Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Interesting column by someone who was at Cannes.
1 posted on 05/18/2006 6:44:34 AM PDT by dynachrome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: dynachrome

Ishtar


2 posted on 05/18/2006 6:46:17 AM PDT by ChadGore (VISUALIZE 62,041,268 Bush fans. We Vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

Can you imagine all the panties in bundles if this movie portayed Mohammad in anything but a divine manner? I'm not just talking about those whacky muslims either.

My God....the worldwide jihad would be like armageddon.


3 posted on 05/18/2006 6:49:10 AM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

I hear Tom Hank's mullet is to blame for the fiasko


5 posted on 05/18/2006 6:50:17 AM PDT by Kurt_Hectic (Trust only what you see, not what you hear)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome
Everyone knows that the Da Vinci Code is really a comedy, except for Dan Brown, Ron Howard, and Tom Hanks.

When the most dramatic scene of the movie occurred in Cannes, the critics started laughing...

Some people take Jesus seriously.

Other people take the Hollyweird trio seriously -- Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Dan Brown... Maybe there is something in that Bevery Hills smog that we don't know about that gives these folks incredible visions of what reality really is...

Visit Hollyweird today...

7 posted on 05/18/2006 6:51:09 AM PDT by topher (Let us return to old-fashioned morality - morality that has stood the test of time...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

It's telling that they had to hedge their bets by casting a "box office draw"..Tom "Bosom Buddies"Hanks.


10 posted on 05/18/2006 6:52:58 AM PDT by SerpentDove (We will not stand by and allow politicians to destroy our country through open borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

The review at Fox news was not bad for it.


11 posted on 05/18/2006 6:53:54 AM PDT by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

The review at Fox news was not bad for it.


12 posted on 05/18/2006 6:53:56 AM PDT by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

I seldom agree with the critics on a movie. I'll wait until the movie is released to the public before I decide if I'll watch it or not.


13 posted on 05/18/2006 6:54:38 AM PDT by mbynack (Retired USAF SMSgt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

It appears that the producers of the movie got a bit too dismissive of the strong negative Christian reaction to the movie, especially with Sony Pictures' refusal to run a disclaimer about the movie being a work of fiction.


14 posted on 05/18/2006 6:56:16 AM PDT by RayChuang88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

It sounds like movie-goers are going to find that the film insults them more than it insults Christians and Christianity. Suckers.


17 posted on 05/18/2006 6:57:57 AM PDT by Spiff ("They start yelling, 'Murderer!' 'Traitor!' They call me by name." - Gael Murphy, Code Pink leader)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome
Most movie reviews are often subject to the critics expectations going in.

I remember when the original Blues Brothers movie came out, it got terrible reviews, I went to see it and I enjoyed it.

In contrast, the Blair Witch Project got rave reviews and it sucked so bad I wanted to sue somebody.
18 posted on 05/18/2006 6:59:05 AM PDT by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

Well let's see what the weekend box office comes out to. I'm predicting 50 or 60 million.


19 posted on 05/18/2006 6:59:27 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome
handing out a flyer stating that labelling Da Vinci as fiction was Tom Hank’s call and not Sony’s

Hanks wanted the movie labelled as fiction? First I've heard of that.

21 posted on 05/18/2006 7:00:45 AM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome
The last paragraph of the article states, "As well as turning off the Christians, Sony, Brown and Hanks have another worry about turning off the Jews."

It sounds like a two-fer to me. Not only does the movie manage to offend Christians but Jews also. I haven't read the book. Can anyone explain how the movie (or book) offends Jews?
24 posted on 05/18/2006 7:13:17 AM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

(I know I shouldn't) but I find it amazing that Ron Howard and Dan Brown would seek glory by clearly blaspheming the very essence of Christianity. I mean, even if one has a lack of faith, it seems that Paschal's law (the better bet is that God exists) would apply here. I don't presume to know the disposition of their souls, but suffice to say, they've been rather willing tools of Satan, and I hope they realize how offensive this whole thing is.

That said, the Church stands on truth, so the DaVinci code is no threat to the faith, per se, but the body of Christ (comprising you and I and all who believe) will definitely suffer from the loss of those who decided (or have already decided) that this is all true. That seems to me the overriding concern of the Church, as shepherd of the faithful...

Oh well. Best case scenario is this thing goes out with such a whimper that Dan Brown's work is thoroughly discredited by the public at large.


25 posted on 05/18/2006 7:16:08 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

Thanks for posting the article.

Ron Howard's past directions
have won him great esteem in
the American public and IMO
Dick and Jane Doe are going
to hold off until they see
the flick for themselves.

One thing that has perturbed
me re all this bugaboo about
the Opus Dei org is the fact
that anyone who has READ the
NOVEL is fully aware that the
true villain of the piece is
the mastermind who sends his
slave (the albino) out to
perform those murders. Also,
a READER is going to be struck
with the symbolism of the
colors red, black and white...
as well as a few more that
appear in the novel. Brown
has been sorely panned for his
writing, and I won't go on record
as suggesting his phraseology is
top notch. But give the man
credit, he DOES spin a yarn that
leads the reader who likes to
follow the clues a merry chase.

When the chaff is blown away, ONE
member of a Holy Order's
mental perversions is no more
earth-shattering than the
perversions of a priest turned
predator. Brown simply used
the age-old myth of Jesus and Mary
Magdelene as the necessary driving
force for such vile actions by the
villain. His motive HAD to be more
than simple JEALOUSY of other priests,
the Pope, etc. REVENGE? Wouldn't
work. And it's not as though others
hadn't used this same myth in their
works. Who howled this loudy at
JESUS CHRIST, SUPERSTAR? That one
blew my mind at the time. Today,
a novel dealing with a priest's
seduction of a child could appear
on the stalls and noone would make
such a fuss. Historically, Popes
have sired children, graft and
corruption have been found within
the Vatican Walls; the CHURCH
has survived all kinds of human
errors and scandals.

When the chips are down, I have
to iterate, it's sad to think one's
faith has even a slight tremor over
a piece of fiction.


28 posted on 05/18/2006 7:23:45 AM PDT by Grendel9 (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

Well .. I could have predicted this .. because you just don't mess with Jesus.

NBC did a poll recently where 86% said they believed in God - and they were upset that people were trying to remove "under God" from the pledge and "In God we Trust" from our money.

According to the report I received - NBC was STUNNED!! As well they should be .. and they should be ashamed also for always portraying us as some kind of nut or kook.


29 posted on 05/18/2006 7:34:02 AM PDT by CyberAnt (Drive-by Media: Fake news, fake documents, fake polls)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: dynachrome

I can't help wondering if the reviewers felt pressured to pan it because of Christian protests. (Not that the latter was wrong in protesting; I don't blame them.) But probably the reviewers felt between a rock and a hard place: to like the film is a form of blasphemy.

IMHO, the film should never have been made. Like BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN, it might be well crafted, but suffers from a highly offensive plotline.


39 posted on 05/18/2006 4:07:32 PM PDT by MoochPooch (I'm a compassionate cynic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson