(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmovies.apple.com%2Ftrailers%2Fsony_pictures%2Fimages%2Fda_vinci_code_poster.jpg&hash=5f849852ad242259e2b3143785bd13bdb780c26f)
Teaser Trailer here. (http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/)
Release Date: May 19th, 2006 (wide)
Cast: Tom Hanks (Dr. Robert Langdon), Audrey Tautou (Agent Sophie Neveu), Jean Reno (Captain Bezu Fache), Ian McKellen (Sir Leigh Teabing), Alfred Molina (Bishop Aringarosa)
Director: Ron Howard (Parenthood, A Beautiful Mind, Willow, Apollo 13, Cinderella Man)
Screenwriter: Akiva Goldsman (Lost in Space, Batman & Robin, A Beautiful Mind; cowriter of Cinderella Man)
Based Upon: This movie is based upon the mystery/suspense novel by Dan Brown.
Premise: When respected American religious symbology expert Dr. Robert Langdon (Hanks) is summoned to the Louvre by the French version of the FBI, led by Captain Fezu Bache (Reno), he soon discovered that he is the #1 suspect for the murder of a historian Langdon had been scheduled to meet with. Assisted by a French cryptographer and government agent named Sophie (Tautou), Langdon is challenged to decipher a chain of cryptic codes and puzzles, all the while trying to stay ahead of Bache's lawmen in a chase through the Louvre, and out into the Parisian cityscape, and finally across the channel to England. Can Langdon and Sophie decipher the nature of a secret dating back to Leonardo Da Vinci (and even earlier) before those responsible for the historian's murder add them to their hit list?
hanks is all wrong for this.
not like i liked the book or anything....
This trailer is as bad as the synopsis of the novel from the book's dust jacket.
What a lame trailer.
I love the speaker in that teaser.
Code Reveals Bettany
Silas has been cast.
Variety reports that Paul Bettany will reunite with his A Beautiful Mind director Ron Howard for the latter's next project, the big-screen adaptation of Dan Brown's best-selling The Da Vinci Code.
The trade claims Bettany will portray the villainous albino Silas. The character has become controversial, with many groups protesting the depiction of an albino as evil.
Bettany's credits include Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Wimbledon and A Knight's Tale.
The Da Vinci Code begins filming next month for a May 2006 release. Tom Hanks, Audrey Tautou, Ian McKellen, Jean Reno and Alfred Molina star.
Quote from: MacGuffinJean Reno
hahaha. good luck, ron.
I don't get it...?
too bad they aren't doing Angels and Demons, far superior book.
haha, of course you'd read Dan Brown.
British Abbey rejects Da Vinci Code film plans
Producers of the upcoming movie based on the blockbuster novel "The Da Vinci Code" were not allowed to film in Britain's Westminster Abbey after church officials denounced the book as "theologically unsound."
The 940-year-old London Abbey, where British monarchs are crowned, features in the international murder mystery by U.S. author Dan Brown which has been condemned by the Vatican and Anglican Church leaders for distorting the Christian message.
The novel alleges Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had children, whereas Christians are taught that Christ never married and was childless when he was crucified.
"Although a real page turner, 'The Da Vinci code' is theologically unsound and we cannot commend or endorse the contentious and wayward religious and historic suggestions made in the book -- nor its views of Christianity and the New Testament," the Abbey said in a statement.
"It would therefore be inappropriate to film scenes from the book here."
Last week officials at Lincoln Cathedral in eastern England said they had agreed to allow their building to be used by the makers of the forthcoming film, which stars Tom Hanks as the book's central character Professor Robert Langdon.
The statement from Westminster Abbey, which appears in scenes toward the end of Brown's novel, also insisted some of the book's details were factually inaccurate.
It said it would be providing the Abbey's marshals with information to clear up the mistakes for visiting tourists drawn to the church by its appearance in The Da Vinci Code.
"We are already receiving regular, daily inquiries related to the book and we expect these to continue and even grow in the next couple of years, even with no effort on our own part, simply because the book is so popular," its statement said.
NEW Trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/
Good: The freakin' Louvre.
Bad: Am I going to have to pay for a damn ticket before I get to hear Audrey Tautou speak English?
Wins: Tom Hanks' wig-maker.
Quote from: polkablues on December 14, 2005, 01:06:58 PM
Good: The freakin' Louvre.
Bad: Am I going to have to pay for a damn ticket before I get to hear Audrey Tautou speak English?
Wins: Tom Hanks' wig-maker.
Agreed. Except, I still didn't like this trailer. Aint It Cool is hamming this bitch up.
Quote from: polkablues on December 14, 2005, 01:06:58 PM
Bad: Am I going to have to pay for a damn ticket before I get to hear Audrey Tautou speak English?
Or you could rent Dirty Pretty Things.
Quote from: polkablues on December 14, 2005, 01:06:58 PM
Wins: Tom Hanks' wig-maker.
Indeed.
All in all, it looks good enough for the hardcore fans of the book not to bitch about it too much. It's a movie that can pretty much film itself, as was proven to me by the shot of the old man running through the Louvre being IDENTICAL to what I imagined when I read the book 2 years ago. It also proved to me that I don't really need to see the movie at all. More than likely, I will, but I don't need to.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 14, 2005, 05:36:56 PM
Quote from: polkablues on December 14, 2005, 01:06:58 PM
Bad: Am I going to have to pay for a damn ticket before I get to hear Audrey Tautou speak English?
Or you could rent Dirty Pretty Things.
Oh, yeah. Forgot about that one. :oops:
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 14, 2005, 05:36:56 PM
It also proved to me that I don't really need to see the movie at all. More than likely, I will, but I don't need to.
It's better than that, though. Because once the movie comes out, it means no one will ever need to read Dan Brown's shitty prose ever again. Ron Howard is saving the world from bad literature!
the da vinci who?
Quote from: polkablues on December 14, 2005, 08:50:28 PM
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 14, 2005, 05:36:56 PM
It also proved to me that I don't really need to see the movie at all. More than likely, I will, but I don't need to.
It's better than that, though. Because once the movie comes out, it means no one will ever need to read Dan Brown's shitty prose ever again. Ron Howard is saving the world from bad literature!
He's too late. That damn book came out over 2 years ago and I still see people on the subway reading it or other Dan Brown books. And it's misleading to use the word "literature." He writes novel-length script treatments. Or rather the same novel-length script treatment over and over again with different objects and occasionally characters thrown in.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 14, 2005, 11:23:06 PM
the da vinci who?
It's like Shakespeare in Love, just with Da Vinci and the Mona Lisa.
it's like every Americans' fantasy--the Everyman using his wit to outwit those snobby Frenchmen who love art and literature and other things the Good Americans won't stand for--and that includes Jesus. It's like when they have the British asshole on American idol. It's a joyless, humorless Indiana Jones.
come on, the last chapter was pretty fucking hilarious.
Quote from: Ultrahip on December 15, 2005, 11:41:14 AM
come on, the last chapter was pretty fucking hilarious.
i've been told that if i'm gonna read this crap i should only read the last chapter. is it worth the effort?
nope.
from imdb trivia:
"24" (2001) creator Joel Surnow thought that "The DaVinci Code" would provide a great storyline for the show's third season. Surnow asked his boss, producer Brian Grazer about acquiring the film rights to the book. Author Dan Brown had no intention of his book being adapted for a TV show, and rejected their bid. Months later, Sony Pictures paid $6 million for the book and hired Grazer as producer.
Quote from: Pubrick on December 15, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: Ultrahip on December 15, 2005, 11:41:14 AM
come on, the last chapter was pretty fucking hilarious.
i've been told that if i'm gonna read this crap i should only read the last chapter. is it worth the effort?
Definitely, definitely not.
Quote from: polkablues on December 15, 2005, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on December 15, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: Ultrahip on December 15, 2005, 11:41:14 AM
come on, the last chapter was pretty fucking hilarious.
i've been told that if i'm gonna read this crap i should only read the last chapter. is it worth the effort?
Definitely, definitely not.
I disagree. Next time you're at the library, pick it up, read the last chapter, put it back, and take out Foucault's Pendulum instead. That way, it's not noted anywhere that you took out Da Vinci Code, you didn't pay any money for it, and you can avoid seeing the movie and not ever wonder in the slightest that you're missing out on something.
No, seeing the movie should be okay, since it's a fun story, just bad, awful, atrocious prose. And on the screen, you don't have to be worried about being poisoned by Dan Brown's writing.
...just Akiva Goldsman's.
I'm only seeing this because of Tom's hair.
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 15, 2005, 02:03:10 PM
Quote from: polkablues on December 15, 2005, 01:52:11 PM
Quote from: Pubrick on December 15, 2005, 11:42:47 AM
Quote from: Ultrahip on December 15, 2005, 11:41:14 AM
come on, the last chapter was pretty fucking hilarious.
i've been told that if i'm gonna read this crap i should only read the last chapter. is it worth the effort?
Definitely, definitely not.
I disagree. Next time you're at the library, pick it up, read the last chapter, put it back, and take out Foucault's Pendulum instead. That way, it's not noted anywhere that you took out Da Vinci Code, you didn't pay any money for it, and you can avoid seeing the movie and not ever wonder in the slightest that you're missing out on something.
haha ok. i've decided i won't read the book, i'll just watch the last 10 minutes of the movie. :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: Garam on December 18, 2005, 11:51:29 AM
I've heard the book's worth reading for the hilarity factor alone. Is it?
Possibly.
If the idea of a novel in which it takes a world-renowned symbology professor
and a professional cryptographer 30 pages to figure out that the code they're trying to crack is
BACKWARDS WRITING tickles your fancy, by all means pick it up. It's full of groan-worthy moments like that.
Quote from: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:42:18 PMIf the idea of a novel in which it takes a world-renowned symbology professor and a professional cryptographer 30 pages to figure out that the code they're trying to crack is BACKWARDS WRITING tickles your fancy, by all means pick it up. It's full of groan-worthy moments like that.
Backwards "hold-it-to-a-mirror," or backwards "sdrawkcab?"
Those who want a truly thought provoking novel of similiar characteristics should look to Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. My username was lifted from that novel.
Quote from: onomabracadabra on December 18, 2005, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:42:18 PMIf the idea of a novel in which it takes a world-renowned symbology professor and a professional cryptographer 30 pages to figure out that the code they're trying to crack is BACKWARDS WRITING tickles your fancy, by all means pick it up. It's full of groan-worthy moments like that.
Backwards "hold-it-to-a-mirror," or backwards "sdrawkcab?"
Mirror-backwards, as I recall. I just remember seeing the page with the code on it, going, "Oh, it's backwards." Then reading. Then thinking, "Why don't they see that it's backwards?" Then reading more. Then thinking, "What the hell is the matter with these people?" Then I remember yelling at the book for a while, then I blacked out. Then one of the characters went, "Oh, it's backwards."
Quote from: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:53:30 PM
Quote from: onomabracadabra on December 18, 2005, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:42:18 PMIf the idea of a novel in which it takes a world-renowned symbology professor and a professional cryptographer 30 pages to figure out that the code they're trying to crack is BACKWARDS WRITING tickles your fancy, by all means pick it up. It's full of groan-worthy moments like that.
Backwards "hold-it-to-a-mirror," or backwards "sdrawkcab?"
Mirror-backwards, as I recall. I just remember seeing the page with the code on it, going, "Oh, it's backwards." Then reading. Then thinking, "Why don't they see that it's backwards?" Then reading more. Then thinking, "What the hell is the matter with these people?" Then I remember yelling at the book for a while, then I blacked out. Then one of the characters went, "Oh, it's backwards."
You're joking, it's that stupid? and isn't mirror-backwards the same as sdrawkcab?
Quote from: Gamblour on December 18, 2005, 08:06:27 PM
You're joking, it's that stupid? and isn't mirror-backwards the same as sdrawkcab?
I'm not joking, it's that stupid, and here's the difference:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fbackwards.jpg&hash=a1bd536210d44f94bab6b0addd51e243d3ce25c5)
Quote from: onomabracadabra on December 18, 2005, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: polkablues on December 18, 2005, 06:42:18 PMIf the idea of a novel in which it takes a world-renowned symbology professor and a professional cryptographer 30 pages to figure out that the code they're trying to crack is BACKWARDS WRITING tickles your fancy, by all means pick it up. It's full of groan-worthy moments like that.
Backwards "hold-it-to-a-mirror," or backwards "sdrawkcab?"
oh my god I laughed so hard at that. yes!
Wow. That's insanely funny. I gotta check this out for myself.
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 18, 2005, 06:47:52 PM
Those who want a truly thought provoking novel of similiar characteristics should look to Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. My username was lifted from that novel.
that's what hacksparrow said..
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 15, 2005, 02:03:10 PM
Next time you're at the library, pick it up, read the last chapter, put it back, and take out Foucault's Pendulum instead.
3MTA3
Quote from: Pubrick on December 18, 2005, 09:57:05 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on December 18, 2005, 06:47:52 PM
Those who want a truly thought provoking novel of similiar characteristics should look to Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum. My username was lifted from that novel.
that's what hacksparrow said..
Quote from: hacksparrow on December 15, 2005, 02:03:10 PM
Next time you're at the library, pick it up, read the last chapter, put it back, and take out Foucault's Pendulum instead.
I knew only reading three posts would have some consequences to it.
that hes licensed to ill...
Howard mentions being inspired by Exorcist, Rosemary's Baby, All The Presidents Men & Marathon Man. now i'm interested...
interview with Howard & clip: http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&g=9ffec4d4-d3ab-416b-ac0e-
now, notsomuch.
New Trailer here. (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?id=1418215&sdm=web&qtw=480&qth=300)
The Da Vinci Code secret is out: critics hate it
Critics panned "The Da Vinci Code" on Wednesday ahead of the world premiere of the year's most eagerly awaited movie.
Opening the annual Cannes film festival, Ron Howard's adaptation of the Dan Brown bestseller was described variously as "grim," "unwieldy" and "plodding."
Even before its general release on May 18 and 19, the movie starring Tom Hanks generated much controversy as Christians around the world called for it to be banned.
The novel has enraged religious groups because one of its characters argues that Jesus Christ married Mary Magdalene and had a child by her, and that elements within the Catholic Church resorted to murder to hide the truth.
In Thailand on Wednesday, a police-run censorship board overturned an earlier decision to cut the last 10 minutes of the film, but insisted the distributor added disclaimers stating it was fiction.
And in addition to Vatican calls to boycott the picture, the Indian government said it would show the movie to Christian groups before clearing it for release. In the mainly Catholic Philippines the censors have given it an "adult only" rating.
At a news conference, Howard and Hanks defended the film, calling it a piece of fiction. British actor Alfred Molina, who plays a Machiavellian bishop in the movie, blamed the media for creating controversy where there was little or none.
At a screening late on Tuesday in Cannes, members of the audience laughed at the thriller's pivotal moment, and the end of the $125 million picture was greeted with stony silence.
Trade publication Variety had barely a nice word to say.
"A pulpy page-turner in its original incarnation as a huge international bestseller has become a stodgy, grim thing in the exceedingly literal-minded film version of The Da Vinci Code," wrote Todd McCarthy.
Lee Marshall of Screen International agreed.
"I haven't read the book, but I just thought there was a ridiculous amount of exposition," he told Reuters.
"I thought it was plodding and there was a complete lack of chemistry between Audrey Tautou and Tom Hanks."
BOX OFFICE BLOW?
While critics argue the controversy surrounding the film, and the fact that more than 40 million people have bought the book, will ensure a strong box office performance, word-of-mouth is likely to hit sales later on.
The movie industry will be watching The Da Vinci Code particularly closely after the first two summer blockbusters -- "Mission: Impossible III" and "Poseidon" -- failed to find the Hollywood Grail of box office success.
Hanks defended the film against its critics.
"This is not a documentary. This is not something that is pulled up and says 'These are the facts and this is exactly what happened.' ... People who think things are true might be more dangerous than people who ponder the possibilities that maybe they are and maybe they aren't."
Howard had some advice for those who objected to the story.
"There's no question that the film is likely to be upsetting to some people. My advice is ... to not go and see the movie if you think you're going to be upset."
Ian McKellen, an openly gay actor who plays Leigh Teabing in The Da Vinci Code, sought to make light of the controversy.
"I'm very happy to believe that Jesus was married," he said. "I know the Catholic Church has problems with gay people and I thought this would be absolute proof that Jesus was not gay."
The Da Vinci Code premiere late on Wednesday kicks off 12 hectic days of screenings, interviews, photocalls and partying in Cannes, the world's biggest film festival.
I haven't read the book and I'm not interested in the movie. I've tuned out everything regarding this movie, and I don't care if it makes money or flops, but I have to say that seeing a 00% by The Da Vinci Code at Rotten Tomatoes made my day.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lckc.org%2Fimages%2FPolar-Bear-Swim-2004%2Fimages%2F21%2520belly%2520flop.jpg&hash=4c7ea45045bb5d6eba941f54ee8a16030bf80654)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flyingsites.co.uk%2Ffeatures%2Fimages%2Frchotel%2Fscore.jpg&hash=f4caadc3601069399a75ad300906ea9004587dac)
Quote from: matt35mm on May 17, 2006, 04:32:33 PM
I haven't read the book and I'm not interested in the movie. I've tuned out everything regarding this movie, and I don't care if it makes money or flops, but I have to say that seeing a 00% by The Da Vinci Code at Rotten Tomatoes made my day.
:nono:
actually i am excited that critics are hating this film...usually the ones they praise are rather cheesy ones...[apollo 13, cinderella man, backdraft, ransom, a beautiful mind].....as for da vinci code, never read the source material...but the premise sounds fascinating, and the cast is amazing...looking forward to this one...
Quote from: pyramid machine on May 19, 2006, 12:35:35 AM
Quote from: matt35mm on May 17, 2006, 04:32:33 PM
I haven't read the book and I'm not interested in the movie. I've tuned out everything regarding this movie, and I don't care if it makes money or flops, but I have to say that seeing a 00% by The Da Vinci Code at Rotten Tomatoes made my day.
:nono:
actually i am excited that critics are hating this film...usually the ones they praise are rather cheesy ones...[apollo 13, cinderella man, backdraft, ransom, a beautiful mind].....as for da vinci code, never read the source material...but the premise sounds fascinating, and the cast is amazing...looking forward to this one...
Oh, those movies are cheesy? You mean as opposed to Ron Howard's other films...
Quote from: matt35mm on May 17, 2006, 04:32:33 PM
seeing a 00% by The Da Vinci Code at Rotten Tomatoes made my day.
Its up to 16% now. Is this movie really that bad or are the critics just tired of Da Vinci Code fever?
probably bad.
I just came back from a packed theater. The audience grew very bored very quickly. Tom Hanks reminded me of an early Brendan Frasier. The film is very boring, much like the majority of little Ronnies films. Film will tank after this weekend.
Quote from: md on May 19, 2006, 09:41:09 PM
I just came back from a packed theater. The audience grew very bored very quickly. Tom Hanks reminded me of an early Brendan Frasier. The film is very boring, much like the majority of little Ronnies films. Film will tank after this weekend.
Yeah, it's pretty blah. This movie is pretty much an action film loosely held together by the idea of the "Da Vinci Code." (I haven't read the book - Is it like this too, a treasure hunt vaguely stitched together by this idea?) It's not a very exciting film either. I thought it was pretty unintentionally hilarious. My favorite moment was where Silas stands behind Audrey Tautou in the background not doing anything for a while, then she turns around and sees him... and he immediately CHARGES AT HER! Pretty much everyone important to the plot switches sides at some point and the final revelation is visible from a light year away. I lost interest about forty-five minutes in and spaced out for five minutes or so. When I started paying attention to the film again I didn't seem to have missed anything.
Quote from: Ginger on May 19, 2006, 11:34:53 PM
I thought it was pretty unintentionally hilarious. My favorite moment was where Silas stands behind Audrey Tautou in the background not doing anything for a while, then she turns around and sees him... and he immediately CHARGES AT HER!
i think i appreciate this kinda crap in movies more than ever nowadays, it almost makes me wanna see it. that sounds obi-wan-entrance-at-epIII's-climax hilarious, chewbacca-speak hilarious, NOOOOOOOOOOOO hilarious.
Roger Ebert give it three stars
Classic Ron Howard. It should have been a no-brainer but he managed to ruin it. The biggest problem facing ol' "Batman & Robin" Goldsman when writing the script should have been, "How do you condense all those pages and pages of explaining history and theology without having the characters go on and on and on and on about things while still making sure the audience gets it?" It's been a few years since I read the book but I don't remember so many instances of, after long lectures on something or someone, someone saying, "So what you're saying is [insert dumbed-down version of what was just said]." Maybe it was in the book but it was so glaringly awful in the movie.
So that script and the pacing were just terrible. Hanks and his hair didn't bother me as much I expected but for a book that was so compulsively readable, and so seemingly ideal for film adaptation, it was so lifeless. That said, my two friends who never read the book want to now; they thought the movie wasn't bad.
The perfect director to take this story and make it as great of a film as it could have been unfortunately died in 1980 so...
29.5 MILLION DOMESTIC OPENING DAY... not bad!
Quote from: hacksparrow on May 20, 2006, 07:56:34 AM
The perfect director to take this story and make it as great of a film as it could have been unfortunately died in 1980 so...
Hiroshi Inagaki?
don't be silly. hacksparrow's obviously talking about jorge luis borges.
Thankfully, I think even the maddening crowd is unenthusiatic about this movie. People walking out of the theater I work at just seemed tired and unhappy. We had Catholic protesters too. On the way in from a food run, I just told them, "It's not a very good movie. Don't worry."
I just saw it and really if it wasnt because of the hype about the book, this movie wouldnt exist. The story is good (I read the book) and I was thinking that maybe without the hype, they would have made the movie better. Usually movies based on good books that didnt get a lot of publciity turn up better.
But honestly, with all the publciity and marketing and the fact that the movie was being released in May, nobody seriously could have thought this was a serious well done film contender of an Oscar. It was obviously a summer flick with the only goal of capitalizing on one of the best selling books ever.
Audrey Tatou wasnt that bad though. The rest of them, yeah. And it was too long. Other than that, I still recommend the book.
One thing i really was thinking is that probably 80% of the theatre didnt understand what the fuck was happening. Americans are very ignorant. They worship JC and religion because they tell them they should, and nobody really knows history. The bible is used as FACTs sometimes, even by our President, and nobody really cares to understand why certain things are the way they are. I think that ignorance made people get interested in the movie, but then made them also not understand shit, and thats why nobody liked it.
"
Quote from: kal on May 21, 2006, 10:02:38 PM
One thing i really was thinking is that probably 80% of the theatre didnt understand what the fuck was happening. Americans are very ignorant. They worship JC and religion because they tell them they should, and nobody really knows history. The bible is used as FACTs sometimes, even by our President, and nobody really cares to understand why certain things are the way they are. I think that ignorance made people get interested in the movie, but then made them also not understand shit, and thats why nobody liked it.
and of course by "history", you mean the da vinci code.
why do you always have to answer like a retard?
i mean the real story of jesus, who he was, what he did, and why he is so important... everybody knows he is but nobody knows why. thats why nodody really knows the difference between history and the da vinci code.
Prequel to Da Vinci Code in the works
Source: Moviehole
At least we'll see the disappointment coming this time.
Hot on the heels of its fiscally advantageous opening weekend, Sony has announced plans to do a prequel to "The Da Vinci Code", says PR INSIDE.
Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons", set before the events of the Hanks flickeroo, will be the next literary puzzle to get the big-screen treatment.
"We are very interested in filming Angels and Demons. We hope that the relationship with Dan Brown will be a long one. That could be the next project", says Sony Pictures Entertainment vice-chairman, Jeff Blake.
"Demons" introduces the character Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), and involves a conflict between an ancient group, the Illuminati, and the Catholic Church. It is credited with being the first novel to contain ambigrams.
Quote from: kal on May 22, 2006, 10:35:40 AM
why do you always have to answer like a retard?
i mean the real story of jesus, who he was, what he did, and why he is so important... everybody knows he is but nobody knows why. thats why nodody really knows the difference between history and the da vinci code.
oooh please elaborate on "history", AndyK. this will be no less than entertaining. go on. go on.
fuck you
This movie was crap. Tom Hanks was a goon. Parts of it looked/felt like the History Channel, which I have no problem with - were I watching the history channel.
Quote from: pete on May 22, 2006, 11:33:58 AM
Quote from: kal on May 22, 2006, 10:35:40 AM
why do you always have to answer like a retard?
i mean the real story of jesus, who he was, what he did, and why he is so important... everybody knows he is but nobody knows why. thats why nodody really knows the difference between history and the da vinci code.
oooh please elaborate on "history", AndyK. this will be no less than entertaining. go on. go on.
are you a writer for family guy?
Akiva Goldsman and Ron Howard both make me want to pull my hair out, but I think this movie was sort of redeemed for me by the story, since I haven't read the book. That said, it sort of makes me want to avoid the book. All the twists seemed cheap and meaningless, and the mystery seemed childish... especially with Ian McKellen's ridiculous performance. Did Ron Howard use the first take of every scene? He managed to entirely ruin the performances of at least five very good actors (the main trio plus Bettany and Molina). There was not one good performance in this movie... not even one moment of satisfactory acting that I can remember.
Remember the jump cuts where something physically painful is happening? (The murder at the beginning and Bettany's sadism thing, for example.) Those are the most absurd and ineffective jump cuts I've ever seen. Oh, right, Hans Zimmer... that didn't help... Did the producers just look for every hack within viewing distance? What bothers me the most perhaps is that half of Audrey Tautou's dialogue was made to sound like narration, ruining her first major American performance.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on May 23, 2006, 11:30:20 AM
Hans Zimmer... that didn't help...
I forgot about (blocked out) the score. Not only was it terrible in its own right, but a lot of it didn't even seem to fit the scenes. Why is Zimmer going against everything he learned scoring Bruckheimer films? Did he really blow his load after Thin Red Line?
The whole storyline cheapened the investigation and suffered from the problems of Titanic, Pearl Harbor, etc. (the assumption that history is boring without a romantic plot driving it around). The Da Vinci Code was a big letdown and unless the book is so amazing and I need to read it, I think now I'll just be able to stay afloat in conversations about it.
Quote from: Walrus on May 25, 2006, 06:32:46 PM
The Da Vinci Code was a big letdown and unless the book is so amazing and I need to read it, I think now I'll just be able to stay afloat in conversations about it.
Well, most of the conversations I have about it usually end with:
"Have you read the book?" :saywhat:
"No...." :oops:
"Ohhhhhhhhhhhh." :ponder:
:doh:
haha that reminds me of the time when I said I didn't like my big fat greek wedding and this big greek dude asked me if I was Greek. clearly I wasn't, so I said no, and he was like "welllll, there ya go."
And then he shoved a gyro into Pete's face.
i think all the bad reviews are inadvertently driving more people to see and love this sucker.
because if i have this conversation one more time...
AVIDFAN#412: Have you seen Davinci Code yet?
CBRAD: nope.
AVIDFAN#412: It's sooo good.
CBRAD: it's getting pretty shitty reviews across the board.
AVIDFAN#412: Oh who cares. I never listen to them anyway.
... i'm gonna.... do...something...
We here more than anybody know how often reviews are wrong... so its good for me that people who are curious about it go without listening to some idiots subjective opinion. However, they are right in this one!
Quote from: kal on May 26, 2006, 07:22:18 PM
We here more than anybody know how often reviews are wrong... so its good for me that people who are curious about it go without listening to some idiots subjective opinion. However, they are right in this one!
It seems to always work for the wrong films though.
Oftentimes, the films we end up loving, that receive negative reviews, are the very ones those people avoid because of those very critics. However, if it's a film like this one, that already has an incredible following (that's apparently growing day by day, i guess), then they won't pay any attention to what anyone says.
So, it's not really people waking up to how wrong bad reviews can be, they're just too stubborn to listen.
i knew better (after the hideous reviews anyway) but yeah, i saw this anyway. i like tom hanks and amelie and i thought it had LOOKed good. but it wasnt very good. it wasnt horrible but it certainly wasnt very good. it was like National Treasure but without fun.
Not to beat up on something that's already lying in a pool of its own broken bloody flesh from every other critic out there, but I don't think anyone here has acknowledged QUITE how arse-clenchingly awful this film actually is.
I just saw it last night, and I can honestly say I haven't seen a worse film in the cinema for a long, long time. I consider myself pretty easily pleased - I'll always find something to enjoy in most films, and this really left me struggling.
First, it had the worst overuse of flashbacks of any film ever: the epitome was when they decided they needed a brief flashback that told us HOW THEY GOT FROM A PLANE TO A CAR. The tone was totally wrong: should've been a rollercoaster, was instead a donkey ride - they should have realised that the story works best as a SLIGHTLY upmarket Indiana Jones. The performances were woefully poe-faced, except perhaps for McKellen who camped it up almost appropriately. All the ghostly past-in-the-present-day effects were just unbelievably silly, making it feel - as A Matter of Chance mentioned - very like some budget TV documentary.
In fact, the thing that maybe riled me most was how like a TV show it looked and felt altogether: from the very first scenes - diving in in the middle of intensity, fast-moving character intros and level-plane drama throughout - it felt like an episode of 24, and the way it obsessed over technology and dived into the mechanics of objects, and quickly worked infinite clues out, was just so goddamn CSI. The scenes too: short and shot pretty much always in close up and medium close up - it was so uncinematic, so clumsy, so... SHIT.
And I'm done. Not to beat up on something that's already lying in a pool of its own broken bloody flesh from every other critic out there.
I'm going to eat my words from another thread, but I enjoyed this movie. Worst, I even appreciated parts of it.
There is a bias to me though with this film. I love the subject of the Knights Templar. Ever since I read Focault's Pendulum years ago I could never get enough of the subject. The Da Vinci Code only prodded my interest in them again. Watching this film happily go back and forth with conspiracy ideas was a perfect and happy holiday for me. The great scenery of Paris and France only sealed the deal after the subject. All knowing fans of French Cinema know that at the doorstop of every potential bad French film is the likely chance great scenery will make the film still worth the experience.
Of course, I paid little attention to the film story-wise besides the Templar quips. I knew only silliness and bad melodrama existed at the heart of Audrey Tatou's character's story, but why bother ruining a good ride through France. I will commend the film for Ron Howard's larger sense of film-making. In earlier films like The Paper and Apollo 13 the subjects were ripe to be filmed in one tonal level. Trying to catch the frenzy of the news room with constant camera fast tracking in The Paper and over reliance on hand held in Apollo 13 to capture a barren claustrophobia. Apollo 13 was justified filmmaking because of the subject, but The Paper was limited filmmaking understanding. The filmmaking never was able to flesh the story out besides pressing the buttons "calm" and "tense" in its dial up of emotions. It was a good study of how to film a newspaper room in its very specific moment of "rush"
But, Ron Howard surprised me with The Da Vinci Code. Because of how redudant the film is to chase sequences, the filmmaking could have been monotonous. He switches well between all the sequences. The first chase sequence, by far the longest, doesn't over use the act of steering past oncoming traffic overbearingly. It tightly focuses on two risky car movements and then ends the sequence. The focus of the car chase sequences then begins to diminish and Howard plays with graphic realism more so than he has before. He uses it sparingly (I only counted two scenes) but they were at the right moments. He tinkers with computer animation to interact with character drama but is never overabundant.The historical sequences also play to a good shade of color tinting that hide obvious CGI stains.
This movie sucked, I'm so sick of shitty movies. This, X3, Marie Antoinette and Southland Tales are getting bad reviews, and yet Clerks 2 gets an 8 minute standing ovation?
children with angels is right, the flashbacks are terribly used and redundant. And why the fuck does Ron Howard feel the need to visualize every thought a character has when they're "decrypting" something. In A Beautiful Mind and this, he has to highlight the descrambling going on, it's so fucking stupid. He thinks the audience is so stupid. Go back to narrating, Ron. This movie is so obviously bad I can't even bother talking about it.
There is little mystery that I hold the critic Stanley Kauffmann up on a pedestal. For the last few years I've aligned my opinion to stand up only against his. He was really the only critic I read. Sometimes I went back to Roger Ebert but not often. Now I've forced myself to read as many critics as possible. I've found I agree more with other critics, but I always go back to Stanley Kauffmann to truly challenge my opinion because he looks at every film in the broadest sense. He is, as the NY Times recently said, "the closest to the complete critic." The auteur theory has galvanized critics and audience alike to give luster to the director, while Kauffmann keeps the balance in line.
His review of The Da Vinci Code is (again) the very best review of an overly popular film. Nobody is as understanding of placement for a film as Kauffmann and his review is the most entertaining and insightful for this film. I hold firm to my opinion, but Kauffmann again makes me think I didn't think enough about this movie. I've had doubts lately about him, but this review proves to me he's still the very best critic going at the great age of 90.
Divining Divinity
Stanley Kauffmann
The film medium has just been given a tremendous salute--negative but tremendous. Only when the film version of The Da Vinci Code loomed did Christian protests swell around the world. Consider that Dan Brown's novel has sold (according to some reports) sixty million copies and is still rushing along. Figure conservatively that each copy has been read by two people. Thus a sizeable chunk of the world's population has read the book. And what was the outcry from vigilant Christian groups about this fact? Relatively faint. Books have been published about Brown's book, numberless articles written, but no Christian leader had suggested, as did one recently in India, that Christians fast unto death to protest the novel. Only the film brought such a drastic plea.
The theater, too, in a comparable instance, has not evoked an ecclesiastical storm. Last year the National Theater in London produced Howard Brenton's play Paul, about the apostle, in which there appeared Mary Magdalene as Jesus's wife and several apostles who try to convince Paul of Jesus's mortality, death, and burial in Syria. These are some of the matters in the Da Vinci film that enrage many Christians, but as for the Brenton play, although there were letters of protest before it opened, its run was undisturbed.
Hail, then, wry though the hailing be, to the immediacy and the ubiquity of film. Those of the faithful who feel that Brown's work attacks and offends their faith clearly recognize that film floods into a viewer's system of responses much more engulfingly than a book can. In a film, most of the work of transmutation from words to effect has already been done for the viewer.
This is a century-old truth, and when the adapted novel is a good one, it raises some unanswerable questions. For example, to those who questioned the very filming of A Passage to India because in considerable measure it displaced Forster with David Lean, the only sane response was "Stay home and re-read the book." With many a novel, however, the film version is superior--Alain Tavernier's The Clockmaker is one such. With Brown, the difference in quality is certainly in favor of the film. I couldn't read the book (all those one-sentence paragraphs, as if the author were out of breath), but I sat through the film. Tom Hanks and Ian McKellen helped as Brown could not.
How faithful Akiva Goldsman's screenplay is to the book I leave to Brownians. Undoubtedly many viewers will spend their time at the film comparing it with the book, favorably or not. I am free of this bondage. I can report that the screenplay is at the start far from lucid in setting forth characters and relationships and intents. And after the film has been barreling along for two hours of its 148-minute journey, it seems to have lost the ability to finish. Three or four times in the last half-hour, I thought the film was over, only to be jarred by more of it.
The story focuses on Robert Langdon, a professor of symbology at Harvard. Langdon is lecturing in Paris when a man is murdered at the Louvre, and he is called in to help explain some symbols on the body. Also brought in is a police cryptographer--a pretty young woman, of course--to collaborate. (Has there ever been a cryptographer on the Paris police force?) In collaboration with a police inspector and later in contest with him, the pair follow clues and have adventures in the territory of religious history. The central question is whether the story of Jesus was accurately reported in the Gospels.
Although the murder takes place in the vicinity of the Mona Lisa (which is featured on the paperback edition of the novel), the story has much more to do with The Last Supper. What is never touched in the film is the fact that if Da Vinci included a code in this painting, he must have believed in the ideas conveyed by that code. This, for good reason, is never asserted.
The adventurous pair contend throughout with an albino monk in murderous pursuit of those who are considered enemies of Christ by the religious eminences whom he serves. Involved, too, is a rich, elderly scholar, physically impaired, who knows Langdon and helps--for a while. It turns out, according to this story, after all the trails have been followed and codes unraveled, that Jesus had children and that the cryptologist is his linear descendant. (I can't really spoil the ending of a book that has had--is having--many millions of readers.)
Audrey Tautou is the cryptographer and in herself is the best refutation of the book's thesis. Pretty though she is, she is so flavorless, such a mere maker of faces, that it is hard to believe in her family tree. McKellen has a marvelous time as the old scholar, implying, as he goes plummily along, that it was worthwhile to do all the serious acting in his career because it brought him this well-paid frolic. Tom Hanks is Langdon. He continues to be a pleasant fellow to spend time with, which is not the same thing as giving a good performance. But the role as written would have hobbled Edwin Booth. Langdon has a lot of things to say and do, but we know little more about him at the long-delayed end than we did at the beginning. The director, Ron Howard, has worked with Hanks several times before, and they seem to get along with each other, comfortably but without distinction.
After all the shenanigans are over, what we are left with is neither the novel nor the film but the fact of the novel's oceanic success. (Cultural note: the Louvre is now offering its visitors, for rent or sale, an audio tour called "Step Inside the Da Vinci Code." So the Louvre has already stepped inside.) Social historians have doubtless been exploring the reasons that a book built on the non-divinity of Christ has swept the world. The attribution of common mortality to Jesus is not new--in fiction, at any rate. In the 1960s I read a novel, title forgotten, in which Jesus was gay. Part of Brown's explosive success may be because, despite the statistics about religious attendance, doubt is gnawing at millions. Or perhaps it is because, whetted for decades by the enlarged media, people thirst most of all for the inside story on anything. Exposé, even specious exposé, has become an obsession.
I've never heard the phrase "So what you're saying is..." so many times in a movie before.
Quote from: Walrus on June 11, 2006, 12:02:22 PM
I've never heard the phrase "So what you're saying is..." so many times in a movie before.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.trevorstjohn.com%2Fimages%2Fmovie_biodome.jpg&hash=f28c7e780c55c0bb61733dbb3601ab87662e9c19)
Quote from: Walrus on June 11, 2006, 12:02:22 PM
I've never heard the phrase "So what you're saying is..." so many times in a movie before.
i believe that was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th line of every character in Dogma.
Even so, I think Walrus is still right.
So what you're saying is Dan Brown and Akiva Goldsman plagiarized from Pauly Shore and Kevin Smith.
A fascinating theory wrapped in a conventional thriller structure. Having not read the book, I did find interest in the whole Jesus blood/story line, but felt comfortable with seeing this Cliff Notes version than picking it up. The script was very heavy on the exposition, as noted in the posts above. If it was just a standard thriller not based on a controversial best seller, it would be somewhat above average, but because of that case, I could surmise that this was just a weak adaptation.
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 21, 2006, 06:56:42 PM
If it was just a standard thriller not based on a controversial best seller, it would be somewhat above average, but because of that case, I could surmise that this was just a weak adaptation.
Nope. Solid adaptation of crap source material.
Goldsman paid $4 million to re-enter Code
Source: Moviehole
According to Deadline Hollywood, shit is about to reign down on the multiplex again.
The second downpour will carry the title "The Da Vinci Code 2". Again, Akiva Goldsman will be standing in the thick of it.
The scribe of the first film – and the fuckin' awful "Batman & Robin", mind you - has reportedly signed a sumly deal ($4 million!) to write the sequel to the Ron Howard travesty.
According to the site, Goldsman has to get to work pretty fast on the sequel, because Sony wants the film ready for a 2008 release.
Considering all that Goldsman has to do is 'adapt' Dan Brown's book "Angels & Demons" into some sort of literary form – he doesn't have to dream up anything himself! – the amount he's being paid to do it is nonsensical. Looking at the guy's back catalogue, you gotta wonder why Sony felt the urge to fire a floor full of employees just so they could pay this guy to translate the book to script. Surely would've done it for 2 mill?
Haven't read "Angels & Demons", but from what I hear, it ain't half the book that "Da Vinci" is. It reportedly sees Robert Langdon involved in a conflict with an ancient group, the Illuminati, and the Catholic Church. It is credited with being the first novel to contain ambigrams.
Assumingly, Tom Hanks will be back to reprise his role as Langdon in the film version – unless, of course, the studio comes to their senses and hires Harrison Ford like they should've all along.