^^

Quote :

"In fact, the horrible reviews of this film make me question how much more power the church has over the media than we realize. Also, people are sheep and will do anything to be trendy, even if it means bashing a movie that was great by pointing out its flaws (which are minor) and not mentioning all of the great parts."

1) The Catholic Church, or Christianity in general, has little or nothing to do with the vast majority of the negative reviews. Have you read them? Have you seen critical reaction to other movies with similarly unconventional content with regards to Christianity or Catholocism? I'm going to go ahead and guess that you haven't, because it's pretty fucking clear you haven't.

2) Dismissing the criticisms of this movie, some of which have been very well thought out and expressed in this thread, with "people are sheep and will do anything to be trendy" is fucking ridiculous. You think the flaws in the movie are minor and you like it. That's cool. Liking movies is cool. To assume that anybody who disagrees with you can't possibly actually believe what they're saying, to think that they're just doing it to fit in, that's moronic.

5/23/2006 12:48:32 PM

1.) no need to get so angry there, chief
2.) you're telling me that people aren't sheep and don't constantly bash what it's cool to bash and like what it's cool to like?

consider if you will:

- most americans are christians
- most rich media tycoons are christian, and they own the newspapers etc
- writers who don't want to get fired bash movies that their bosses would get angry at them for liking by pointing out the flaws, true as they may be, and leaving behind all the positives.

if you don't like the movie, that's fine, but what I'm saying is that if you call the movie stupid or say that the acting was bad, that's not as much a matter of opinion. Comparing hanks's acting to that in other movies he's been in, it's not the best, but it's up there.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 12:53:37 PM

maybe people would take your posts more seriously if you didn't (in nearly every one) say that Jesus didn't exist. Just a thought.

5/23/2006 1:28:41 PM

Quote :

"you're telling me that people aren't sheep and don't constantly bash what it's cool to bash and like what it's cool to like?"

I'm not saying that people, in general, don't tend to go with the crowd. I know they do. You know they do. We all know they do. I also think that, if this were the case for disliking The DaVinci Code, people would have a hard time articulating why they didn't like it. So, as I did before, I will direct you to the numerous criticisms posted in this thread. These people have plenty of reasons for disliking the movie. If you want to know what their reasons are, read the thread.

Saying that all people are sheep and will thusly go along with the popular sentiment on this movie, no matter how good it is, is akin to saying that the first sign of alcoholism is denial, so anybody who denies being an alcoholic is one.

Quote :

"consider if you will: - most americans are christians - most rich media tycoons are christian, and they own the newspapers etc - writers who don't want to get fired bash movies that their bosses would get angry at them for liking by pointing out the flaws, true as they may be, and leaving behind all the positives."

You clearly have no familiarity with the state of American film criticism. I'm not sure what else to say about that, really. Furthermore, it is ridiculous to assume that all Christians have a problem with this book. It seems to be the Catholic Church, in specific, as well as Opus Dei, who seem to have a problem with it. The American public, at large, doesn't really give a shit. If you need further proof of this, I will refer you to this weekend's box office numbers. With regards to the critics, let me remind you that plenty of movies that were as controvercial or more controversial have been more well received. The Last Temptation of Christ, a book and film which were far, far more controvercial, is widely acknowledged as one of the greatest films of all time. Dogma, fucking Dogma, the one with the rubber poop monster, the one that was denounced by the Catholic church, received FAR greater critical acclaim than The DaVinci Code. And, as has been mentioned before, if the Evil Christian Conspiracy (or ECC, for short--not to be confused with the Edomite Cabal Conspiracy) is powerful enough to shut down the entire American film criticism industry, how is it that Brokeback Mountain, a movie that the American public, at large, wanted no part of, was so widely accepted by critics?

Quote :

"if you don't like the movie, that's fine, but what I'm saying is that if you call the movie stupid or say that the acting was bad, that's not as much a matter of opinion."

I never said the acting was bad. The acting was fine. It's not the actors' fault the story was so shitty. The direction was fine. It was serviceable. Nothing more. Visually, the film was forgettable. The score was forgettable. The story was ridiculous, uninteresting, and, in general, poorly structured. Almost every reveal and twist was apparent long before it occurred. Revelations that were intended to be mind-blowing bordered on meaningless. The protagonists were stalked by a cartoonish monster of a villian, a self-flagellating albino ghoul. I don't know what to tell you, man. This movie was a piece of shit. Maybe the Christians got to me, too.

I liked the Smart Car chase. I liked the robot deposit box. I liked Audrey Tautou's hotness. That's about it.

5/23/2006 1:36:22 PM

Quote :

"maybe people would take your posts more seriously if you didn't (in nearly every one) say that Jesus didn't exist. Just a thought."

then maybe someone should show me a single source that mentions jesus at all less than 50 years after he supposedly died.

go ahead

show me one. just one.

as for spooky, we'll just have to disagree. I respect that you didn't like it, that's fine.

5/23/2006 1:38:12 PM

^sorry. but spookyjon has been a movie critic and now runs a movie theater, i'm gonna have to go with his opinion over yours. I don't know how many critics you have met (i've met a few) but they aren't exactly the most religiously motivated people in the world. also, if all this conspiracy were true about the catholic church, why did passion of the christ get blasted by critics (51% on rottentomatoes) and brokeback mtn get hailed (86% on rottentomatoes)?

how do you think it becomes "cool" to diss on a movie in the first place? (hint: it's usually because a lot of people didn't like it to begin with.)

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:39 PM. Reason : ^]

5/23/2006 1:39:43 PM

yeah, way to challenge me with a task that is impractical (b/c of the time required) and difficult.

Where's your proof that he didn't smart guy.

5/23/2006 1:40:13 PM

Quote :

"yeah, way to challenge me with a task that is impractical (b/c of the time required) and difficult. Where's your proof that he didn't smart guy."

god, I've had this argument so many times

you can't prove something DIDN'T exist. You can only prove it did. Logic dictates that burden of proof is on the person trying to prove existence, since proving non-existence is impossible.

And your excuse is lame. You're saying that I'm making a ridiculous claim by saying jesus never existed, but you have no inclination or ability to prove me wrong? The time required could be 2,000 years, and you wouldn't prove he existed, because nobody has so far.

I can't say, specifically, that jesus didn't exist. I can only say that without someone showing me evidence, I have no reason to think he did.
here's a good article about it
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html

I'd also recommend reading "the jesus mysteries" by timothy freke and peter gandy.

Now, if you're going to say that my claim is ridiculous, I'd like some proof.

Quote :

"also, if all this conspiracy were true about the catholic church, why did passion of the christ get blasted by critics (51% on rottentomatoes) and brokeback mtn get hailed (86% on rottentomatoes)?"

I've already addressed that somewhere. It might have been this thread; I can't remember. Passion got blasted because it WAS a bad movie, and even many christians were disgusted by it. Brokeback got hailed because it was well made, but it didn't threaten the church in any way. Da vinci code actually threatens christianity (or, at least, that's what it intends to do and that's what many christians say). I don't think it threatens anything.

And yeah, take spooky's opinion over mine. It really doesn't matter to me; I'm sure he knows his stuff.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 1:48:46 PM

^given that I have a very boring few hours left at work, rest assured that I will read that link. However I can't do any online research to prove that Jesus existed, as my internet access is cut off after 2pm

And yes I'm aware that you can't prove that someone didn't exist. However, that makes it a lot easier for you doesn't it.

and most Christians I know think Passion of the Christ was an excellent movie.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:51 PM. Reason : k]

5/23/2006 1:51:01 PM

Well, yeah, and that's exactly the point. Occam's razor - the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. If there's no proof jesus existed, why would anyone say that he did and that it's ridiculous to doubt it?

5/23/2006 1:52:07 PM

so you're saying that movie critics rate movies based on their merit in all cases except for da vinci code. . .

or do you have other examples of this conspiracy network of critics?

5/23/2006 1:52:33 PM

^^I'd say something about the millions of scholars over thousands of years, but then you'd say something along the lines of sheep or some shit...

5/23/2006 1:54:28 PM

Please don't think I'm saying that there is a conspiracy. I'm sure there isn't. I'm just saying that there's something fishy about the fact that this book and now the movie has all this controversy around it, and even though the viewer rating (on rotten tomatoes, for example) is high, the critic rating is devastatingly low.

I can't say why it is. I can only say that since tons of americans are christian, it's a logical suspicion that this is why so many of them are denouncing it and pointing out its flaws and going in expecting it to be bad. It's difficult to enjoy something when you go into it knowing you won't like it.

Quote :

"I'd say something about the millions of scholars over thousands of years, but then you'd say something along the lines of sheep or some shit..."

No scholar has ever proven jesus existed. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Please, believe me, I'm not making this up. Go check that link and do some searching, check out some books. The first reference to jesus at all was at least 30-50 years after he supposedly died. There are no firsthand accounts of his life, period, anywhere, and there's a quote in (I want to say matthew) which reads

"If jesus had been a man, he would not even have been a priest."

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 1:57 PM. Reason : l]

5/23/2006 1:54:43 PM

can you come up with ANY of other example of this phenomenon happening?

5/23/2006 1:56:10 PM

^^its pretty obvious to what the quote means.

5/23/2006 1:58:21 PM

^ well, it's also pretty obvious that the bible isn't a verifiable primary source, and none of the books about jesus have been dated to within his lifetime. They were all written decades later. The point I'm trying to make is that Jesus was thought by many christians even before it became a popular religion to be a metaphor. only at the council of nicea did the church establish specifics as to his origins, his divinity, and his real-world existence.

No, because no similar movies exist that I can come up with.

I can say that the last temptation of christ was good, and it was bashed and banned and its author, Nikos Kazantzakis, was banned from greece. There was no rotten tomatoes then, however, so I can't tell you what the citizen opinion of the book or film were.

Like I say, I can't prove that there's any funny stuff going on, but it sure SEEMS like it. That's the best I can say.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 2:02 PM. Reason : k]

5/23/2006 1:59:04 PM

Quote :

"There was no rotten tomatoes then, however, so I can't tell you what the citizen opinion of the book or film were."

you do realize rottentomatoes just measures the opinions of critics, right?

5/23/2006 2:03:02 PM

Quote :

" and there's a quote in (I want to say matthew) which reads "If jesus had been a man, he would not even have been a priest." "

what the fuck are you talking about dg?

5/23/2006 2:04:33 PM

Quote :

"Paul did not believe in Jesus as a real person who lived on earth, but rather he believed in a sort of mystical saviour figure - a very common idiom at the time. Paul never mentions ANYTHING at all from the life of Jesus except for his death and resurrection, and even then it's clear that he places them in a mystical realm."

That's paul, you know, the biggest influence in modern christianity.

Here's paul:

"If Jesus HAD been on earth, he would not even have been a priest." (Hebrews 8:4)

That's actually even more damning than I thought.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 2:09 PM. Reason : l]

5/23/2006 2:07:01 PM

Quote :

"though the viewer rating (on rotten tomatoes, for example) is high, the critic rating is devastatingly low."

Once again, you show how little you know about the nature of film criticism versus wide appeal.

Posedon has 29% from critics, 58% from viewers.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/poseidon/

Just My Luck has 10% from critics, 44% from viewers.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10004755-just_my_luck/

The Wild has 17% from critics, 57% from viewers.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_wild/

Firewall: 18% v. 53%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/firewall/

Hoot: 26% v. 58%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/10005746-hoot/

Valiant: 28% v. 58%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/valiant/

The Shaggy Dog: 28% v. 63%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shaggy_dog/

Failure to Launch: 28% v. 57%.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/failure_to_launch/

Stick It: 32% v. 70%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stick_it/

Most comparable to DaVinci, Silent Hill has 27% from critics compared with 70% from viewers.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/silent_hill/

See No Evil has ZERO PERCENT from critics, 57% from viewers.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1158185-see_no_evil/

5/23/2006 2:10:18 PM

not that i really give a shit about the religious side of this, but you didn't even give the full verse of hebrews 8:4:

Quote :

"KJV: For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: "

5/23/2006 2:12:46 PM

where I found that quote it ended where I ended it, but that doesn't really change anything about what it means.

As for spooky, listen man, I already bowed to your movie prowess. I'm sure you know what you're talking about.

5/23/2006 2:16:11 PM

i think this movie is the straw that broke my "what ddi the critics say?" movie decision camel's back.

5/23/2006 2:17:41 PM

^^ It completely changes the meaning.

Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens,

2 a servant of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.

3 For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices. Therefore it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.

4 For if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, seeing there are priests who offer the gifts according to the law;

5 who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things, even as Moses was warned by God when he was about to make the tabernacle, for he said, "See, you shall make everything according to the pattern that was shown to you on the mountain."

This is saying that, were the son of God to come to Earth, he would not be a priest becase priests can only give the gifts offered buy the law, the covenant with the Jews. They can only offer a "copy and shadow of the heavenly things". In the Bible, Jesus made a new covenant, a new law, one that superseded the old law, as this verse predicted.

I should mention here, for whatever it's worth, that I'm not a Christian.

5/23/2006 2:22:32 PM

Quote :

"This is saying that, were the son of God to come to Earth"

Right. WERE the son of god to come to earth. And it was written after he supposedly did come to earth, therefore, this is implying he didn't and that paul is discussing jesus as a metaphor, as a dying and resurrecting godman just like the tons of them who came before him. That's why I said it didn't change the meaning, because the quote I posted meant the same thing.

I really need to get back to work now. be glad to discuss this later.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 2:26 PM. Reason : .]

5/23/2006 2:26:15 PM

This is some serious soap box shit, if there were a Mod for entertainment I'm sure He would want us to talk about the movie instead of this tangential ephemera.

5/23/2006 2:28:04 PM

Wow. This thread blew up into a mass of religious word vomit faster than I could say "Jesus Christ."

5/23/2006 2:34:17 PM

I know. Seriously, this has all been done in the soap box before. There's no point to doing it again here.

Please continue discussing the movie.

5/23/2006 2:38:25 PM

Quote :

"here's a good article about it http://www.infidels.org/<you can stop right there.htm>"

Sounds like a truly unbiased website.

Quote :

"and even though the viewer rating (on rotten tomatoes, for example) is high, the critic rating is devastatingly low. I can't say why it is. I can only say that since tons of americans are christian, it's a logical suspicion that this is why so many of them are denouncing it and pointing out its flaws and going in expecting it to be bad."

Wait, if the majority of Americans are christian and christians are so into denouncing the movie then wouldn't the viewer ratings be low?

As far as the existence of Jesus... I'll just have faith for the time being.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 3:06 PM. Reason : -]

5/23/2006 2:51:45 PM

Jean Reno had some flair.

5/23/2006 7:16:43 PM

Quote :

"In fact, the horrible reviews of this film make me question how much more power the church has over the media than we realize."

i'm not religious at all. matter of fact, this movie should've had me foaming at the mouth. i'm always questioning religion, and some of my religious friends hate that about me. with that said, the movie still wasn't anything special. i stand by my grade of "c".

i will go so far as to say that i bet most of the negative criticisms are coming from non-christians, or "pseudo-christians". seriously, the movie wasn't very good.

[Edited on May 23, 2006 at 7:31 PM. Reason : ]

5/23/2006 7:27:33 PM

Quote :

"This story implies...not that christianity is wrong. ... Jesus' divinity is questioned, but again, so what?"

Uhh... ok.


I also noticed that the movie had something like four different endings. Every time I think "Finally, this piece of crap is over", there would be 10 more minutes of movie, then another ending scene, and then another 10 minutes of movie..

5/23/2006 7:53:08 PM

5/23/2006 8:46:46 PM

eww a red x

5/24/2006 1:04:54 AM

Quote :

"In fact, the horrible reviews of this film make me question how much more power the church has over the media than we realize."

Probably pretty little.

The media is run by Jews and we could honestly give two shits about what you gentiles want to do with your stories about the messiah.

Quote :

"maybe its just late and i'm tired, but what exactly would being a decendant of mary magdelene prove? its not like there was any dna evidence to say that jesus was definitely her husband, or that he even fathered her child, just some old records."

It would prove nothing, which is a HUGE GAPING HOLE IN THE PLOT OF THE MOVIE.

The ending of the movie was so anti-climatic and forseeable that it was beyond dumb.

5/24/2006 4:42:13 AM

soapbox called, it wants you two to GTFO

5/24/2006 9:50:07 AM

My husband wasn't too impressed with this movie, thought it was predictable. I was too involved with seeing how it related with the book to really come up with an opinion on whether I liked it. I couldn't distance it away enough as just a movie experience. Maybe next time I watch the movie the book will fade a little in my mind and I can just watch it as entertainment.

My biggest issue is that they only had the one cryptex, and hence only the one puzzle. Well, 2 if you include the first one the curator wrote on the ground. No wonder people were thinking it's dull. I was also disappointed in the background material they chose to focus on. I know the holy grail is the huge issue that the church and Priory were at odds about, but there was information about Da Vinci and others that could have been thrown in, especially during the discussion at Teabing's mansion, that would have made the movie a little more interesting.

There were a couple other small moments in the book that added a little something to particular scenes, such as when they escaped from the Louvre in the beginning, and then from the mansion later, that were so short they probably could have included them in the movie, and could have added a slight more cleverness to it. As it stood, people probably don't understand why the heck the title is named after Da Vinci, since they never focused upon Da Vinci's influence except the obvious things (paintings, sketch). They only briefly attributed the one type of writing to Da Vinci (I'm trying not to give much away), and with that brevity I doubt many audience members that haven't read the book caught it.

Basically they could have done the movie differently to make it more intriguing and interesting, imo, but it's decent as it stands. I was pretty pissed though at them completely throwing out the library scene and instead having them lamely check a database on a freakin cell phone.

But really this movie would have been 3 hrs long if it had all the changes I thought of, because you just can't avoid the "talkiness."

5/24/2006 12:09:52 PM

5/24/2006 12:14:20 PM

I just finished reading the book today. I wanted to read it before seeing the movie. After reading all the stuff on here, sounds like I will be disappointed with the movie.

5/24/2006 12:18:48 PM

I don't think its a conspiracy of the Catholic Church or people just hopping on the bandwagon... just sounds like it was an average movie. Plus, if the book was really good, then the built in fanbase of those that read the book (which will be most of the people going to see this) are going to say "I'm disappointed the book was way better." Everyone else will judge it solely as a standalone movie... and from everything I've read its just a less fun National Treasure.

5/24/2006 1:03:18 PM

Quote :

"As it stood, people probably don't understand why the heck the title is named after Da Vinci, since they never focused upon Da Vinci's influence except the obvious things (paintings, sketch). They only briefly attributed the one type of writing to Da Vinci (I'm trying not to give much away), and with that brevity I doubt many audience members that haven't read the book caught it."

I agree with this

there was to much church/jesus/grail talk for it to be called the da vinci code

should have named it the "dark con of man" or something







in national treasure you get this breathtaking, ginormous treasure at the end

like you knew there was some treasure somewhere, but as the light keeps showing more and more and more treasure all you can think is "OMG LOOK AT ALL THAT TREASURE!!"

with the da Vinci code, you get to the ending and you think "well, i could have told you that 15 minutes into the movie...."

[Edited on May 24, 2006 at 5:29 PM. Reason : sdf]

5/24/2006 5:27:33 PM

If you actually think any part of this movie was true.

5/24/2006 7:10:44 PM

thought it was a good movie

glossed over a few important parts of the book, but when making a flick these things will happen

thought the history, and the special effects were good

looking forward to Angels + Demons

5/27/2006 10:51:45 AM

I just saw the movie, never read the book though

my biggest complaint is that there's no way a Smart Car could outrun a police cruiser

5/27/2006 11:07:38 AM

Even with the power of Jesus?

5/27/2006 11:44:41 AM

^^have you ever seen french police cruisers?

but yeah, you are probably right (and backwards)

5/28/2006 12:12:15 PM

You know what's worse than a Da Vinci Code fan?
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/journalgazette/news/editorial/14693976.htm

5/29/2006 2:39:25 PM

Hahahaha, that's so ridiculous.

5/29/2006 4:20:52 PM

THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR TOTALLY RIPPED OFF THE JEDI, MAN.

5/29/2006 4:50:15 PM