DaVinci Code...Critics vs. Moviegoers...

[SaveElmer]

I don't believe I have ever seen such a chasm between the opinions of critics and the opinion of moviegoers over a movie before.

I saw DaVinci code and thought it was a first rate movie...well acted, well directed, and really kept my attention throughout. Top to bottom excellent performances, with Paul Bettany, Ian McKellan, and Jean Reno as standouts. It is doing great at the box office, and getting excellent word of mouth.

Yet the movie has really taken it on the chin from alot of critics...

I'm wondering why. Could it be some critics are responding to the criticism of the movie by religious groups?

[Writer]

1. But of course!

It's that rich man's cabal of media-corporations-religion-government that is out to crumple the truth. And it's all because they share a) money, and b) interlocking directors! Add to that the awesome power of the Catholic Church, and now we understand fully why, after the story has been available in print form now for a few years, they're out to squelch this demon movie!

Where's Noam Chomsky when we him?

;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

[CTyankee]

2. Naw, it's godawful and I'm not a critic!

Bad acting, terrible screenplay, bad directing. Insults your intelligence. Long rambling dialog full of exposition.

I liked the book, btw. Thought it was a page turner. But the transition to a movie was a disaster. Surely Ron Howard could do better that that!

P.S. I am NOT defending the church. The only thing I liked about the movie was the slant on Mary Magdalen and its feminism. But I am afraid that wonderful message was tainted by the overall stupidity and vapidity of the film.

Sorry for the rant, but that POS wasted an afternoon of my time and 7 bucks or so.:rant: :rant:

[SaveElmer]

3. Boy...thanks for the reply...

But I have to take a diametrically opposite view from you.

Not only did I appreciate a movie that moves along on the strength of its story instead of special effects, but the acting was top notch, and the story was paced perfctly to keep me interested.

[CTyankee]

10. It's funny, but I LOVED Ron Howard's "A Beautiful Mind"

That, to me, was a terrific movie.

Different strokes...

[KFC]

6. I can't believe anyone liked that movie

Calling it boring is the highest complement I can give to the "film".

[leftofthedial]

4. the media kowtowing to the status quo?

never!

[kwassa]

5. I thought it was a so-so movie.

It wasn't as bad as some of the reviews I read, but it wasn't very good. Long and slowly-paced at points. The photography was really murky and poorly lit, and the whole thing was strangely edited. Audrey Tatou, who I loved in other films, really didn't register at all. Tom Hanks was only average, not believable as a scholar. I liked Bettany about the best

The thing I liked the most about it?

My wife and I spent a lot of time wandering around the Louvre at night a few years ago, essentially by ourselves. Tom Hanks spent a lot of time doing the same thing. Took me back to some fun times. Also, we visited Saint Surplice, huge church that was also home to the Rose Line.

[ploppy]

7. I liked it!

I thought it was a good thriller.

[UTUSN]

8. I like the subject matter, canNOT suspend disbelief to

get involved in any novel or this movie. For me, when things get down to somebody being chased, whether by dinosaurs or by albino monks, it's all over. I didn't read the book and won't. I *did* read Holy Blood/Holy Grail and The Templar Revelation. The first one played too cute with "revealing" something "shocking" bit by bit. Templar Revelation was more straightforward, and for me, compelling. But this movie (and most others), no: I left after 3/4, and peeked at the end. I'm a travesty on the arts.

[SaveElmer]

9. It was a religious version of National Treasure...

Definitely have to suspend disbelief...

I have a Masters in History so it took some doing with National Treasure, but ultimately I was able too...and I was able to with DaVinci as well.

[CTyankee]

11. Well, maybe my Master's in Liberal Studies had something to do

with my obvious bias. Actually, I love history so I was all set to love it. Usually, us Liberal Studies people are kinda academic wanderers, if you know what I mean.

Truly, I'm glad it brought you some enjoyment. As Dorothy Parker once said, "One man's Mede is another man's Persian."

[musiclawyer]

12. To answer your question

No. IMHO I think the critics are coming at this from a pure cinematic/ moviegoing public perspective, not just the smaller segment that has read the book. The film didn't depart enough from the book to keep the non book reading audience engaged.

[CTyankee]

13. I think certain cinematic rules were not obeyed

You can't have scene after scene devoted to dogged exposition "and then they did...and then this happened..." It's alright in a book because you expect some explanation but in a movie it is tedious (which is why, I think, Ron Howard included the historic scenes with the voice overs). The movie become the actors just parroting the exposition of the plot. I know they do that in the book but not as much as in the movie (which they have to do because you don't have the text of the book in a movie to fill you in). The result is no intimacy, interplay, or a real connection between characters. It's just exposition. Not good.