Most Critics Hate The Da Vinci Code Movie

[Stephen of Borg 2]

Look how many bad reviews the movie has recieved

[Stephen of Borg 2]

the movie was booed at Cannes

 

 

Ron Howard: Speaking of the "Code" flick, its director has some advice for people who are upset about the movie's plot. He told reporters at Cannes that concerned citizens should not see his movie. He also made it clear to anyone willing to listen that The Da Vinci Code should in no way be mistaken for a course in theology. Howard, like star Tom Hanks, calls the production nothing more than entertainment, which might be too strong of a word to use if you listen to some of the critics at Cannes who saw the movie. Some of the writers who attended the press screening even jeered and booed while the movie was playing. Little Opie never suffered that kind of abuse when he lived in Mayberry.

[Itchygomba69 0]

the book itself was not well reviewed either, bad reviews don't always mean a bad movie IMO

[youbroughtheryouRiker 2]

Depends on who the critic is though. If it's Joel Siegel, I *always* go opposite of him.

 

Yeah, the book has been panned by book critics too, so I can't help but wonder if this is supposed to be an example of polishing a turd.

 

That said, I haven't read the book, and I don't plan on seeing the movie (since I never go to the movies anyway)

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Some "bad" movies make the most money

[mj 7]

Some "bad" movies make the most money

 

 

And money is the reason a 'bad' book was made into a 'bad' movie. People bouth the book....people will buy a ticket to the movie.

 

Not me, on either account.

[Takara_Soong 4]

Some "bad" movies make the most money

And money is the reason a 'bad' book was made into a 'bad' movie. People bouth the book....people will buy a ticket to the movie.

So true. Here are the estimates for the opening weekend box office from Box Office Mojo:

Domestic: $77,000,000

+ Foreign: $147,000,000

 

= Worldwide: $224,000,000

 

Part of the problem is all the free publicity given to the book and movie by religious groups from the Vatican on down complaining about them. If they had ignored the book it never would have sold as it did because Dan Brown is not a good writer (evidenced by the initial sales of his other books*). The same thing happened with The Passion of the Christ.

Domestic: $370,782,930

+ Foreign: $241,116,490

= Worldwide: $611,899,420

 

If it weren't for all the contraversy and Mel Gibson's name a foreign language movie with subtitles would have be relegated to art house movie theatres and not your local cineplex.

 

 

*From Wilkipedia:

Brown's first three novels had mediocre success, with fewer than 10,000 copies in each of their first printings; but the fourth novel, The Da Vinci Code, became a runaway bestseller, going to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list during its first week of release in 2003. It is now credited with being one of the most popular books of all time (despite being heavily slated critically), with 60.5 million copies sold worldwide as of 2006. Its success has helped push sales of Brown's earlier books. In 2004, all four of his novels were on the New York Times list in the same week.

Edited May 21, 2006 by Takara_Soong

[Odie 0]

If this statement was not in the book than it might not have been a big deal: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." With this statement, those originations that are in the novel have the right to defends themselves from the lies that Dan Brown's book. By not saying anything it can conform what has been stated in the novel. Mr. Brown cannot have it both ways. The media is the one that is hyping the novel.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Odie

[Takara_Soong 4]

If this statement was not in the book than it might not have been a big deal: "All descriptions of artwork, architecture documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate." With this statement, those originations that are in the novel have the right to defends themselves from the lies that Dan Brown's book. By not saying anything it can conform what has been stated in the novel. Mr. Brown cannot have it both ways. The media is the one that is hyping the novel.

 

Giving accurate descriptions of artwork, architectural documents and "secret" rituals doesn't really have anything to do with the hypothesis of Jesus and Mary Magdalene having a child. Saying descriptions are accurate is not the same as saying interpretations are accurate.

 

There were books that pass themselves off as historical research such as Holy Blood, Holy Grail that Dan Brown used for research but there was no outcry about those books when they were published. No one would have probably heard of them if it weren't for that plagarism lawsuit against Dan Brown (which Dan Brown won) and various documentaries about the DaVinci Code.

Edited May 22, 2006 by Takara_Soong

[Odie 0]

Dan Brown's novel is not the first with this "theory", and yet no one complains about the other novels. The Catholic Church made it clear it never like the novel from the very beginning. I am not talking about Mary and Jesus. The originations in the book are the Catholic Church (early begins and through out history), Priory of Sion, and Opus Dei. When facts and fictions are combined and originations in novel are given a negative they should not have to sit and be quite about it. The deprecation of Opus Dei is so off I was very surprised they did not have an outcry about it.

 

As far as banning the movie, it was never official given by the Vatican. It was just a suggestion that Catholics should not see the movie. There were some officials in the Vatican that said that people should go out and see the movie, and do research to see the truth for themselves. News media was very slow to tell those facts or some networks did not bother to even reporting it. Even Opus Dei did not want people to ban the movie instead they bend over backwards to tell who they are to the world at large, and dispel the lies that novel about them.

[Wishfire 2]

Dan Brown's novel is not the first with this "theory", and yet no one complains about the other novels. The Catholic Church made it clear it never like the novel from the very beginning. I am not talking about Mary and Jesus. The originations in the book are the Catholic Church (early begins and through out history), Priory of Sion, and Opus Dei. When facts and fictions are combined and originations in novel are given a negative they should not have to sit and be quite about it. The deprecation of Opus Dei is so off I was very surprised they did not have an outcry about it.

 

As far as banning the movie, it was never official given by the Vatican. It was just a suggestion that Catholics should not see the movie. There were some officials in the Vatican that said that people should go out and see the movie, and do research to see the truth for themselves. News media was very slow to tell those facts or some networks did not bother to even reporting it. Even Opus Dei did not want people to ban the movie instead they bend over backwards to tell who they are to the world at large, and dispel the lies that novel about them.

 

Of course...

 

» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «

At the end of the book it's revealed that Opud Dei really aren't the bad guys, but rather one of the victims. So I don't see why they'd be offended.

[gul_nodrog 2]

^Is that really how the book ended?

 

I got so bored with it about 2/3's the way through that I just kind of skimmed to the end.

 

The book was terrible, subject matter aside. I just don't get the appeal. Plus, I heard that Howard pretty much gutted the "controversial" bent of the book ... it probably won't go over very well with the people who are big fans of the book.

 

I'm not wasting $9.00 to see this movie ... we might rent it.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

It costs $9.00 to see a movie?

[gul_nodrog 2]

^Yes, it does! Isn't that terrible? A few theaters around here are $8.25, the matinees are marginally less expensive (something like $7.50). It's insane.

 

By the time you throw in popcorn and a drink, it costs around $30 for two people to go to the movies. When we want to take my son to see something, only one of us can go with him. The other waits until whatever kid flick it is comes out on video.