Wow, "Da Vinci Code" is at 21% on the Tomato-meter!

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

That STINKS. I wonder if it's a backlash to all the hype and controversy. Could some critics find the religious suppositions a bit offensive? Or does the movie just really SUCK.

I suspect it sucks. Personally, I will not throw money at these crappy, overblown Hollywood spectacles and their obscenely overpaid actors. No thanks.

I find Ron Howard movies usually suck. Brain-dead obvious, sickly-sweet or corney. Hooray for Hollywood!

One reviewer actually used the word "retarded" to describe it! Oh my, I don't think I've seen many movies so badly reviewed on this site.

Brain-dead obvious, sickly-sweet or corny?

Me, I enjoyed the heck out of it.

Howard HAD to throw in schmaltz in that one too... the corney sub-plot with the astronaut's wife and kids.... I saw that a lonnng time ago, but still remember a gratuitous sticky melodrama thrown in, as if the actual telling of the story was not dramatic or suspenseful enough. Howard follows the Hollywood formula: throw in a wife, kid or dog... and make sure you've got a sappy soundtrack.

Not picking a fight with Ron Howard fans here... it's my opinion and I'm sticking to it!



on edit: I checked his film credits, and see that he directed one of my all-time favortie movies: "Gung Ho"- so I will say not ALL of his films are rotten!

Guess I was paying too much attention to the cool special efx. Could that have been based on fact, or did Ron make it up? The movie was based on Jim Lovell's book, but I haven't read it yet (on my to-be-read list), so I can't say if it was in there.

Howard seemed to be a stickler for accuracy, so the sub-plot might well have been in Lovell's book. I know the onboard dialogue was about 99% from NASA transcripts--they actually had to throw in a damn or hell or two, because these guys were so squeaky-clean when talking to the ground!

I didn't find that smaltzy at all.

I'm not a "fan" of Ron Howard, but I like Apollo 13. I lived through that time, and it felt very real. I think Mr. Howard did an OK job there.

I also thought that he did a credible job with "A Beautiful Mind," though he ignored completely Nash's sexuality and many other parts were highly fictionalized.

I did see the "extra scenes" for "A Beautiful Mind" on the DVD where Ron Howard spoke with the real John Nash. One had a sense that Howard didn't understand exactly how assinine he was being. He seemed to be wanting to imply that he, Howard, understood Nash's work. Too much knowing nodding. Now that was smaltzy.

Most that dislike it dislike it for the same reasons.

I usually look at what the critics for the major papers say, but the tomatometer treats all the same.

I'll wait until tomorrow's meter, when the big-name reviews come in.

Still, the early reviews don't bode well. Might have a huge weekend, then plummet after word-of-mouth.

all the major papers

Looks like it's been updated, so yes, lotsa big-name reviews now.

Ebert likes it--woo-hoo!

It's a freep thing.

I mean, a homicidal albino monk? And that's just one example.

if not, you two need to snuggle up y kvetch about howard till the war is over.



just joshin', so don't be offended, pls. most people don't *get* me...


hanks *can* be a fine actor, y i loved the book. i'll go see it, but mainly i'll see anygoddam thing that pees-off the fundies.

How is such a thing even possible!

admit it, P1, you're busted.

You figured me out.

Jeez Louise, that stinks.

Juvenile fun, but you'd be helpin out at the box office (connections)

dropping faster than junior's ratings.

for the reading of fiction may well see the movie to see what all the fuss is about.

Has no one figured that out yet?

Explain to me why you think it is a stupid book. Have you read it?

The characters are cardboard-thin stereotypes. ("Harrison Ford in tweed"...? Come on, now!) Most of the puzzles are so obvious that I, at least, had guessed their solution long before the characters did. The dialog is one step above romance-novel writing.

Most importantly, for a work that the author would like to claim is a "novel of ideas," virtually every historical claim in the book is not only false, but provably and undeniably so. Even a student of "Religious History 101" at the most secular of educational institutions (or someone who did a modicum of research via the Internet, for that matter) would be able to spot page after page of assertions that not only lack evidence, but for which there are large amounts of evidence to the contrary. The fact that Brown is getting much of it third-hand from a French Nazi sympathizer and overall nutcase (Pierre Plantard) doesn't help matters.

historical claims were false. Some may consider the book stupid, but he author sure isn't dumb. Dan Brown is laughing all the way to the bank with the profits from that "stupid" book.

...and with all the honesty and integrity of the latest Annthrax Coulter tome. The fact that people are taking it seriously as religious history only proves that P.T. Barnum was right.

The movie's at 17% overall now, but only 11% in the "Cream of the Crop" critics section -- and most of the heavy hitters have weighed in already. Looks like the term "critical shellacking" would be appropriate...although, as we all know, that has rarely dampened the "summer blockbuster" audience. And it will certainly draw enough box-office from fans of the novel to ensure it turns a large profit.

Anyway, for those less-than-impressed with Dan Brown's way with words, characterization, plot, and/or grasp of history, I recommend The Asti Spumante Code (A Parody) by Toby Clements. It's far more entertaining than the original.

I wonder. A lot of folks who read the book are curious about the film, I'm sure. They may also not care much about cirtics and their opinions. I myself have loved movies that have not been critically acclaimed.

Other folks (like myself) haven't read the book, and are curious to see what all the fuss is about.

BUT, with movie tix costing a small fortune these days... add to that the price of transportation, babysitter's fees, etc., will many people sit this one out, not wanting to waste money on what they suspect is a stinker?

Hmmmm.... I will be very curious to see. It would be interesting if the Box Office is low; this being the most-hyped Hollywood flick in a lonnng on the heels of the dismal performance of Movie-Star Tom Cruise's last big-budget blockbuster, "MI3". Perhaps it's too idealistic to think that Hollywood will learn a lesson from getting burned on enormously overpaid stars and mega-budget flicks with less emphasis on story-telling. Who knows?

I find that significant. I was all set not to see the movie, but am just now reading the book and loving it. I don't always agree with Ebert, but he has an eye for quality. Since he likes the performances, sorta, I'm thinking that the film is worth a look.

My husband wanted to go on opening night because he hasn't read the book and didn't want to hear/see too many spoilers before seeing the movie himself.

I don't get all the vitriol aimed at the book. Was it the best book I ever read? No. Have I read books that were better crafted? Sure. But for its genra - mystery thriller - it's fine. Anybody who thinks it was hideously written should read The Third Secret by Steve Berry. Compared to Steve Berry, Dan Brown is a literary giant.