Your booker sucks, hate to tell you:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/05/17/da.vinci/index.html

It opened Cannes to boos

Quote :

" 'Da Vinci Code' meets with catcalls Film inspires protest -- and negative reviews"

5/17/2006 5:07:27 PM

i was discussing this today. the fact that the cannes audience booed it doesnt mean it wont still make a ton of money. cannes is meant to be a showcase for "films" and i am fairly sure da vinci code is a "movie" not a "film."

5/17/2006 5:26:13 PM

5/17/2006 5:27:11 PM

the fact that one (group of) "critic"(s) doesnt like it doesnt mean you wont and vice versa

5/17/2006 5:37:46 PM

Quote :

"Associated Press critic Christy Lemire found the movie "cursory and rushed. ... As sturdy and versatile an actor as Hanks can be, he can't work miracles when he's got nothing to work with." (Read full review.) Laughter rippled through the theater near the end of the film at the Cannes press screening Tuesday night when Hanks' character, symbologist Robert Langdon, reveals a key secret to co-star Audrey Tautou with ponderous melodrama. From then on, critics who had sat largely in polite silence for more than two hours tittered at will as the final scenes played out. "

http://movies.msn.com/movies/cannes06/davincicode_critics

5/17/2006 5:38:23 PM

did they steal the music from xenosaga in the tv trailer?

5/17/2006 11:49:45 PM

haha 6% rating on rotten tomatoes

5/18/2006 12:03:29 AM

cmon man

why the rolly eyes?

my pt was that summer blockbusters are never liked by critics and this is a summer blockbuster type movie.

5/18/2006 12:04:26 AM

if it isn't obvious to you people that these bad critiques and bad ratings are the result of religious campaigns, I don't know what to say to you

no movie with tom hanks gets a 6% rating in america, no matter how bad it is.

5/18/2006 8:55:57 AM

its the damn christians!!

they are RUINING HOLLYWOOD!!

5/18/2006 9:07:02 AM

Quote :

"summer blockbusters are never liked by critics and this is a summer blockbuster type movie. "

If this movie is getting bad reviews partially b/c of religious sects, those folks are too weak in their faiths and can't handle the storyline. It's not like the book says anything blasphemous about any particular religion.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 9:23 AM. Reason : ]

5/18/2006 9:21:15 AM

I keep reading everywhere that this movie is getting TERRIBLE reviews, and apparently it's not because of religious beliefs.

5/18/2006 10:01:13 AM

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

Currently at 21%.

5/18/2006 10:13:47 AM

Quote :

"apparently it's not because of religious beliefs"

If there was any to prove it either way, I'd put money on the fact that it was indeed because of religious beliefs.

Most of this country is christian, therefore they're going to give an anti-christian movie bad reviews. think about "the passion" and how well it did, then consider how those millions of people would react to this movie.

5/18/2006 10:19:52 AM

^^ That's an improvement of 21% since yesterday.

5/18/2006 10:33:17 AM

its not like the material in this movie wasn't

I DUNNO

presented in a huge selling book that sold like a billion HARDCOVER copies
and has sold another billion in the short time it has been in paperback

its not like this is hitting a new nerve or something just because it has tom hanks

it could just be a really really shitty movie

5/18/2006 11:10:37 AM

I like Ron Howard and Tom Hanks

But I hate Dan Brown and his watered-down faux-Indiana Jones schlock


So I'll probably just watch my Arrested Development DVDs instead and pretend Tom Hanks is an extra or something

5/18/2006 11:15:14 AM

Quote :

"its not like this is hitting a new nerve or something just because it has tom hanks it could just be a really really shitty movie"

actually, it IS hitting a new nerve, because people are protesting the movie anew. I think movies are more threatening than books, because they seem more like real life and some people would rather watch a movie than read a book. It's a pretty thick book, but mr. common religious joe blow who doesn't want to read the book might sacrifice 2.5 hours to watch the movie and *horror of horrors* start reconsidering his beliefs

honestly though, I think it's all smoke. you can't change people's minds, not with movies or books, unless they already want their minds changed and need an excuse.

by the way, i'm totally open to the idea that it's a shitty movie, but I doubt it's as bad as people are making it sound. I bet, actually, that it's a very academic movie and there's not enough explosions and sex for the average viewer.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:18 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2006 11:17:42 AM

Jesus Christ, you're an idiot.

5/18/2006 11:20:07 AM

Quote :

"It's a pretty thick book, but mr. common religious joe blow who doesn't want to read the book"

THE BOOK SOLD OVER 40 MILLION COPIES

trust me, i think this book's plot has been exposed to critics and the like before the movie came out

there have been like 8 twc or history channel or natl geo channel specials on the book and its content

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:29 AM. Reason : you are either an alias troll or very, very stupid]

5/18/2006 11:29:00 AM

dude, 40 million people bought the book. some of those will watch the movie. others, who didn't buy the book, will watch the movie as well.

yes, the plot is known to alot of people, but that doesn't mean the details and the evidence are.

and what I'm saying is that it's completely untrue that this movie isn't causing a new row, because if you watch the news and check out the propaganda the vatican and others are pumping out, it's a new campaign or a new part of the campaign that started with the book. they know that people nowadays pay more attention to movies than they do books.



[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:32 AM. Reason : .]

5/18/2006 11:31:30 AM

evidence?

5/18/2006 11:32:11 AM

i honestly don't know the plot of the book, save a vague grasp of the main idea. i mainly have no interest in it because of the people i know who do like it (they don't exactly have ummm. . .the same tastes as me). I might go see this movie at the blue ridge only for it's unintentionally comedic factor.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:36 AM. Reason : don't]

5/18/2006 11:35:49 AM

i have to say one of the promotional posters for this movie is one of the most unintentionally hillarious things i've ever seen

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:42 AM. Reason : otm shank lip biter]

5/18/2006 11:38:17 AM

What did Ron Howard do to piss critics off. I mean Cinderella Man was ripped to shreds by critics and I thought it was a good movie. I know the uber-Christians think this book/movie are balsphemous but its a novel. I guess it goes to show that the heads of christianity pray on naivity. People will go out in droves to see it.

5/18/2006 11:40:03 AM

uber-Christians being defined as: people who give enough of a shit to say anything about it's being portrayed as a true story?

that being said. fuck the critics, watch what you want to watch. Honestly the percentage of movies that ive liked over my lifetime splits about 70/30 for movies that got bad reviews/movies that got good reviews, respectively

5/18/2006 11:45:36 AM

haha....yougotme, 2 words for your "christians are ruining the reviews" theory:

brokeback mountain

5/18/2006 11:46:10 AM

dirtgreek just takes any opportunity he can get to bash christianity

i'm fine with that

i just wish he wouldn't act so damned naive when he is doing it..

5/18/2006 11:51:36 AM

am not bashing christianity, and you'll find that I in fact rarely bash christianity. I critique it, and I point out its flaws, just like I do anything that I don't think is true.

but I'm not being naive. I'm simply responding to your point that the movie isn't creating a new controversy from the one created by the book. it certainly IS.

as for brokeback, that didn't directly question christianity, that was just 2 dudes fuckin'

also, it was probably a better movie. as I said, I don't doubt that this movie is bad, it just probably isn't as bad as people are saying.

also, we have to separate "christians" from "the catholic church." the catholics are organized and powerful, and there's no reason to think that catholics aren't responsible for the worst of the reviews.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:56 AM. Reason : ,]

5/18/2006 11:55:40 AM

call in salisburybot

5/18/2006 12:01:45 PM

i'll post around 1am with what i thought of the movie

5/18/2006 12:07:41 PM

Quote :

"the catholics are organized and powerful, and there's no reason to think that catholics aren't responsible for the worst of the reviews."

That is fucking ridiculous.

5/18/2006 12:15:47 PM

I doubt reviewers, particularly American ones, are afraid of the Catholic church.

I think that if a movie directed by Howard starring Hanks doesn't get a free pass from the critics, it's probably a really shitty movie. The bad reviews I've read basically say that they took all of the fun parts out of the book to make room for more talky-talky...which does not a good movie make.

(By the way the "it's a 'movie' and not a 'film'" guy needs to get his head out of his ass.)

5/18/2006 12:28:32 PM

5/18/2006 12:49:37 PM

Quote :

" know the uber-Christians think this book/movie are balsphemous but its a novel."

I'm a pretty strongly-believing Christian, and I like the book. It did make me think but it really didn't have anything that would have made me rethink my faith. Much of the historical stuff about the Roman emporer is info I already knew. There are going to be those that are too blinded by their faiths to understand the book without getting mad, and I agree that movies gain more attention than books do, because there you are watching the events unfold, and it's in your face and you're seeing it interpreted as the director/screenwriter believe it should be, rather than how you personally chose to interpret it.

Making it more "talky" is necessary. I'm looking forward to finding out what action scenes they decided to sacrifice for talk. There's a ton of talking in the book, and it's impossible to know what's going on in the story without discussion.

It's at 19% now.

5/18/2006 1:25:51 PM

After reading the excerpts on rottentomatoes, a couple comments:

One critic said it's miscast with Tom Hanks. Exactly what I thought after I read the book.

One said the novel isn't made for cinema. I disagree. Throughout the book, I could easily see it made into a movie. It felt geared directly toward doing so.

It sounds like many of the critics don't even like the book, so....

Many say it's melodramatic. Now I'm a little concerned. However, they said that about Memoirs of a Geisha as well, and I really like that movie (love the book).

5/18/2006 1:31:00 PM

Quote :

"Much of the historical stuff about the Roman emporer is info I already knew."

Uh, the stuff about the Constantine is completely wrong.

5/18/2006 1:42:45 PM

wow, shitty shitty reviews.

8+


42-

5/18/2006 8:19:17 PM

BAPTISTS....................................START YOUR ENGINES

5/18/2006 8:23:13 PM

Quote :

"One said the novel isn't made for cinema."

exactly what i've been saying all along. I read it at the height of its popularity, knowing it would eventually be made into a movie. The whole time I thought to myself, this movie is going to be really boring + shitty.


Looks like I was right.

I loved the book though, don't get me wrong.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 8:30 PM. Reason : d]

5/18/2006 8:30:14 PM

just saw the movie. its interesting, though a little overwhelming with its information... its also a bit slow, but overall, not bad. i'd give it a B-.

i've never read the book, so that may have contributed to me thinking it was a bit slow and overwhelming.

[Edited on May 18, 2006 at 11:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/18/2006 11:26:01 PM

why would people protest the movie or the book


ITS GODDAMN FICTION!


stupid fucking people isgh'asdfughsfusdfgsdfs

5/18/2006 11:27:51 PM

I just saw it and when everyone walked out we all said the same thing, "what the hell are the critics talking about"

I thought this movie was awesome. It's a bit slow (but most movies over 2.5 hours with a lot of story are)

I would have paid full price for this. Over two and a half hours of entertainment is worth it to me.

As far as the critics attacking the directing, and acting, that in my opinion is bullshit.

I'm probably gonna watch this again Sunday. You know...after See No Evil.

Insert "you are going to watch See No Evil so your taste in movies suck and therefore this review sucks" comment right below here.

I watch cheesy/bad horror movies all the time. to get a good laugh

5/19/2006 1:00:29 AM

this movie was awesome

5/19/2006 1:24:37 AM

Quote :

"As far as the critics attacking the directing, and acting, that in my opinion is bullshit."

whaaa?

5/19/2006 1:31:53 AM

just curious

how's it compared to national treasure?

because when i saw national treasure all i could think was "isn't this what the da vinci code's supposed to be like?"

[Edited on May 19, 2006 at 1:32 AM. Reason : not that i know anything about anything...]

5/19/2006 1:32:33 AM

it was much, much better than national treasure in my opinion.

more excitement, violence, and suspense.

and no nicholas cage...

5/19/2006 1:43:11 AM

^That's weird, I kept reading that it was the same supsensful events just over and over(gun to person, talky talky).

Also read that the puzzles and stuff are aimed at a 2nd grade reading level and aren't nearly as elaborate as "National Treasure".

I might have to check it out when it comes to DVD to compare the 2.

5/19/2006 2:00:38 AM

man i wish i had the power to pull money like god does

5/19/2006 4:24:34 AM

Quote :

"Plus, I had also just read a recent Michael Crichton book and he just gives so much more detail and rich background."

Yes. He is a GREAT author. The Jurassic Park books were better than the movies.

Prey is pretty good too. Im glad some people still read.

5/19/2006 9:20:35 AM