'Da Vinci Code' Misses the Mark for Critics

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060516/ap_en_mo/film_cannes_da_vinci_code_2 ^

[Malesherbes]

LOL! Good one.

[Notwithstanding]

[weef]

only to be awakened by laughter, where laughter is not appropriate or planned

I never read the book - what's so funny at the end?

[mware]

Didn't help that Ian whats his name, mentioned on a talk show thread that the Bible should be classified as fiction.

[AmishDude]

There are plenty of elements in H'wood who wanted this thing to succeed. The fact that it is being so universally panned means that it must be a real stinker.

[AmishDude]

it was all a plot by rogue US agents to give us an excuse to attack some unnamed Middle East country

Why didn't you post a spoiler alert?!?!?!

I mean, that is such a shocking twist for Hollywood, I cannot imagine the genius mind who would have come up with such an unorthodox plot device.

Oh, and I broke my sarcasm detector with this post.

[AmishDude]

No we know why Sony Pictures has been so secretive about this movie, and wouldn't even let the reviewers see it before...THE MOVIE REALLY SUCKS!!

You're wrong. They're trying to repress this movie because the powers that be know that the truth, that Tom Hanks is really a wooden actor who has very little range, would devistate the order. So they have to hide it away, but Ron Howard knows the truth, so he's leaving little clues in the publicity and if you figure it out, you will be able to discover the truth.

Now, my sarcasm detector has caught fire.

[Tanniker Smith]

I'm still guessing a $50+M opening weekend (which if only 50M, that would be depressing) and $150 by the end of the summer.

(Okay, maybe by the end of the year.)

Disney/Pixar's "Cars" will have much better numbers, and a couple more summer films will most likely do better than DVC.

Just my predictions.

TS

[Larry Lucido]

Whew! Looks like "Code" is a real dog. Thank goodness no one helped the producers generate scads of unwarranted and free publicity by hysterically drumming up a bunch of hype.

Oh, wait.

Well, at least it's still a dog.

[Petronski]

The whole thing is hype.

[martin_fierro]

If anything, it looks like Hanks needs a facelift.

[martin_fierro]

l o l

[from occupied ga]

The tomatometer on rottentomatoes rates it as zero. This is the lowest rating I've ever seen there. Of course they only have 6 reviews in so far; when more reviewers get to it it will undoubtedly go up since some one will like it.

[street_lawyer]

What was funny I assume was the plot, the depiction of events and the melodrama. It was not supposed to be funny.

[Larry Lucido]

Hype, yes, but soon to fizzle, I predict. And I confidently predict the movie will barely land a blow on the Catholic Church.

After all, it's been 34 years since this slightly-more popular movie (even had a couple sequels, I hear), and folks still don't assume I'm mobbed up. Well, most folks, anyway. :-)

[Frank Sheed]

Check this thread which is a duplicate. There is even more here.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1633988/posts

[drew]

"Ruh Roh!" LOL You are quoting...?

[vikingchick]

They're trying to repress this movie because the powers that be know that the truth, that Tom Hanks is really a wooden actor who has very little range, would devistate the order. So they have to hide it away, but Ron Howard knows the truth, so he's leaving little clues in the publicity and if you figure it out, you will be able to discover the truth.

LOL! ....It's all beginning to come together...

[youthgonewild]

As of this posting, the rating is up to a robust 6%. One good review from the New York Post of all places. I was actually planning to see this movie with my friends this weekend but now I'm having second thoughts. The Variety review is right that the book is very cinematic and I figured this was a sure thing, now I've lost faith in Hanks, whose films have never disappointed me once.