Are DaVinci's reviews changing your mind about seeing it?

[ohioMickey]

Don't forget...

The first wave of bad reviews came from THE FRENCH!

 

[rie'smom]

Don't forget...

The first wave of bad reviews came from THE FRENCH!

Cannes is much more than just the French! There is a whole international committee of judges! My first thought was that if they panned it-yikes!!
Cannes Film Festival is not noted for it's impartial view of anything religious. The judges tend to love anything anti-religious. So if they gave the film 2 thumbs down then it must really stink!
I will seeit to judge for myself.

 

[Bbgrizzle]

Just got home from seeing the movie. I liked it. It was neat to see what these places and objects from the book actually look like. I did read the book, and I thought the movie was a pretty good adaptation. I loved the albino guy, and I thought the movie was very well-cast, even Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon. The only change that I didn't like was having Sophie find her grandmother instead of the mother and brother. That was disappointing. Especially when they showed the guy with the keys to the church (who in the book was her brother). If they are going to bother to cast him, why not leave him as her brother? There was no need to switch out that.

I would proclaim the movie to be good, but not great.

 

[wdw4us2]

Bbgrizzle:

You need to post spoiler warnings in your post!

 

[CourtasanSatine]

I've read the book so I'm curious, plus I'm game to see how Paul Bettany pulls off Slias.

 

[wvjules]

Went to see the movie today and I agree with bbgrizzle.

The musical score was perfect for this movie. Tom Hanks as Robert Landgon wouldn't have been my first pick, but he did well with it. I loved the very last scene. The movie did seem a little slow but I'm guessing that's because I knew what was going to happen next since I read the book. Oh and my mom enjoyed it too and she didn't read the book. She also goes to church every sunday and didn't see what the big deal was about the book or movie.

I give it a "B".

 

[nataliz]

Also enjoyed the movie. I was a little nervous after hearing the reviews yesterday, but glad I went anyway.

It definitely wasn't as good as the book, but entertaining to both my husband (who hadn't read the book) and me.

 

[DisneyKevin]

The Wizard of Oz received horrible reviews when it opened in 1939

It went on to become a beloved classic.

Katherine Hepburn recieved just awful reviews.

She won 3 Academy Awards and is considered one of the greats.

Just paid good money to see Jennifer Anniston in Friends With Money.

It got great reviews.

I should have just torched a $10 bill. It would have been more entertaining.

Make your own decisions.

 

[SueM in MN]

The only change that I didn't like was having Sophie find her grandmother instead of the mother and brother. That was disappointing. Especially when they showed the guy with the keys to the church (who in the book was her brother). If they are going to bother to cast him, why not leave him as her brother? There was no need to switch out that.

I would proclaim the movie to be good, but not great.

In the book, it was her grandmother and brother that she found.
It was very disappointing to me that they made it be just her grandmother in the movie. And, in the movie, Sauniere was not her grandfather, he was just the Priory of Sion "guardian" chosen to watch over her and wasn't really her grandfather at all. I thought the book was touching where, after her parents were killed, the grandparents made the decision/sacrifice to pretend Sophie's brother and grandmother were also killed to protect the 2 children. In the book, it was obvious that he loved her very much and at the end you found out how much he had sacrificed to keep her and her brother safe.
I don't know why they changed that and why they changed her reason for the fight with Sauniere. Both of those things changed her relationship with Sauniere and made the "secret rituals" he was shown in the movie starting to teach her sort of distasteful to me.

 

[PaulaSue]

We saw it Saturday. We both liked it. It was like 'National Treasure' movie to me. A little long but good.

 

[Just2554]

I saw the movie on Friday despite the reviews and I thought it was good. It wasn't great, but it wasn't bad either. Hanks, to me, was bland, but Bettany and Tatou as Silas and Sophie were very well cast, IMO. And of course the scenery was beautiful; I'm still surprised that they finally acquired the rights to film in the Louvre (it's one of those places that they've never been allowed to film, take pictures inside, etc.). Westminster Abbey (and Newton's grave, which was strange, yet beautiful up close) was fascinating as well.

I wonder how the movie did at the box office over the weekend. I don't know about anyone else's theaters, but ours was packed! The 4:00, 4:15, 4:30, 7:00, 7:15, 7:30, 10:00, 10:15, and 10:30 shows were all completely sold out!! And we have a Cinemark 20; some of the theaters seat well over 1000 people!

 

[The Mystery Machine]

Tom Hanks was not as bad in the part as I expected (except that every time he came onto the screen, I found my eyes drawn to his really bad hair).

SNL ripped him on that when Hanks hosted.

 

[Just2554]

The Wizard of Oz received horrible reviews when it opened in 1939

It went on to become a beloved classic.

Katherine Hepburn recieved just awful reviews.

She won 3 Academy Awards and is considered one of the greats.

Just paid good money to see Jennifer Anniston in Friends With Money.

It got great reviews.

I should have just torched a $10 bill. It would have been more entertaining.

Make your own decisions.

Just wanted to say that this is a great point. Katharine Hepburn was PANNED in the '30's as "box office poison." Now, she's often chosen as the best actress ever. "The Wizard of Oz" was considered too fanciful and silly. "Casablanca" wasn't exactly beloved by the public in 1942; no one ever thought it would become considered the greatest movie ever.

I think it's all a case of not knowing what you have until it's past. For example, "Top Hat" (with Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers) was Turner Classic Movies' Essential last night. I have the DVD, but I did turn it on to hear Robert Osbourne and Molly Haskell debate about it. The things they were saying were completely true, all about how Astaire & Rogers were NEVER given their due credit for those amazing dance sequences (which Astaire helped choreograph) or that chemistry. They were SO tuned into each other at all times and it's taken us 65 years to realize it. I love the often referenced Astaire screen test of the '30s: "Can't act. Slightly balding. Can dance a little." And look at what he's become now.

Critics reviews should be taken with a grain of salt. Who knows...in 10 years, The Da Vinci Code could be beloved, considered one of the best novel adaptations ever.

 

[DaisyD]

We never pay any attention to the critics. Usually the ones they hate are the ones I loved! My mom saw Davinci Code yesterday and thought it was great.

 

[Bbgrizzle]

Bbgrizzle:

You need to post spoiler warnings in your post!

Oh, I"m so sorry!!! Hope I didn't ruin the movie for you.

 

[Seahag]

he was supposed to be an albino? why were his eyes blue?

the dh & i went yesterday - not as bad as a poke inthe eye ( LOL ) but we felt like we had seen it all just by watching the discovery channel specials

 

[CraftyMouse]

he was supposed to be an albino? why were his eyes blue?

the dh & i went yesterday - not as bad as a poke inthe eye ( LOL ) but we felt like we had seen it all just by watching the discovery channel specials

It is a myth that albinos have pink/red eyes. At least in humans, some do but the majority have blue eyes.

 

[Planogirl]

The movie is apparently doing well so far. Article from Reuters:

"Da Vinci Code" unlocks $224 mln in world sales
Sunday May 21 12:46 PM ET

All the protests and all the bad reviews could not prevent "The Da Vinci Code" from recording a $224 million worldwide opening, the second-biggest debut ever at the global box office, its distributor said on Sunday.

The controversial adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling novel, the story of a Vatican cover-up involving Jesus Christ and his supposed offspring, sold about $77 million worth of tickets at movie theaters in the United States and Canada during its first three days, according to Columbia Pictures.

Box-office watchers had predicted a North American opening of between $50 million and $80 million for the most eagerly awaited movie of the year.

The biggest North American opening this year had been $68 million for "Ice Age: The Meltdown" seven weeks ago. But "The Da Vinci Code" numbers were still far from the $115 million record held by 2002's "Spider-Man."

"The Da Vinci Code" earned about $147 million overseas, the biggest international opening ever. The previous record was last year's "Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith" with $145 million, Columbia said.

The total haul of $224 million ranks No. 2 behind the $253 million tally for the "Star Wars" movie, the studio said.

Columbia Pictures, a unit of Sony Corp ., released the $125 million film in 90 foreign markets, following its world premiere at the Cannes Film Festival on Thursday.

The strong sales came despite -- or because of -- an onslaught of protests and publicity not seen since another religious movie, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," earned $84 million domestically during its first weekend in February 2004. It grossed $612 million worldwide.

Brown's fictional premise -- that Jesus Christ had a child with Mary Magdalene and that their blood line survived through the ages -- was a huge hit at bookstores, with more than 40 million copies sold around the world.

But some Christians, particularly Catholics, were angered by the story and have mounted a high-profile offensive against director Ron Howard's movie adaptation, which stars Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou.

A Catholic lay organization, the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, took out full-page ads in USA Today on Friday calling for worshipers to stage prayer vigils outside at least 1,000 theaters nationwide.

Other church groups have welcomed the opportunity to use the film as a starting point for discussion about the Bible, as has American Atheists, which says the same level of scrutiny applied to the book and film also should be used to question all other religious claims.

On the heels of the Cannes premiere of "The Da Vinci Code," critics joined the chorus of naysayers, overwhelmingly lambasting it as "grim," "unwieldy" and "plodding." It did get a respectable review from America's best-known movie critic, Roger Ebert, who called it "preposterously entertaining."

Sony, the film's producer Imagine Entertainment, and the movie's stars have stressed that the movie is merely entertainment -- and moviegoers appeared to agree.

"The book became more than a book and the movie became more than a movie," said Valerie Van Galder, Columbia's president of domestic marketing. "It became a perfect storm."

It'll be interesting to see how well it holds up.

 

[DVC Sadie]

Angels & Demons was actually written before the code was and was much better imho

Oh thanks, Crankyshank! I guess I'm not bass ackwards at all then. Sometimes I feel as if I am several months behind the real world. KWIM?

 

[wvrevy]

Saw the movie, and agree with most of what has been posted here (that it was "good", just not "great").

As for critics...many of them will claim that "Citizen Kane" is the greatest movie of all time, and it has a plot hole that you could drive a truck through. (In case you didn't notice it either: Kane dies alone, and the whole movie is an investigation into his last word, "Rosebud." Only one minor problem...if he dies alone, how in the world does anybody know what his last word was? ) I never take critics to heart, as I rarely agree with them.