Mrs. Betty Bowers is the First to Review "The Da Vinci Code"

BernardR wrote:

Roger Ebert termed its story-"preposterous"

enough said.

Of course the story is preposterous. So is The Wizard of Oz and dozens of others. What does that have to do with the quality of the film?

0 Replies

Oh, the film had quality, all right. It was a well made film but if you read Ebert's review, Ebert said that the story line was sometimes as preposterous as the claims that the WTC was really bombed by the CIA.

Ebert's review was featured at the beginning of this thread, I am sure!

0 Replies

The book was highly imaginative murder mystery complete with its now well know religious intrigue. It's almost ridiculous to compare it to slasher movies as "Passion of the Christ" was so aptly identified with, nor big star, lame sitcom movies. I'm not sure if there are many other films to compare it to other than "The Omen" and "The Exorcist." Next week will tell the story as far as its ultimate commercial success. It's critical success is obviously a failure and it has to survive on word of mouth -- mainly whether or not it is an entertaining outing at the movies and because of its provocative theme.

0 Replies

But, will it gross as much as the "Fokkers"?

0 Replies

It looks like the film patrons are not really paying much attention to the critics. In the first 3 days ogf its release, it grossed 77 million, and was #1 in the box office. Mission Impossible III, which was #2, grossed 22 mil.

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/boxoffice/

http://www.movieweb.com/movies/film/90/2790/boxoffice/

0 Replies

I have not followed this thread. My take on such stories as The D Code is, they make certain people lots (AND LOTS) of money. Apart from that I haven't any real interest.

0 Replies

The Bible also make the church alot of money, hence them not wanting TCVC to be believed.

0 Replies

Some of the protests spilling out of the religious arena are absolutely ridiculous (no surprise, considering their source). One group wants a disclaimer at the start of the movie. I'll be all for that when the bible carries a disclaimer that it's based primarily on historical hearsay.

One nut case in India has gone on a hunger strike. He claims other christians around the world will join him. Let's hope so. We could certainly use a few less of them. I hope he starves himself to death!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Oh, the film had quality, all right. It was a well made film but if you read Ebert's review, Ebert said that the story line was sometimes as preposterous as the claims that the WTC was really bombed by the CIA.

Ebert's review was featured at the beginning of this thread, I am sure!

It's no more preposterous than the beliefs of all the religious weirdo's shouting it down.

0 Replies

Phoenix32890 wrote:

Or maybe it is the idea, that when one begins to question, the questioning begins to snowball. [/color][/b]

And Bingo was his name-o!

I think your dead right. And the more the church protests it, the more people want to read it/watch it and/or believe that maybe there is a hint of reality in the story.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Why, it might make as much money as "Meet the Fockers" Another brilliant and uplifting film.

You must not have any sense of humor to not have found that film at least a bit funny. But then again, if you were looking for it to be "brilliant and uplifting" you set youself up for disappointment. It's a silly film, meant to be taken lightly.

0 Replies

Ok and now the review.

I saw it Friday night at midnight. Last minute decision.

I read the book as well as the prequel "Angels and Demons" so I was prepared to be disappointed. I was mildly disappointed. The first half of the movie was scattered and confusing, IMO, because it was filled with so much information. Had you not read the book, I can see being confused about what the hell was going on. The second half of the movie seemed to short. They tried cramming this entire book into a movie and I think that challenge was a bit too much. While it stayed true to the book, there was no way that they could put it all in.

But I liked it.

Because I'd read the book, I didn't have to think about the movie at all, I just watched it and enjoyed it. I knew what was going to happen. I don't think that I will be buying the DVD for my collection but it wasn't a complete waste of time either.

I think the problem is that this movie had to live up to the book, which was insanely popular and as we all know, no movie ever lives up to the book.

0 Replies

Wilso wrote:

One group wants a disclaimer at the start of the movie. I'll be all for that when the bible carries a disclaimer that it's based primarily on historical hearsay.

Hehe, love it!!

I thought the movie had everything in it!!
Cant think of anything it missed out, maybe Ive forgotten bits.

0 Replies

Ive just been reminded that a sign on Jesus' cross said 'king of the Jews'.Im aware it was probably menat sarcastically but it kinda makes me think that there is a chance he could have been a king to begin with, going along the Royal blood/Jesus was from a royal family line.

0 Replies

At the suburban mall theater where I saw the DVC, there was a group out front with signs claiming the movie was blasphemous. I'm all for that, Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my favorite movies.

0 Replies

Acquiunk wrote:

At the suburban mall theater where I saw the DVC, there was a group out front with signs claiming the movie was blasphemous. I'm all for that, Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my favorite movies.

Blasphemous? You want blasphemous? I'll give ya blasphemous. Charleton Heston playing Moses, now that's blasphemous.

Historically inaccurate? You want historically inaccurate? I'll give ya historically inaccurate. All the Roman soldiers in Passion of the Christ speaking Latin, when in reality a Greek Creole was the standard vernacular, that's historically inaccurate.

You want both? Blasphemous and historically inaccurate? Ingrid Bergamn as Jeanne d'Arc, now there's something to boggle the mind, if any or at all.

0 Replies

Merry Andrew wrote:

Acquiunk wrote:
At the suburban mall theater where I saw the DVC, there was a group out front with signs claiming the movie was blasphemous. I'm all for that, Monty Python's Life of Brian is one of my favorite movies.

Blasphemous? You want blasphemous? I'll give ya blasphemous. Charleton Heston playing Moses, now that's blasphemous.

Historically inaccurate? You want historically inaccurate? I'll give ya historically inaccurate. All the Roman soldiers in Passion of the Christ speaking Latin, when in reality a Greek Creole was the standard vernacular, that's historically inaccurate.

You want both? Blasphemous and historically inaccurate? Ingrid Bergamn as Jeanne d'Arc, now there's something to boggle the mind, if any or at all.

Has anyone ever told you you're beautiful when you're angry?

0 Replies

Well, 'Gone With the Wind' left so much out from the 1,000-page novel yet it is a cinematic classic. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!

0 Replies

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808625216/info

According to the critics consensus on the link above, the grade critics gave to "DaVinci Code" was a pitiable C+

Proving again that the movie going public wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the posterior.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1808625216/info

According to the critics consensus on the link above, the grade critics gave to "DaVinci Code" was a pitiable C+

Proving again that the movie going public wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the posterior.

I hate most movies the critics rave over, and like many that they say are crap. Critics see every movie that's released, so are inevitably going to be jaded. Besides which, how many of those critics are also christians, and are trying to prevent people from seeing it?

0 Replies

Mrs. Betty Bowers is the First to Review "The Da Vinci Code"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know