of course he goes a bit too far saying it should be labelled as fiction, it isn't fiction since it seriously claims to be true. It should be labelled as hoakum (just as Holy Blood, Holy Grail should be). In my library the Dewey Decimal System is:

000 - General
100 - Semi-hoakum
200 - Hoakum
300 - Academic-hoakum
400 - Languages
500 - Natural Sciences
600 - Technology
700 - Pretension
800 - Literature
900 - Geography and (revisionist) History

Before I see it, my vote goes for 200/300 - Pseudo-Academic hokum (I don't think there is an "a" in hokum). With McKellen and Molina, I will enjoy it since I love both of them.

[alphabassettgrrl]

KatieSue, I agree with you on the "bible as literal fact" thing. I think it's much more useful as mythology, as stories that illustrate something than as historical fact it could ever be. Not to mention like you said, translations, copies, and intentional errors in service to a particular political agenda.

NA, I'm with you here that it *is* interesting that people want so desperately to believe. Personally, I find it quite plausible that Jesus married, had kids, etc, though I don't know that the line would be traceable today. The church suppressed a lot of writings, both at the time of Christ through today. There was a major purge around AD300? 600? Something like that. The bishops got together and literally decided yes or no to many writings, what would appear in the official new bible.

Some of these writings were probably more favorable to women. I think there was a purge, because if women have power and influence (and were among the disciples) men would have less power and influence, and this new church was all about male power. Thus we get rules about women being unclean, about women speaking in church, rules about women not being allowed to teach others about the religious writings.

As far as the movie goes, churches train their followers to believe uncritically in the church. Ok, fine. Now they see the movie, and will believe it uncritically. It's what they've been taught.

I like the more rational members of the churches, who are holding discussion groups and speaking about what they actually believe. Let's cut the hype.

[Alex]

When I say it, it has an a. It gives the word plausible deniability.

[scaeagles]

There is plausibility, and then there is historical record.

None of the gospels, aphocrypha, gnostic gospels, nor eye witness accounts claim that he married. And in fact to claim that he married Mary Magdalene is funny to me, because I happen to think that she was not a prostitute (an idea originally presented in the third certury by some Pope or another), but rather was an older woman. I have a very logical argument as to why, and if people are interested, I could post it.

Many things are plausible. I could come up with many ridiculous yet plausible ideas and perhaps convince many people of them.

I think members of churches that are mostly upset about this know that lots and lots of people will believe some/all of what Dan Browns fiction says. It is contrary to their beliefs (and to the historical record), and they know the interest is not there among the majority of fans of the book or movie to discuss the actual history. They want to be entertained. So how are churches to get their message out in any way to people other than the faithful other than scream it out?

[Moonliner]

It is interesting to see how opposing viewpoints are dealt with.

China (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/03/21/062158.php) and bloggers - Arrested sentenced to prison

Shi'a Muslim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Satanic_Verses_(novel)) - Fatwa calling for the death of the author

Muslims (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4670370.stm) - Riots, looting, killings.

Cathloics (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4350625.stm)- Condemnation, calls for a boycott

[scaeagles]

Wow - this thing is getting massacred in the press. On rotten tomotoes, it has a 6% rating (1 out of 16 reviews thus far). Ouch.

[wendybeth]

Well, Moon- Catholicism is an old religion; back in it's earlier days it would have been a different story. The thought is that as Islam ages it too will mellow, but we're looking at hundreds of years so none of us will be around to see it.

[scaeagles]

Well, Moon- Catholicism is an old religion;

It took me a minute to realize you were referring to Moonliner. I thought you were talking about a combination of Moonies and Catholics into a new sect of Moon-Catholicism.

[Scrooge McSam]

Yeah... Mooncats

[Gemini Cricket]

I'm wondering if 'Over the Hedge' is going to out perform 'The DaVinci Code'. As Leo said, it's getting panned left and right.

[wendybeth]

Lol! We may be on to something here....If L. Ron can start up a religion, why can't we? We can be Moon-Cats, and we can get incredibly wealthy and start a new newspaper: the Vatican Post Monitor.

:D

[scaeagles]

I'm wondering if 'Over the Hedge' is going to out perform 'The DaVinci Code'. As Leo said, it's getting panned left and right.

I looked around and the LIndsay Lohan movie "Just my Luck" is at 11%.

[CoasterMatt]

YAY! My "Xenu Is My Homeboy" t-shirt arrived today :D

[scaeagles]

I wonder, should this movie fail mightily, if the producers/Ron Howard/actors will blame the religious right.

[CoasterMatt]

I blame the liberal media bias...

[Moonliner]

Lol! We may be on to something here....If L. Ron can start up a religion, why can't we? We can be Moon-Cats, and we can get incredibly wealthy and start a new newspaper: the Vatican Post Monitor.

:D

Humm you all have fun. I've already started one religion (http://www.loungeoftomorrow.com/LoT/showpost.php?p=51038&postcount=45)here and that's enough for me....

[Snowflake]

Lol! We may be on to something here....If L. Ron can start up a religion, why can't we? We can be Moon-Cats, and we can get incredibly wealthy and start a new newspaper: the Vatican Post Monitor.

:D

Moon-Kats, now that is swanky! :snap:

How about MoonKat for the bunny name?

[Not Afraid]

Mooncat. Now THAT's a religion I could get into. I have several (6) mooncats ready to be sainted.


Well, 5. Scoundrel is the devil.

[€uroMeinke]

I like the term Mooncat - now someone has to do a lexicon entry

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Funny, how I have no real interest in either reading the book or seeing the movie. I didn't even open the thread until just now, and that's only because I read "mooncat" over GD's shoulder last night.

When something becomes that popular and I miss out on the first blast, I think, screw it. It doesn't get more red-hot bookwise than this one. It's still routinely missing from the shelves, three years after it's been published, with barely any lull.

Anyway, the real reason I'm here -

Mooncat - A person who has a philosophical view on life involving a tranquil search for hedons. Mooncats are called such because they are often up late soaking in the relaxation of the perfect night, be it at an exotic locale or lounging at home. "Scope out

[Cadaverous Pallor]

ACK! My browser keeps messing me up! I tried editing my post but it won't work :(

[Cadaverous Pallor]

I figued out the problem - it doesn't like the Euro symbol :p

"Scope out Euro - dressed for success, opens the pad to any little cat and kitten, generous with the drinks and conversation, doesn't sweat anything - a real Mooncat with his head on straight, you dig?"

[mistyisjafo]

I think its so ridiculous how the church is getting so upset about a MOVIE. Recently I read the Catholic Church said they were afraid people would think the book/movie isn't fictional. Don't they have bigger fish to fry, like the issue they've had with child molestation? Why is it they are so concerned that a BOOK that's barely a few years old would completely undermine an entire belief?? It's just ridiculous!

:stoomping off to go join the mooncats:

[innerSpaceman]

Heheh, I thought "Scope out" was some hipster variation on the parting salutation "Peace out."

I like it. I think all Mooncats should use it when bidding adieu.



* * * * *

As for staying away from something tremendously popular if you've missed the first wave, I think that is a recipe for folly. While it's all too often that uber popular things are that way for no decernable reason, a great many of them are ultra-popular for good cause.

If you didn't see Star Wars in '77, should you stay away from it forever? Never listen to the Beatles if you were born after the 60's? As for a librarian missing out on a BOOK that can't get red-hotter - - well, I'm flabbergasted!

[Not Afraid]

Heheh, I thought "Scope out" was some hipster variation on the parting salutation "Peace out."


I read it as "Scoop Out" as in what you do to a litter box.

Hey, even Mooncats have to go sometimes.

[Gemini Cricket]

We're going to a 9pm show tonight. Despite the reviews, I'm really curious about this one.

[Moonliner]

As an alternative to actually doing work, I've been watching the rating for the Da Vinci Code (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/)over on Rotten Tomatoes.

It does seem to be slowly increasing it's positive rating as more reviews come in from real viewers rather than critics.


Personally I'm hoping it does well so that they will make a movie of Angels and Demons. That story would make a better movie in my opinion.

[Gemini Cricket]

So much for seeing the 9 o'clock show. All of the showtimes are almost all sold out. I could only get a 11pm show. Which ends after the subway stops running, bleh. Gotta get a cab, I guess...

[scaeagles]

I watched an interesting special on (oddly enough) the Sci Fi channel last night. It was discussing the book, movie, Dan Brown's interpretation of the art of Leonardo Da Vinci (particularly The Last Supper - by the way it is a pet peave of mine when people refer to him as Da Vinci - that was in reference to where he was from, not his name, but I suppose everyone knows who is being discussed), Mary Magdalene (another pet peave is when people think that was her last name - she was from Magdala), the Gnostic Gospels, Constantine, The Council of Nicea....and there were lots of archeologists, art history experts, religious and nonreligious historians.....they all just shot his research to hell.

Edited to add: I'll be taking my kids to see "Over the Hedge" tonight. Don't think they'd really enjoy The Da Vinci Code.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

As for staying away from something tremendously popular if you've missed the first wave, I think that is a recipe for folly. While it's all too often that uber popular things are that way for no decernable reason, a great many of them are ultra-popular for good cause.

If you didn't see Star Wars in '77, should you stay away from it forever? Never listen to the Beatles if you were born after the 60's? As for a librarian missing out on a BOOK that can't get red-hotter - - well, I'm flabbergasted!Aww, I thought that if anyone would understand my irrational stubbornness, it'd be you. :p

If the book was a sci-fi/fantasy story, I'd be all over it. Here's my big secret - I really don't care to read about Christianity, conspiracy or fictionalized or whatever.

My other big secret is that I hate mysteries. I just read Bad Twin, the LOST tie-in book, and it was a decently well-written detective story. It reminded me how much I dislike the end of mystery stories, however thrilling. There's always a lead up to the big showdown, then someone dies or is injured, and then there's the last scene where they tell us whodunit. I have always found the expository nature of the endings to be total letdowns.

My brain during the end of a mystery. "Oh, so it was that guy the whole time. Ok, great."

[Not Afraid]

If the book was a sci-fi/fantasy story, I'd be all over it.

It sort of is.

[Gemini Cricket]

So, I exchanged my tickets for tomorrow night. I have to share a story with y'all.

I called the AMC theatre in advance just a few minutes ago and they told me that it is no problem to exchange tickets. So, I walk in there and this kid (22 yrs old maybe) is at his register on his cellphone. Not a work phone but his own personal phone that lights up, plays music whatever. Then he waves me over. No smile, no courtesy, nothing.

'Can I exchange these tickets for a showing tomorrow night?' I ask.

He stands there, rolls his eyes and exhales deeply. 'Mannn...' he says leaning on his register.

Okay, already I'm ready to blow my top. Not that it takes much sometimes.

So he does a return and gives me a new set of tickets. Then he flings them at me. Seriously, like he was a Vegas card dealer. I stop them from flying off of the counter and I look at them:

***Mission Impossible 3: 8:15pm 05/19/06***

I look at him, smiling. 'Uh, these are for MI3. I need Da Vinci Code, 8:15pm, tomorrow night.

He takes them back doing the same exhale 'Mannn...'

He gives me another set of tickets and calls the next person in line. I don't move. I look at my tickets:

***Over The Hedge, 05/20/06*** (I don't remember the time.)

I look at him smiling again. 'Uh, these are for Over the Hedge. I need Da Vinci Code, 8:15pm, tomorrow night.'

This time he doesn't say anything, doesn't sigh, he gets me another set of tickets.

***Da Vinci Code, 8:15, 05/19/06***

He tries handing them back to me but as he's doing it he realizes that he messed up again.

He finally gives me what I need.

Then he calls the next person in line.

I put my tickets away and said, 'I'm not done. Call your supervisor over here, right now.'

He looks at me. 'What for?'

'Oh, he and I/she and I are going to have a conversation.' I said.

'All of my supervisors are upstairs.' He said.

'Call them down. I'll wait right here.' I said.

He calls.

'She'll be right with you.'

A really, really nice supervisor comes to speak with me. I tell her everything I posted here. Cellphone and all. She's pis sed now. She gives me a coupon for free stuff at the concession stand. 2 drinks, 2 popcorns.

'You know, Ma'am, I need you to take care of this situation. I come here a lot and never receive this kind of treatment. Your employee seems to have issues. I know you don't approve of this kind of behavior and neither would I in a management position. I appreciate you talking to me about this.'

She apologized up and down and was very cool.

Needless to say, the cashier wouldn't look me in the eye again. If he had, he would have fricken turned into stone.
;)

[Snowflake]

Good for you GC! :snap: :snap:

And free food at the horribly over priced concession! :D

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Great story, GC! :)

I could go into a rant about decaying customer service skills, but rather, I'll just say good for you for taking the time to bring this to their attention. Others would have given up or not bothered and that hurts everyone. You probably just made future customers experience there a little more pleasant.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Back to Dan Brown, I just finished another Dan Brown book called "Deception Point" and thought it was a fun read. This one focuses on NASA, no religion to be found for those turned off by that sort of thing.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

GC rules. That guy deserved nothing less.

[innerSpaceman]

HeeeHeee, what a great way to get free popcorn!




aaaaand, with Da Vinci Code now in theaters, out of the Lounge this goes.

[scaeagles]

My wife and I took our kids to see "Over the Hedge" this afternoon after school (cute movie, by the way, with some funny stuff), but when we got there, the parking lot was beyond packed. This multiplex was showing it on four screens and pretty much everyone there without a kid was going to see it.

Seems like it's going to do really well at the box office regardless of the16% rotten tomatoes rating.

[flippyshark]

by the way it is a pet peave of mine when people refer to him as Da Vinci - that was in reference to where he was from, not his name, but I suppose everyone knows who is being discussed), Mary Magdalene (another pet peave is when people think that was her last name - she was from Magdala)

And, of course, Jesus' last name was not Christ. (For that matter, his first name wasn't Jesus.) I once directed a production of Jesus Christ Superstar, and throughout that show, people call him Christ like it was a name, I guess making him the son of Joseph and Mary Christ.

On an unrelated note, Way To Go GC! That kind of "service" makes me crazy.

[CoasterMatt]

Great job, GC! :)

[Not Afraid]

I was talking to Fej as he was trying to get out of the Spectrum parking garage. It was apparently PACKED!

Bob Mondello gave it a bad review today. :sigh:

[Gn2Dlnd]

Saw it today, unexpectedly, at the Arclight. Actually, in the Dome. Every showing was sold out. My friend Katherine had an extra ticket and invited me to go.

I enjoyed it.

So did Katherine.

You know how she makes her living? She writes films. The kind that actually get made.

Guess what? The movie is fiction, based on a book of fiction, inspired by a church whose teachings are largely fiction. Very entertaining.

By the way, the three protestors outsde the theatre were outnumbered by the five newsvans.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Saw the matinee yesterday. Busy, but not packed. Later in the evening, I played a gig at a club next to a multiplex that was playing it. Different story. It took me 20 minutes to find a parking space. Total zoo.

I'll put my movie comments in a spoiler box but first, just a few comments on why I hate going to the movies.

About 5 minutes before the movie started, four very-young teenage girls sat in front of it. "Damn", I thought, "They are going to talk through the whole thing". Well, I was wrong. Not a peep out of them. However, the two adults next to them, probably in their mid-50's or so, talked through the whole thing. So much for stereotypes. What made matters worse is that they both brought Panda Express with them. I'm sorry but I really don't feel like smelling your stinky chinese food through the entire movie. Is it me or is this just a tad overboard by bring your dinner in with you?

Then there was the guy sitting two seats over from me. Dude, no, you should not be having a CONVERSATION on your cell phone in the middle of the movie. I gave him a "I'm going to ram that phone up your ass in a minute" look and he sheepishly told the caller that he would call him later and hung up. Geez, ya think?

Stupid inconsiderate moviegoers.

Anyway, my spoiler doesn't give away any serious plot points or anything but still...

We both really liked the movie. It was very true to the book and I liked the acting all around. But, my guess is that, if you go to see this without reading the book first, you stand the chance of becoming seriously lost in the first half-hour. I think the screenplay adaptation needed to take this more into account. We followed it fine but I felt sorry for anyone who hadn't. I would imagine they had a hard time keeping up with who was who. The movie already clocked in a 2 1/2 hours though, so I suppose it was a major undertaking to tell this story in a reasonable time. There is much more backstory in the book.

Still, Ian McKllellan was great in his role, as was the rest of the supporting cast. The weak link, IMO, was Hanks. He just didn't seem like he gave his usual all. The locations were gorgeous though and they were all pretty much as I had envisioned when reading it. All in all, and with the exception of our discourteous patrons, we enjoyed ourselves and I predict that overall, it will do well.

[Morrigoon]

I enjoyed it. I thought perhaps they went for a bit too much intensity in the beginning, but eventually you get used to that.

I did notice the minor changes from the book, but they carried them off pretty well, considering they had to work within a time frame.

But overall, yeah, worth going, I enjoyed it.

[wendybeth]

As Gn2 pointed out, it's a movie that is derived from a work of fiction. The critics were ready to savage it before it ever came out, excepting the one at Faux News who gave it a good review and who is crowing over it's apparent success. I hope it's incredibly successful, if only to piss off everyone who is protesting against it or operating against it according to some agenda.

[Gn2Dlnd]

Unfortunately, saw a lousy movie tonight. Poseidon.
I was looking forward to this, too. No emotional heart whatsoever.

One piece of advice. If you're in this movie, don't touch Richard Dreyfuss' ankle. It is a mindless killing machine.

[Gemini Cricket]

If you're in this movie, don't touch Richard Dreyfuss' ankle. It is a mindless killing machine.
Well, darn it, now I'm curious... :D



We saw 'Da Vinci' last night. I liked it. Not a lot, but I liked it. I certainly didn't hate it.
The pacing was a little slow in places (especially towards the end) but I thought it was a good adaptation of the book. This is going to sound weird but like 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone' everything in this movie was exactly how I pictured it in my mind. (Except for Tom Hanks. I was picturing Russell Crowe.) Paul Bettany was cool. He was one hot albino monk.
There was a scene where Tom Hanks and Ian McKellan are arguing about grail lore and I totally didn't buy Hanks in that scene. He seemed too sheepish compared to Sir Ian, he needed to up his character's status a little.
Needless to say, I loved my Ian in this film. He's such a great actor.
I'm not sure why it got slammed by the critics. I don't think it deserved the 16% it got on rottentomatoes.com.
During our showing there were no protesters.
Boxofficemojo.com said that 'DVC' made 30 mil on Friday. That's really good. I think this movie is going to do well. It may drop off next weekend with 'X-men 3' coming out, but I don't think that it'll be considered a bomb at all.

As a side note to my customer service issues with AMC, when we used our coupons for the free small items at the concession stand, the person behind the counter misread the coupons. The coupons stated that you could use these tickets towards credit for a large. She ended up giving us large items without asking us for the difference in cash. Even after we corrected her, she still said we were wrong. So we took the items without much protest. So, cashier incompetence does pay off in the customer's favor every now and then. ;)

[flippyshark]

Dang, where is this amazing AMC of incompetence? It sounds like a case study.

Ah, Ian McKellan. He is the chief reason I would go see this movie. (I wasn't a huge fan of the book.)

[Gemini Cricket]

AMC/Lowes Boston Common
Boston, MA
Near Tremont and Boyston street intersection, across the street from Boston Common.

[Gemini Cricket]

1. "The Da Vinci Code," $77 million.

2. "Over the Hedge," $37.2 million

3. "Mission: Impossible III," $11 million.

4. "Poseidon," $9.2 million.

5. "RV," $5.1 million

6. "See No Evil," $4.4 million

7. "Just My Luck," $3.4 million.

8. "An American Haunting," $1.7 million.

9. "United 93," $1.4 million.

10. "Akeelah and the Bee," $1 milli

[CoasterMatt]

I blame the liberal media :p

[Gemini Cricket]

I talked to someone at the theatre last night who couldn't get into 'Da Vinci' so he saw 'Poseidon' instead. He hated it.

A funny thing happened on the way to the bathroom too. I saw two men waiting outside of the women's bathroom. They were in their early 30's or so. I guess they had been waiting a looong time... One looks at the other and says, 'Let's go. She ain't worth it.' And they walked away! Holy cow! That must have been one interesting date to watch... :D
:D

[Snowflake]

DVC was on my menu today. It was okay, Ron Howard did a decent job and I think Tom Hanks' performance was so remote, he probably should have phoned it in from home. Otherwise, it was entertaining enough, ultra serious, no fun until Sir Ian showed up and showed how to make the most of a fun character. The scenary was good, Tatou was not as unintellible as the critics complained (I had no trouble understanding her dialogue). I love Alfred Molina, but he ws pretty much wasted on this film, anyone could have played the role of the Bishop. The film was okay and I don't think it deserves the drubbing it has been getting. Slow in spots, Tom Hanks phoning it in, but a fun story and Sir Ian makes it worth the matinee price of admission.

Our megaplex was showing this film on 4 screens, so our 3:45 showing was about 1/3 of the way full. Naturally, with all this space, the 3 clowns in front of me decided they would text message through the film. Until I turned into megaplex bitch, that is.

We were also treated to the trailer, in some form or another of the newest Adam Sandler flick called Click. Yeah, like repeated, incessant clips from this film would make me pay to see it? Nah, I'll pass.

Also saw the Cars trailer, I'll go see it, but I was not enthused.

[innerSpaceman]

Seems word of mouth is decidely fair-to-meh, following on a tidal wave of critical disasterism. Opening weekend was always going to be critic-proof, and I'm sure Sony was betting on the film simply compelling every reader of the book to be a payer for the movie ... hence profit guaranteed regardless of quality or reviews.

Ironically, it's not any Christian broo-ha-ha that's making this a must-see, but rather the critical drubbing itself ... which I think created a have-to-see-it-for-themselves sorta backlash with the public.


Pfht, even with "meh" being the best I've heard, I'm still going to see it with zapppop on Tuesday. But I popped in a DVD tonight of a movie that Hanks really sold with a tremendous performance ("Cast Away"), and I think a phoned-in Tom Hanks performance is going to be a big disappointment.

And the movie version of The DaVinci Code being only so-so is itself a pretty big disappointment.

[Prudence]

I suppose I'll see this eventually, but I'm a bit afraid to. I know I'm supposed to reject the book as unsuitable fluff, poorly written by an insufferable hack, but the reality is that I found it quite entertaining. The history of the early Church and related heresies is one of my pet research hobbies, so I tend to enjoy historical fiction in that genre. (In much the same way as I enjoy, from time to time, a good bodice-ripper involving a strong-willed Elizabethan era heroine who will, at some point, disguise herself as a man to get her own way, before being tamed by the studly heir she's supposed to hate.) I'm bound to be disappointed by the movie, I think. Which is a pity. :(

[Gn2Dlnd]

Pfht, even with "meh" being the best I've heard...

Huh. I was pretty sure I said I liked it.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Yeah, likewise.

[Gemini Cricket]

Yeah, likewise.

[innerSpaceman]

To quote The Commodore's review - - the entirety of his review: "I enjoyed it." I'll grant that's a better-than-fair review. I misspoke.

Gemini Cricket posted that he liked it, but not a lot. How's that for a Meh review?

Motorboat Cruiser did say that he enjoyed it very much. I apologize for mischaracterizing his review. There was indeed a bit of enthusiasm in his comments that I did not detect in anyone else's review of the film.


I am nonetheless pleased that word of mouth seems to indicate the critics tarred this one unfairly. But, as I posted above, anything less than a gem is -to me- a disappointing adaptation of The DaVinci Code.

[scaeagles]

I am wondering if the box office receipts will fall off dramatically.

The hype for this and loyal following of the book would seem to suggest that perahps the avid fans would have had to have seen it on the opening weekend. With the overall poor reviews by critics and the overall lukewarm receipt my the majority of those who have seen it (ISM's "meh" reviews), I wonder how many people that still really, really want to see it haven't yet and also how many repeat viewers there will be.

[Gemini Cricket]

I think the box office will drop off next weekend. 'X3' is coming out, I'm thinking that will be number one.

With that being said, $147 mil worldwide is huge. The movie has already grossed $224. That's pretty amazing.

Btw, 'Meh' to me is not liking it/not hating it. ie. 'Spiderman 1'. But I hear what you're saying, iSm. :)

[Not Afraid]

I think the box office will drop off next weekend.

Good. Then maybe I will see it.

I've really hated going to the movies lately - with the exception of the Cemetery.

[innerSpaceman]

Pretty much hated it. How they can have made such a tedious film from this source is simply beyond me. But the movie had so little zest that it simply ran out steam way before the end. I don't think there was a non-snore-inducing moment once Sir Ian was whisked away in a squad car raving like a madman.

[Gemini Cricket]

I noticed in one scene in the elevator of the Louvre there was an sign that read "The Monna Lisa". Is that French for "Mona"?

[SzczerbiakManiac]

Originally Posted by Mrs. Betty Bowers (http://www.bettybowers.com/davinci.html)
This man (on the left wearing a fabulous vintage chiffon-lined Dior gold lamé gown over a silk Vera Wang empire waist tulle cocktail dress, accessorized with a 3-foot beaded peaked House of Whoville hat, and the ruby slippers Judy Garland wore in the Wizard of Oz) is worried that The Da Vinci Code might make the Roman Catholic Church look foolish.
http://www.bettybowers.com/graphics/pradapope.gif:evil: :D

[Gn2Dlnd]

I love Betty Bowers, America's Best Christian.

[wendybeth]

I'd never heard of her, but I bookmarked that site.:snap:

[Snowflake]

I'd never heard of her, but I bookmarked that site.:snap:

Me either! OMG but the trailer to The Passion of the Christ Part II was funny!

Bookmarked here as well.....(isn't bookmarked the one holdover from Netscape? Does anyone use Netscape anymore?):(

[Ghoulish Delight]

Actually, you'll find "bookmark" used in any Mozilla-based web browser, including the ever-popular FireFox.

[lizziebith]

isn't bookmarked the one holdover from Netscape? Does anyone use Netscape anymore?):(

I still use Netscape. I'm very loyal.

[Gemini Cricket]

Betty Bowers totally rocks. I bought her book for my sister.

And by the way, Pope, love the shoes...
:D

[wendybeth]

I still use Netscape. I'm very loyal.

Me, too- especially since Exhorror keeps trying to shanghai my comp. I run XP and use Comcast broadband, so it's like a concerted effort to get me to switch. Neveh!

[Alex]

I'm almost afraid to ask, but which versions of Netscape do you use? As for a broader answer, according to recent browser logs Netscape has about 1.6% market share (good for a distant fourth place in the browser wars).

[wendybeth]

I use 7.2. Well, considering what a sheep I'm supposed to be I guess a little bit of the rebel still exists within.:D

[Alex]

The reason I was afraid to ask is because we still get hit by people using Netscape 4.x and there is nothing worse than that (from a Web development point of view). Of course the occasional WebTV browser hits are good for some nostalgia.

I still hope for a rare sighting of an early version of Lynx (not that late version sightings are common). Anybody still running a Gopher server?

[lizziebith]

About my Netscape browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20051012 Netscape/8.0.4 (and my ex uses it too, same version. I think I set hubby up with it also, at his studio).

I loved 7.2, but now am addicted to tabs. At work I'm forced to use Exhorror. Well, I figure it keeps the IT guys in work, since practically every other day we have to re-boot for the latest fix installed overnight. I'm not used to not having admin privs, though...and although I've found a few ways around that I still can't DL Netscape, so still miss my Netscape while I'm there. :(

Generally, at home I rarely have trouble surfing...even filed my taxes online using this browser. At work, IE wigs constantly if I'm listening to netradio...I never adjusted to Firefox, although I've got it for testing pages. I have Opera on my phone. I think that's it! :D

[Alex]

I've never had any problems at all with Explorer, just grew accustomed to tabs.

And tabs are the method for breaking the Da Vinci Code just to bring this back on topic.

[BarTopDancer]

OK, so I finished the book last night and found it really anti-climatic. And where is this fight with an albino that everyone keeps talking about? I feel like I read a totally different book then everyone else.

That said, I did enjoy it, and I will see the movie.

[BarTopDancer]

I saw the movie this afternoon. I think it would do fine as a stand-alone movie but it destroyed the book. I did not like the scenes at Roslin, I was really hoping that would have followed the book. Unless I missed it, there was no talk of all the scrolls and history in the book. I did like the very end though, following the Rose Line and then going down into the crypt.

I didn't think Hanks performance was "call-in". I really felt it. Sir Ian was amazing as well. Molina pulled me out of it though, I kept seeing him as DocOc. Paul Bettany is pretty hot and I have to admit I was crushing on Hanks acting all protective of Sophie.