|
Post by Chuck on May 17, 2006 17:18:06 GMT -5
Ladies and Gentlemen, I refer you to the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune reviews of the title subject. The reviewers are attacking it as if they were Mike and the Bots. And apparently, it's one of those films that we would be kicked out of if we went as a group to see it. ;D ;D ;D www.chicagotribune.com
|
|
|
Post by Melting Manos on May 17, 2006 17:26:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ratso on May 17, 2006 21:53:33 GMT -5
Clint is so much more talented than Ron.
And I'm not joking.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on May 28, 2006 14:48:56 GMT -5
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the overall bad reviews don't surprise me one bit because of the weaknesses found in the original novel. The book uses a lot of tired plot cliches to move the story along, things that an author can get away with in a novel through writing, but will appear blatantly bad when acted out in a film. So the actual blame for the problems with the movie should go back to the source: author Dan Brown.
|
|
|
Post by okeefe on May 29, 2006 11:09:31 GMT -5
I read the book and saw the movie. I was surprised that it wasn't worse, because of all the bad reviews I read. It wasn't that horrible. If you could tolerate what you read in the book, the movie isn't that bad. (but someone bought my ticket, so it wasn't my $8.50 I lost)
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Jun 17, 2006 21:54:45 GMT -5
I finally saw this. I guess I was scratching my head afterwards over all the bad reviews it got, because it was a decent adaptation of the source material. It did drop some stuff out in streamlining the story a bit, but it was pretty faithful to the book overall and was generally well-made as a movie. Any major flaws with the movie originate with the original novel, so I think a lot of movie critics either never read the book, or read it and hated it, so they took it out on the movie.
|
|
|
Post by impr3ssion on Jun 21, 2006 2:56:15 GMT -5
I hate that Tom went and ruined what I consider a "perfect streak." While he had some movies that aren't exactly classics, he has a great batting average--exluding Mazes & Monsters, but everyone has one of those.
Even Bachelor Party and The Man with One Red Shoe are fun 80's flicks. But I haven't seen Lady Killers, so I can't vouch for that.
|
|
|
Post by silvermorgan on Jun 21, 2006 17:35:37 GMT -5
I saw it. I wasn't near as bad as the critics said. The biggest difference, actually, is the character of Robert Langdon. In the book, he was a confirmed atheist, pretty sure of himself and very outgoing - in the film, he's more of an agnostic, very timid and unsure of himself and doesn't seem very outgoing. I think Ron Howard did this because of all the controversy. In some ways, the agnostic stance of the film is superior to the straight up biased view of the novel. I think Tom Hanks did a good job, but he seemed lost. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad. Yeah...I agree with that. I'm a huge fan of the book, but I wasn't expecting much from the movie. It was a decent adaptation. I read an interview with Ronnie Howard and he pinned the problem completely: the book is basically conversations between people discussing history and theories. Great for books, not so great for movies. I think you have to have read the book to even appreciate the movie.
|
|
|
Post by impr3ssion on Jun 22, 2006 0:02:34 GMT -5
I think you have to turn your brain off to appreciate the book. Jk, truly. It's a page turner.
|
|
|
Post by silvermorgan on Jun 22, 2006 17:37:37 GMT -5
I think you have to turn your brain off to appreciate the book. Jk, truly. It's a page turner. That's actually a valid point. You have to suspend many ingrained beliefs to appreciate the story line.
|
|
|
Post by impr3ssion on Jun 22, 2006 22:02:23 GMT -5
It's user score keeps going up at rottentomatoes.com. Actually, I think the storyline can be appreciated regardless, especially since the novel is written so accessibly. I was jokingly referring to the fact that Brown is generally ridiculed in historical circles for presenting fictional elements in a way that can be mistaken for valid history. (Links contain spoilers) History vs The Da Vinci CodeHow the Da Vinci Code Doesn't WorkThe Truth About Da Vinci
|
|
|
Post by Emperor Cupcake on Jun 22, 2006 23:45:42 GMT -5
Yeah, I broke down and saw this even though I generally avoid "summer blockbusters" like the plague. It wasn't horrible, but neither was it particularly great. And for the record, I didn't read the novel, though I did read the "non-fiction" book the novel ripped off, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." And since I've also read assloads of stuff debunking the so-called "code," I couldn't really suspend my disbelief enough to really get behind the story. And some of it was just kinda silly. But it wasn't as bad as all the reviews said, I'll admit that.
|
|
|
Post by silvermorgan on Jun 23, 2006 17:40:02 GMT -5
It's user score keeps going up at rottentomatoes.com. Actually, I think the storyline can be appreciated regardless, especially since the novel is written so accessibly. I was jokingly referring to the fact that Brown is generally ridiculed in historical circles for presenting fictional elements in a way that can be mistaken for valid history. (Links contain spoilers) History vs The Da Vinci CodeHow the Da Vinci Code Doesn't WorkThe Truth About Da VinciTrue about Dan Brown's history lessons. Interesting links...I'll have to check those out more thouroughly. Can I spell? Anywho...I'm not one of these people that take the Da Vinci Code as truth, but I love the "what if's" it presented. Textbook history is so boring. It's much more fun to play. Kind of off topic, but the subject of Da Vinci reminded me of this: Has anybody read a book called Lamb by Christoffer Moore. I don't remember the last time I laughed so hard at a book...well, Mike Nelson's Mind Over Matters. That did me in, too.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Jun 24, 2006 12:43:51 GMT -5
The biggest difference, actually, is the character of Robert Langdon. In the book, he was a confirmed atheist, pretty sure of himself and very outgoing - in the film, he's more of an agnostic, very timid and unsure of himself and doesn't seem very outgoing. I think Ron Howard did this because of all the controversy. In some ways, the agnostic stance of the film is superior to the straight up biased view of the novel. Yeah, I noticed that too. In the book, Teabing and Langdon agree so much that they could practically complete each other's sentences. But in the movie, they instead argue with Teabing taking the view both had in the book, and the movie Langdon arguing another view. I figure it was done to try to defuse some of the novel's controversy, because this way the controversial view from the novel is still there, but an opposing voice is added.
|
|
donmac
Moderator Emeritus
Beedee Beedee Beedee This Sucks!
Posts: 1,290
|
Post by donmac on Jun 25, 2006 12:28:58 GMT -5
Well, the problem is that most of the stuff in the novel is speculation or outright lies. Personally, I could care less if Mary Magdelene and Jesus were married. It's just that when I started looking into the hard evidence, the less credible the novel became. So, even though the film is not a great movie by any stretch, I'll actually say that the agnostic stance makes it superior to the book. I read the book a long, long time ago and like it ok - but that was before I was really interested in this kind of stuff and didn't get my facts straight. Dan Brown's willingness to bend history and outright lie in his books is well-know (based on DaVinci Code and Angels and Demons, the character Robert Langdon sounds more like a mediocre conspiracy-monger who does half-@ssed research than like the eminent professor he's supposed to be). But he's the first to say his book is fiction, not fact. And besides, fiction built on top of superstition isn't much of a controversy as far as I'm concerned.
|
|