I saw an afternoon show of The Davinci Code - I liked it. (NO SPOILERS)

I wasn't excited by it, I wasn't impressed by it, but I liked it well enough to be entertained, and will probably buy it on DVD, which will make it the first Ron Howard movie of which I'm willing to own a DVD.

It was a typically artless Ron Howard movie, but in this one I felt like he was trying to be creative, and sometimes it worked! He had some interesting camera angles and some interesting camera shots of floors with some great panning.

The acting was wonderful - especially Ian McKellan, who came across like a god against the totally respectable, but not McKellan-quality, acting of Hanks and the woman.

It could absolutely have been better, and a better director would have done some cool and exciting things with it, but Howard managed to turn in a good, C-quality movie. Not inspiring, not enough to get noticed or grab the professor's attention, per se, but certainly of passing quality.


I had predicted a few days ago that Howard might manage to bring this movie in because unlike his other movies, the story isn't really all that great - the book was a total page-turner, absolutely, but it isn't great or even artistic literature - and his other movies have had great stories (or at least, great plots): plots too advanced and wonderful for HOward to handle properly, making the movies such shit.

And given Howard's inability to go the extra mile and turn in a work of art, I had predicted this would be the best pairing of story with this director: mediocrity with mediocrity. And I think I was right - this is the only Howard movie that, for me, works.

You bastards.

Probably has you on ignore (along with me) after last night. I'm gonna stick with my plan to download it when a decent version is online.

The bastards.

A bit campy at times, but very effective. A great movie overall.
I noticed that people who read the novel liked the movie; people who never read the novel and went to see the movie anew, got lost in the details.

I thought it was a great adaption of the novel. Very entertaining, and quite faithful to the original.

Don't listen to the fundies: the movie is great entertainment.

I plan to see it. :)

I've taken to going to blockbusters on the afternoon of the opening day, because I don't like having to battle crowds -- often I'm the only person in that particular theater! So if the place is even, say, one-quarter full, that suggests it's going to rake in a lot that weekend.

I went to the 1:00 pm show at a theater that also had a 12:30 showing.

No idea how many were at the 12:30, but I always assume that if a theater has more than one show, and they start at times close to each other, the later ones will have less people since most people will be anxious for the earlier one. All part of that American "I have to be first and early" mantra. Though I have absolutely no evidence to back that up in.

Most of the sessions for Friday were sold out. Glad I bought tickets the day before. The only tickets available when I made it to the theater were the late night shows.

...would you recommend I wait until after I see the movie?

Just the nature of the beast - even as long as the movie is, it still doesn't grab everything from the book, as is usual.

I'd read the book first. And I actually recommend the illustrated version - that's the version that I read, that included pictures of all the artwork and buildings, as well as a fair number of maps, and drawings of other symbols that the novel mentions. It really helped to have the paintings and buildings in front of me.

and more Jujubes during the Intermission!

and the serial and maybe a second cartoon, and real ushers would have helped me to my seat and they would have had white gloves on, and I could have sat in the balcony.

The sound would have sucked, though.

The Da Vinci Code, by the way, could have been a good silent flick too. Then someone could have played the theater organ.

In fact, if you read the book first, the surprises will be spoiled for the movie. (Of course, the opposite is true is well.) You can always get more of the story, including much that had to be dropped, in the book later if the movie interests you.

I just bought the book when it came out in paperback, by that time, knew about the movie, so will wait on the book :hi:

I loved that movie. But then again, I've always been easily amused. :applause:

and it's McKellern.Lalalallalalalalalalalalalalalalal

I cannot believe your contempt for his work! Have you seen any of the films he's done (besides the DaVinci Code)??

A Beautiful Mind, for instance, and how it's shot from the POV of a person with paranoid schizophrenia and the viewer has NO IDEA until halfway through? That was an amazing movie.

Apollo 13? Even though we know what happened, it still was shot in such a way as to keep us intrigued and engaged, waiting to see what was coming next.

Cinderella Man? My god, man, are you mad? Please, reconsider your position on Ron Howard's work (at the very least on these three films and if you haven't seen them, stop the Ron-bashing and run out to rent them!!).

:spank:

seeing this one--I'm struggling to make it through the audio book right now. Dan Brown is one lousy author.

I never saw it in the theater, and so bought it when it came on DVD, and only bought it because it was about a famous mathematician.

A friend and I watched it all the way through, and at the end, I said, "Who directed this shitpile?" and my friend said, "I don't know, but it was awful." Then the credits rolled, and we saw Howard's name, and we both said, "Oh, that explains it."

The only Ron Howard movie I haven't seen is Apollo 13, and I'm afraid to watch it because of the treacly "love story" component.

I have not liked a single Ron Howard movie since he disappointed me with Parenthood. BUT - I keep going to them, every time giving him another chance. And every time, he lets me down. Except with DaVinci - he didn't let me down, and I was very surprised. I was really expecting to come back to DU and say "I walked out halfway".

Howard has all the emotional manipulation of Spielberg but without the artistry; all the sugary icing of a Hallmark/Lifetime movie, without a decent cake to put it on.

I was 13 when that was happening so I remembered that whole situation.

When I see a movie, usually I just sit back in my seat and relax and eat popcorn, drink soda, etc. However, when a movie is really really good I sit forward and kind of lean towards the screen. Even though i knew that the astronauts were safe, when the scenes came where they had landed but no one knew for sure if they were alive, I was leaning forward in my seat like I had no idea what was happening.

glad to hear someone liked it

thanks

then gave it to his 10yr old grandson & he read it in one afternoon :shrug: so as you can see...it's all a mystery to me :-)

Ian McKellan stole and saved the movie and was obviously having a high good time. I thought Ron Howard did a splendid job doing a book adaption that I would have sworn was impossible. Well, it IS actually impossible and much was dropped or only hinted at, and the suspense and puzzles could not build as much as they could in the prolonged format of the book, but I thought it was well done. Without Ian McKellan's performance it would have been much less entertaining and involving. I do recommend it - IMO the media reviewers who claimed that it was stupid and confusing either were not paying attention or were writing to support an opinion formed before they actually saw the movie.

This is an originial, creative movie that isn't a sequel and actually dares to assume the audience isn't stupid. I hope it does well despite the spiteful, sneering attacks in the media, both because it is a good movie and because I want to see more of this kind of daring from filmmakers. There are already more than enough worthless trash movies out there.

I hadn't noticed that, but yes - though there are a few times of unnecessary exposition, for the most part the movie doesn't dumb itself down for the audience.

And it has some interesting special effects with symbols.

It was ridiculous: Miami Vice, The Omen, Poseidon (REMAKES), X-men, The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (SEQUELS).

:wtf:

Not only they are remakes, they are remakes that didn't need to be made (The Omen was fine as it was). And the sequels... come on now!

:puke:

And this is what the rest of the summer has in store for us:

Superman Returns (remake)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (sequel)

Clerks II (sequel)

Ice Age: The Meltdown (sequel)

Still, we'll have Snakes on a Plane ;)

They also had chuckled at a few of the lines that are on the silly side, but overall, the movie was appreciated. Again, MUCH better than the average rating from the corporate media reviewers. Is there an intentional smear campaign afoot? I do wonder. I thought the review from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer was fair, unlike most others:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/270573_davinci19q.html
title: 'Da Vinci Code' deserves kudos for being a smart thriller in an era of dumb movies

that's what i think.

i haven't seen it yet- hopefully soon.

:)

I want to go see it Sunday afternoon.

been laughed at, then ignored. Not the response they aim for.)

Though perhaps at the evening shows, after the fundy fucks got out of work and had the time to go harass people for insane and assholish reasons.

But so far, in my community, the only bad word I've seen is one fundy cu*t who wrote a letter to the editor saying that the movie is "disrespectful" to the Christian faith, and how if it were any other faith, people would be up in arms blah blah blah, need to boycott to let Hollywood know we are tired of their anti-Christian crusade blah blah blah...

The pundits all say it sucked. I was going to wait until it came out at blockbuster* but I'll risk it now that you said you liked it. You do know Rabrrrrr that it's saying something when you recommend a movie, even if it's with trepidation!


*or my nearest video store.

He was afraid of offending the church, because he didn't want mass protests against the movie. He was afraid of offending Dan Brown by changing the book too much, because his studio wants the rights to Brown's other books. So he held back from using his directing talent to make it a great movie, and probably over-directed most of the actors too, as Tom Hanks and his female sidekick (don't remember her name) didn't have any chemistry at all, and Hanks himself mostly just stood around, looking thoughtful. However, as you say, Ian McKellan saved the acting, as he's done time and again.
I'm disappointed with Ron Howard on this one, because I know he can make a really good movie.

he wouldn't have made a certain key change in the plot regarding the Church's involvement.

Good day!

good movie.

He has the skill to make c-level, servicable, watchable movies that fit the criteria of "movie", but unless he somehow gains the spark - or if he has the spark, until someone gives him the courage to let it fly - he'll continue to make nothing but mediocre, albeit not bad, films.

It has nothing to do with the church or offending anyone.

Howard simply ain't "got it".

And it's funny that you are disappointed in Howard for this one, and for me, this is the one movie that Howard almost made the leap into artistry, and the only Howard movie that I'm actually willing to buy the DVD of. I wish I could trade the Beautiful Mind DVD I so stupidly bought, not knowing what it was.

As can be seen by movies such as Apollo 13, and, yes, A Beautiful Mind, both of which I enjoyed much. He also has the ability to make, or narrate, whatever, an excellent TV show. If you have seen any "Arrested Development", you know what I mean.
As you say, he's just too afraid to "let it fly". He was too afraid to make DVC and many other of his movies really good because he probably doubts his ability to do so, and he's afrid of what others might think.
But whatever. You got your opinion, I got mine. :hi:

I went to the theater a bit hesitant, after reading a few nasty reviews about the film. I have to say I was pleasantly surprised.

I liked the book, never thought it was amazing, but quite entertaining. The movie was extremely faithful to the book, almost to the letter, page-by-page. And as "treasure-hunt thrillers" go, the movie was pretty damn good. The acting is OK (usual for big budget Hollywood thrillers), the cinematography was spectacular (DaVinci palettes, of course), and the direction was quite clever, adapting the novel in very visual terms. They all did a great job.

I saw it last night and enjoyed throughly. People in the audience (Battery Park, NYC), applauded at the end. Once again, as movies go, this was pretty good. Not spectacular, not a masterpiece, but a pretty damn good movie, on par with other works by Howard (A Beautiful Mind seems to be the closest reference).

I'd read the book and liked it okay, but I was expecting to hate the movie after hearing on tv that it was pretty much a bomb according to the critics and the test audience, who were reported to have laughed during a poignant scene.

I liked the movie very much, and the rest of the audience must have too. The theatre was packed, but no one spoke or made other noises. No one laughed except in places that really did call for a chuckle.

It was getting an 11% "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes when I looked yesterday, which is much lower than even most BAD films, let alone mediocre ones. In contrast, the review from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which tends to be honest, correlated closely with my own experience and the positive response of the audience at the Harvard Square theater where I saw it (see review at link in Reply #20 upthread).

The nasty sneering quality of the mass media reviews have a sort of "marching orders" kind of feel to them in my opinion. Either the writers were too dumb to "get" the movie, expected viewers to be, or they were expressing an opinion that may not have been honest. After all, issues and questions about Christianity are raised in this piece of entertainment - could it be that the media are pandering to the crackpot right-wing "religious" fanatics again by almost unanimously smearing this movie? Stranger things have happened.

I think the critics are afraid of retaliation from fundies. Get over it, its a good movie!

rating compiled at the Rotten Tomatoes site for this movie is currently only 18% out of 100% based on 150 corporate media reviews - a truly dismal rating seen only for total disasters:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/

(And note the marked outliers like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer review, which is much more fair than most and gives a B+ grade and an enthusiastic write-up:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/movie-1152324/reviews.php?critic=columns&sortby=default&page=1&rid=1507188)

In very, very marked contrast to the corporate review average, the USERS (i.e., audience registered at Rotten Tomatoes) rating is currently 76% - a very respectable score and much more in line with my own experience and the responses of the people I've witnessed:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/reviews_users.php#message_box

We should post a thread in GEneral Discussion with the evidence posted in this thread.

I think it's just a lot of reviewers giving it good grades; and a lot of reviewers panning it.


Who cares? It's a fucking movie. It's not a war or a piece of legislation or a medical hoax or anything that matters at all for more than the few minutes of fame and pop-cultuer relevance the movie will enjoy.

I can't imagine that there is anyone who feels the time needed to orchestrate a deliberate smear campaign is worth it. And I don't believe there is a deliberate smear campaign.

I did read some of those horrible reviews before seeing the film, and as a result, I was ready to see a complete disaster. I was pleasantly surprised by this movie.

It's not the best thriller ever, it's not a masterpiece, but it is a very good movie, and very entertaining.

What I noticed about the most awful, sarcastic, and caustic reviews is that the critic seems to focus on the plot, on how "implausible" it is, on how the "secret" is preposterous. It feels to me the critics were either afraid to offend Xtian fundies, or they themselves had their own faith questioned and their beliefs disturbed by the premise. Some of them seemed downright angry at having to sit through this movie.

Seriously WTF?
:wtf:

It is contrived and far-fetched and not so great.

But in my rating of the movie, I'm judging more on the merits of how it was filmed and acted and how well it tells the story that was already written and popular in book form, and not really on the story itself: which I'm doing becuase the book was so successful, that it's unfair (to me) to rate the movie on the plot and story, since it's just a movie of a book and not an original story.

So the question to me is "Is this a faithful and interesting adaptation of a book to film?" In which case the answer is "In a solidly adequate, but no inspiring, way, yes."

If the question is "Pretending that the book never existed, and the movie is exactly as it is, does this stand as a movie and story all on its own?", the answer is still a yes, but a much more qualified and lowered yes, putting down in the realm of an intersting movie for a local TV channel's Sunday afternoon "Mystery Movie" program, interspersed between a Charlie Chan flick and an old Basil Rahtbone Sherlock Holmes movie.

But I don't think it's fair to cut down this movie because of its plot and story because its plot and story were already created and set in stone.

Here is what I say: For those that don't like the story, criticize the book, not the movie.

Something is up.

As I said, I read some of the nasty reviews and went to the theater expecting a disaster or "Waterworld" proportions... and what I saw was a solid, very entertaining thriller.

Those awful reviews DO NOT reflect the quality of this movie. What I found interesting is that the critics that matter gave it positive reviews.

If you go to Rotten Tomatoes, you'll see the average reviews from the entire country, and it is abysmal. Most of the reviewers focus on how "preposterous" and "unbelievable" the plot. Most of the negative reviewers mention the original book, but sound like they NEVER read it, because they express such shock about the ending. WTF?

They may as well write "the movie sucked because they said such blasphemy about Our Lord and Savior." In a country with so many "born-agains," I wouldn't be surprised many of these critics were motivated by their own personal beliefs. Either that, or they were scared shitless about the reaction of the fundie right.

What's most preposterous about these reviews is that they give truly awful movies a better rating than they give TDVC, which is by all means a good movie (I would seriously think it's a "B", not an "A" or "C" but a good "B").

These are movies that, according to Rotten Tomatoes, are "better" than TDVC:

House of Wax, Silent Hill, Poseidon, Big Momma's House 2, Phat Girlz...

This is not just wrong, this is preposterous. Better than TDVC?

Something is up...

The evidence should be given in a General Discussion thread - too many DUers don't realize what is happening. Movie critics are part of the bought-and-paid-for press too - and many of them have just PROVED it.

So what?

It's a MOVIE. It doesn't matter.

I went to see it last night and theater was sold out! I thought movie was good!

When I find myself engrossed in the story (and not focused on movie-making details like angle shots, action, costuming etc.), then I believe the movie is good.

I liked the way Howard managed to show the "historical" parts of the backstory, without bogging down the events occurring in "real" (movie) time.

Thumbs up here too!