While trying to get into the theater for M:I3 last night, there were lots of lines and stuff. I was surprised since I didn't remember anything interesting coming out. Turns out it was The Da Vinci Code, so I think I was still mostly right. Today I watched last night's Ebert & Roeper, and they had some interesting things to say about it. For the movie it's apparently a decent Thriller, and it's told better than the book. The story isn't any more believable than the book though, and isn't presented like it should be. You can read all of Ebert's review if you want. This whole thing sorta seems like Dogma round 2. Anyways, the quotes:
"It seems as if half the world is embroiled in a controversy over The Da Vinci Code, but I really can't imagine that it will offend the beliefs or shake the faith of anyone who's a true Christian." - Richard Roeper
"This is a complete fantasy. The people who take this stuff seriously, should really — they should devote their time to something more realistic like flying saucers." - Roger Ebert
I read the book "The DaVinci Code" and was impressed with Brown's wit, intrigue and overall knowledge of all the subjects that comprised the content of the book. However, when i saw the movie, which i must say i was more than a little excited to go see on opening night, i was seriously dissapointed. Maybe everyone is right, that because i read the book the suspense was taken out of the films plot, but regaurdless, the adaptation was boring. Chemistry was a word i repeatedly heard in critic's reviews, or the lack of it more accurately, especially between the two main characters, Tom Hanks and Audry. I was more intrigued with the three hour silence Tom portrayed in Cast Away. Point in fact, if you have read the book, dont bother to see the movie, keep your own vision of how the story played out because i garauntee its 10 times better than Ron Howard's adaptation. I hope Hanks isnt losing his charisma, because he is a good guy.
I too read the book, but to be frank, I thought it sucked. There was no suspense. Almost as soon as they introduced him, I knew who the bad guy was, and I spent the next chapters wondering why the hell some character with a degree in "religious symbolism" couldn't pick up on clues that I could.
If the movie is worse, ugh. I made up my mind that I had already wasted several hours of my life on that book, and I wasn't going to waste any more on a movie about it.
I'm with babada, too. I don't think that anyone's faith should be shaken by this book (haven't watched the movie). I read it at a time when I really wanted to believe in anything but Christianity, and it was not convincing for me. Frankly, I think the only reason it is doing so well is that the church is making such a big deal out of it.
2 non-computer posts in a row! I'm so proud of you!!
As far as the Da Vinci code goes, I liked the book but have no desire to see the movie. Shame man, I really like the chick from Amelie....
Copyright ©2000-2008 Jeremy Mooney (jeremy-at-qux-dot-net)
Yeah, I The Da Vinci Code yesterday. My one-word review: "Lame".
Roeper was dead on. Apparently the movie was a tad more apologetic than the book (according to a friend who read and saw it) so that may explain why the book is causing confusion. The movie was basically another Catholic Church Conspiracy movie, but it obviously felt like a book to movie transition. Areas of the movie were significantly underplayed and underdeveloped.
There was a surprising lack of anything related to Da Vinci, and the small bits of discussion that may arise are things that most people are not willing to discuss anyway and are rather obscurely referenced in the movie.
In my opinion, the one real reason to see it was Paul Bettany, who played the albino monk. His character was rather cool and I ended up "feeling" more for him than anyone else in the movie.
But whatever.