Critics crucify "Da Vinci Code" in Cannes

[fab_fifties_fille]

I was so disapoointed when I heard about this this morning, because I really was looking forward to seeing it.

I felt the same...but as in my post above, I think you just can't write something off until you've seen it yourself

 

[MulletProof]

I went to the premiere last night. i have mixed feelings towards the movie...just seeing the adaptation of the whole scenery felt quite fantastic to me cause, well...i love when adaptations concur with my own imagination.

on the other hand, i felt disappointed that all the parts i found remotely beautiful in the book were almost deliberately removed as it was focused more on action stuff...whilst the explanation of sexual rituals, religions and so on were pretty much left aside...i think people would´ve gotten a better impresion out of it. my friends liked it though, they havent read the book yet but..hmm, they liked it because they thought it was exciting.

 

[MulletProof]

by the way, faf fifties fille...i love your avatar

 

[vintage_princess]

I watched this film yesterday and was really disappointed. Its definitely not worth watching to be honest..I enjoyed the book a lot more.

 

[breathe0xygen]

thanks for your reviews guys... you're saving my money from going down the drain ... hm and I still haven't read the book.

 

[Lena]

i found the book bad writen and childish so i will not bother with the film, no time to lose with on tom hanks
sad to hear Audrey (who i adore) was not at her best, but i agree, european cinema is much more 'sensitive' or poetic than american, and audrey is basicaly poetic, i can easily imagine her following hanks 'like an idiot' but it sure was the 'american super hero' direction that made her do it

she knew this was a mistake movie for her, she almost said so openly to an australian interview posed (scan) at the starstyle thread her at tFS.

 

[Baizilla]

hmmm.. having read the book.. I was surely hoping for a result that could match it.. but hearing the reviews, it doesn't seem so..

Well I'm still going to see it, but I wouldn't have too high expectations..

 

[Orchide]

Its like a "Titanic" type movie- not one to overthink although I liked it better than corny "Titanic" personally...meant for mass-appeal and a popcorn event...works on that level and is a fun way to kill a few hours.
Will probably rake in alot of money as well.

 

[fab_fifties_fille]

Went to see it last night and I enjoyed it...it was well filmed imo, beautifully lit. I didn't see it as a waste of time or money...and the guy who plays silas the monk was outstanding, so convincing.

 

[lovelymommie]

The book is not literary genius and neither is the movie. Both are entertaining though and the movie is worth the $10 I paid to see it. Go with another Davinci fan though...don't drag a spouse, partner, whatever who hasn't read the book - they will be bored and confused.

I had such low expectations that I walked out of the theatre satisfied.

 

[amphrosyne]

^ fantastic post

The Da Vinci Code was never meant to be critically acclaimed anyways. Its a thriller plain and simple and should never have gone to Cannes in the first place. I think it'd be a great movie for entertainment but not for art if thats what you're looking for...

 

[sanura]

The movie is average and predictable... never read the book. Tom Hank is total mis-cast. He is a well respected actor, but not suitable for this role. He appears slow and clueless in the movie. He can not do action, I felt painful watching him, I think the role should have gone to someone like Nic Cage or Harrison Ford type.

 

[*Hypnotic*]

Two of my friends went to see it last night, they had both read the book...and they still really enjoyed the film. I think it really needs to be focused on as a kind of thriller as opposed to being 'controversial'...I hope to go and see it next week...I'll report back

yeah i agree with you about the movie being a kind of
thriller. I don't feel as if it's trying to redirect my religious
beliefs i think it's entertainment and i can't wait to watch it
Regardless of a fictional or non-fictional story
i think movies are based on factual events and
there are ideas and theories that support these stories.
When it comes to variations in doctorine it always stirs up
major controversy. I think we shouldn't judge so critically and take it so
seriously (the movie) but if anything it'll get people curious
and want to research so i guess it's neat that it's 'controversial'
hey good or bad press is better than no press at all

 

[MulletProof]

Went to see it last night and I enjoyed it...it was well filmed imo, beautifully lit. I didn't see it as a waste of time or money...and the guy who plays silas the monk was outstanding, so convincing.

i agree for the most part...tom hanks was really bad in my opinion but paul bettany did quite a favor to the film. and audrey too, i think.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

I found it about as thrilling as I imagine watching creosote dry while reading the Financial Times would be. That's my criticism of it. Obviously the content was rubbish, as I expected, but failing to draw the viewer in and make them feel like something exciting was happening was the fault of poor direction and probably a poor novel. Furthermore, factual or not, I thought the premise that 'the grail is an allegory for the bloodline of Christ' was lame. How many Catholics are going to be shocked, when they should know all about the Council of Nicea, The Apocrypha &c. from Sunday School? How many atheists didn't already think that Christianity is a fabrication based on a slightly perverse Middle Eastern cult...


The portrayal of albinos is nothing short of discriminatory. It also ignores the fact that most albinos have impaired vision.

 

[PrinceOfCats]

i agree for the most part...tom hanks was really bad in my opinion but paul bettany did quite a favor to the film. and audrey too, i think.

I thought Tom Hanks played an all-American nerd-come-action-man with a remarkable understanding of the zeitgeist.

 

[MulletProof]

best review i've read of the movie.

 

[faust]

best review i've read of the movie.

indeed. although you should read the NYTimes review. they annhiliated it with that sadistic pleasure which only attenuated sarcasm can relay...

 

[VainJane]

Furthermore, factual or not, I thought the premise that 'the grail is an allegory for the bloodline of Christ' was lame.

They mentioned that "Holy Grail" thing in a Newsweek article...I actually thought it was pretty cool.

I secretly wish the Da Vinci Code was based on truth...I'd go to church more often if it was

 

[fab_fifties_fille]

Ah Prince...I expected as much my hat off to you sir.