Skip to comments.Can the Da Vinci Code be a hit, despite critical assault (some satire included)
Posted on 05/19/2006 6:40:58 AM PDT by dangus
As the Da Vinci Code's approval ratings (15%) appear to be settling far beneath even President George Bush's immigration program, and left-wing conspiracy theories begin to sprout up that the whole controversy is just Karl Rove's evil plot to distract America from the Iraq War / Halliburton / The Washington Nationals' bullpen woes, I thought I'd see if it were possible that such a poorly reviewed movie could become a hit. So I checked the list of 324 movies which have made $100 million for any movies which seemed like they could have gotten such low ratings. These, then are the most critically unliked "hits" of them all:
Pearl Harbor, 25%, $199 million
Home Alone 2, 19%, $174 million
Fantastic 4, 25%, $155 million
Cheaper by the dozen, 24%, $139 million
Bad Boys 2, 25%, $137 million
Godzilla, 25%, $136 million
The Flintstones, 6%, $131 million
Van Helsing, 22%, $120 million
Hook, 21%, $119 million
Wild, Wild West, 19%, $114 million
Crocodile Dundee 2, 14%, $109 million
I put "hits" in quotes, because several of these movies cost far more than $100 million to make, and any movie which loses its makers tens of millions of dollars cannot properly be called a hit in my book.
At 15%, the Da Vinci Code is about as popular as Madeline Albright's remake of "Beach Blanket Bingo." I did think the Da Vinci Code was popular enough with so many readers it had to be a hit. Think "The Phantom Menace," a movie so bad it took shell-shocked fans months to admit how bad it was, despite featuring the bastard love child of Goofy and Barnie. Then again, Jar-Jar Binks was a bit easier to make into Happy Meal toy than a dead, naked curator with a Pentagram scratched into his back. But I didn't expect the French critics at the Cannes Film Festival to agree to authorize military action against Ron Howard.
It's unclear how the critical disaster will affect the careers of the stars of the Da Vinci Code. Rumors have it that "Wilson" is refusing to appear in "Cast Away 2," and Aubrey Tautoo has been roaming the streets of Paris, screaming at random people, "That's 'Amelie,' not 'Gigli'!"
Well I just watched Richard Donner's original "The Omen" the other day. Now there's a psuedo-regligious movie that is worth getting out the popcorn and butter for. With Greogry Peck and Lee Remick slumming it, taut pacing, a CREEPY little kid, and some spectacular murders, it's obvious audiences were certainly getting more of their money's worth 20 years ago. The sequel wasn't half bad either. Unfortuately, things slip quite a bit by the third but I have decided to revisit it via my Netflix que, regardless.
I doubt I will see the remake, because the first movie is damn near perfect for what it is.
BTW: I enjoyed the heck of the Lost Boys. It's one of my alltime favorites. I am glad Keifer is doing well, because I have really enjoyed much of his work since seeing that flick.
So those who say "it's just entertainment" we can now answer "apparently not."
"I don't know if 'pride and joy' is correct.
Content aside, any good movie can be art. And it can affect you unlike other kinds of art.
A bad movie is garbage.
Almost all movies are productions of very large corporations so profit is always part of the equation. They are products to be consumed from the corporate perspective.
With a bad movie, the corporation stole your money. With a little thought, they might have made an adequate movie and given you value for your money."
Good afternoon, that is an interesting point of view!
I've always wondered this:
Kiefer Sutherland was the "star" vampire in the Lost Boys (well, besides "Starr"), which must be considered the "sire" of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or at least the TV series of it.
Donald Sutherland was the original "Watcher" in the movie, "Buffy the Vampire Slayer."
They are obviously father-and-son.
Any relation to Christine Sutherland, the Mom in the TV series?
It's called standing up for the truth.
Things change and now it is one of the most respected religion, but one must not forget history
"History" has nothing to do with the latest tissue of lies coming out of Hollywood, sorry.
"History" has nothing to do with the latest tissue of lies coming out of Hollywood, sorry.
Reviews counted: 112
Average rating: 4.5 out of 10
The Academy will probably shower it with Oscars, but we unwashed plebes know it's a tendentious snore-fest.
Oh. CANADIAN. Well, perhaps the cultural gap is not SO big. Hehehe.
>> i deal everyday with the US, and i can tell you guys are the best for that, and that is actually one of the best strategy in the sales world, <<
Well, please don't take this seriously, but in the states, being told one has the personality of a salesman is definitely NOT a compliment! On the list of least respected professions, I kid you not, "used car salesman" ranks below "crack whore" (a prostitute who trades sex not for money, but for crack cocaine), and just above "Crack whore's legal counsel." Mind you, some of the people answering such surveys may have a slight sense of humor.
Again, I do not mean to demean your profession; the world does need salesmen. I'm only saying that a salesman's persona is not necessarily the best persona to take on when dealing with Americans on a personal basis.
It's also the 'Othercott' alternative to the soporific Da Vinci Code. Think I'll take my whole family this weekend.
This movie will not get any nominations...THAT I can guarantee you.
This post is exactly what I was talking about, when I cautioned you against parroting stupid things liberals say.
>> So basically you are returning the slap on the cheek, as your post suggest? <<
Nothing Campion writes accuses Dan Brown of genocide, systematic destruction of dozens of other cultures, hiring murderers, etc. So how is Campion returning the slap on the cheek by defending criticisms of Brown?
>> And yes at some point in history, the church was an entity with those "qualities" [a group of sado-masochistic, murderous nutcases] you pointed in your post... <<
You claim that our religion was a group of sado-masochistic, murderous nutcases? Is that any way to make friends and influence people? Your claim is hateful, ignorant, slanderous, rash, and just plain belligerent. Why should we let you hang around with us? So you can demean our beliefs?
And then, after being so rude, offensive and obnoxious, you, of course, throw in the "Good afternoon" and "Best regards." How can you say, "Best regards," while demonstrating such a thorough contempt for the people you are writing to?
I'm not so sanguine about that, Hildy, after seeing this year's list: Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Munich. If the film's grinding a liberal axe, the Academy seems to swoon over it. (Public acclaim is nowhere on the Academy radar, either; those 5 nominees together grossed less than The Chronicles of Narnia.)
I doubt it will make that much. I was strolling by the multiplex at the mall a couple of hours ago and noticed it was playing on as many screens as Poseidon (2 or 3 it looks like). There was nobody in line (though the day is still young).
There's a difference...all the movies you mentioned, although liberal leaning, were very good movies in the way movies should be...entertaining, beautifully acted, directed and photographed. You might not like the content, but you can't dispute the quality of the movie. Davinci Code is, apparently, just not a good movie. The only one on your list that I think I would agree somewhat is MUNICH, because it didn't get great reviews and, ironic enough, the reviews were alot like this one, boring, long, etc. But you can't discount the Spielberg factor. The Academy has never been unusually kind to Ron Howard, so I doubt it will get any major nominations...maybe some technical ones.
>> Okay so you are still stuck with the ideas that i am liberal? <<
I did read your post. I was suggesting why you come across as a liberal, in spite of your assertion that you are not one: You repeat their baseless assertions.
>> What is so wrong in what i am saying? <<
What is wrong is that the specific accusations that Dan Brown has made are totally false. You have believed the liberal/anti-Catholic/anti-Christian lies. We can argue whether the 30-years War or the Crusades were just wars or not. And, just as liberals do now, partisans will exaggerate the evils of those wars to defame the decision to fight them. But the Catholic Church simply never did the outrageous things Brown has accused them of, and which you conceded to Brown as if they were factual; they go far beyond the worst slanders and contestable claims of the Protestant schismatic partisans, and invent whole new slanders from nothing, which slander Protestants as surely as they slander Catholics.
>> And if i persist on my good afternoon and best regards, it is because we are over the Internet and to me this just seems like a discussion like any other...there is no hate or rudeness in my post such as what you claimed, you only see it that way ...you seem to think i am the devil!!! <<
You disparage and slander our faith, repeating the most baseless, heinious, vicious lies, not out of malice, but willful ignorance. If you do not hold the hatred which Dan Brown evinces, then why do persist in repeating his lies?
>> You know i have belief too and i went through an educational system, and i can/am wrong in my posts, so no need to jump on your horse and scream names like these! Just tell me where i am wrong and that will be it! <<
I did. I even struck a conciliatory tone. And you disregarded me. I did call your claim "hateful, rude, ignorant," etc., because it is. If you do not mean to be those things, then I implore you to take more care.
If you have heard such claims before, and wish to hear what refutations exist, then by all means, ask someone! There are certainly some of us who would be very willing to explain the truth to you. But don't state such injurious and slanderous things as fact, just to find out our responses. Just ask.
My response to you was very strongly worded, and deliberately so, because the issue was that serious. Please note, I called your assertions "hateful," "rude," and "ignorant." Because they are. But please note, that I did not presume you to be hateful, rude or ignorant, in general. A hateful, rude and ignorant person does not intend to "make friends and influence" those he bears such hatred for. Rather, I warn you of the nature of the things you say because I presume that they are not true reflections of you. Because I presume you do not mean to be as offensive as you were being, I point out to you why what you say is so offensive.
I sense you concede such wickedness to the lies of Brown because you intend to be fair and even-handed. There is nothing fair about being even-handed between truth and goodness on one hand, and evil and lies on the other. Again, if you do not know the truth, ask, and we will tell you to the best of our own ability.
Be at peace (and that is not a mere politeness).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.