My initial response to this preview is pretty staraightforward. When watching it, you can tell they want ALL the people who read the book to go see the movie. Now I read the book over a year ago, and to be honest, the story was lame. A story about secret societies and knights and shit should have been cool but it wasn't. But for some reason I couldn't stop turning the pages. So what made the book work wasn't the characters or the story, but more of Dale Brown's writing style and wanting to find out what happens next. Unfortunately, writing style has nothing to do with a movie. And if they want all the people to see the movie that read the book, well they are screwed royal because everybody KNOWS what happens BEFORE seeing the movie. So the two things that made the book work are gone, man.
Although it has been over a year since I read the book, by watching the previews you can definitely tell what is going on in some scenes. For example, there is a dead guy in the Louvre, whose naked body happens to land under a light which tastefully blurs out his genitals. Instead of writing a note explaining everything clearly and shoving it up his wrinkled ass like a normal person, instead he hid clues all over the museum. For Example: So Dark the Con of Man. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN AND WHY DO I CARE? Are you aware that there are French Hookers that look like Nicole Kidman in the same town? Luckily, Tom Hanks is in town and since he WAS a bosom buddy, he knows all about this stuff. The plot goes from there and eventually reveals that Jesus, as a mortal man, liked the pink that stinks.
Anyway, I think this movie is going to get shitty reviews and a somewhat lukewarm reception at the box office because people don't really want to see a movie based on an ok book they already read. Especially when Tom Cruise is in the movie theaters. Plus, most people bought the hardcover, and after adding the price of a few movie tickets to that, you would have spent close to $50 on this story. Not worth it. Suck it Dan Brown. Suck it long and suck it hard.
I hate to disagree with you but since everyone is tired of Tom Cruise, Da Vinci is gonna make a big chunk of money.
ReplyDeleteThis won't be the biggest movie this year but it might make the top 10 in box office.
Well, it will make serious bank, it is just won't make as much as studios think it will. See this past weekends MI:III. It did like 47 Mil, which is HUGE. But everybody was like "What a disappointment! It was supposed to make 60 million."
ReplyDeleteAnyway, there are hookers that look like Nicole Kidman in Paris.
And MI:III did such crappy bizness because Cruise has been jumping on couches, yelling at Matt Lauer and feuding with Brooke Shields (which is just dumb).
ReplyDeleteAnd if there are hookers that look like Nicole Kidman, I need to rent a car in France and run some hoes down!
I actually don't like the casting of Tom Hanks in the role of Langdon. He's too damn fat. I saw Langdon as this lanky scholar dork who could still get chicks.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, I'll go see it, just BECAUSE Tom Cruise isn't in it.
Such is the powerful reverse suck of Scientology. ;)
No! You will be become complicit in the greatest conspiracy in human history and a member of the Hanso Foundation.
ReplyDeleteI'm a member of the Hansolo Foundation....does that count?
ReplyDeleteDa Vinci code got Panned at Cannes!
ReplyDeleteIt turns out my prediction was pretty damn close:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.filmfocus.co.uk/review.asp?ReviewID=20669
As soon as this was even announced, I didn't see how it would make a good transition to film. My main concern was that there was no way around the extensive exposition and ground-level explanations (for the benefit of the reading audience) of both legends and historical facts... translating into long scenes of characters engaging in drawn-out, unnatural dialogues for the benefit of the viewing audience. It appears this is indeed the case.
ReplyDeleteHow about just, "do you want to see it or don't you?"
ReplyDeleteI think Ebert owns stock in this movie. He spent an entire column in the Sun Times today talking about how it got a bad rap, and why.
ReplyDeleteI'm with Ebert. I liked the film and thought they did an okay job of dealing with all of the backstory for the mythology of the religion of the confusion. Get it?
ReplyDeleteAnywho, my review is up now. Maybe I should replace Roeper?