Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
OT: It's a BUST guys: DA VINCI
slayers_creek_oth:
--- Quote from: julie01 on May 21, 2006, 02:53:43 pm ---The story can all be bullsahit, but I think it's on to something in the general idea that sex used to be O.K. till organized Christianity came along...anyone else?
--- End quote ---
Yep I agree...
rtprod:
I'm certainly not trying to be combative here but there's more to it than than personal taste, at least in my book. It is possible to take this story and infuse it with energy and excitment, to bring it to life, to make its complex codes and discussions palatable to the audience's ear and to invite us to be engrosssed in an intelligent mystery.
But this time I believe the director failed to do that. Guess that's just my opinion as well but to me there is a certain "baseline" of what consititues a capable film and this one fell below that because it failed to make its narrative accessible and its characters empathetic. On the whole it is lifeless and laughable, weighed down by a high-minded tone that really betrayed the material, which to me is B-movie-ish, campy even at times, and should have been more fun or sinister or at least self-aware of its wild suppositions.
If then, by the same token, liking Brokeback is a matter of personal taste, then we must accept that if people don't like it that it is not a reflection of the film's quality in the opposite direction--just a matter of personal taste.
But that's just me.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: julie01 on May 21, 2006, 02:53:43 pm ---No, the excellence of a movie is NOT JUST a matter of your personal taste...I think Hanks was a bit miscast...I dunno, I think a brilliant guy should look at least a LITTLE briliant. The girl was perfect.I meant to listen for the phrase A"the indecent docent," but I forgot..is it really in the movie" I'm a docent....
Ian M was very very good...
The story can all be bullsahit, but I think it's on to something in the general idea that sex used to be O.K. till organized Christianity came along...anyone else?
--- End quote ---
The book/movie raised excellent points, the main point is that people should read more of what they claim to believe. So many people still believe Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. Even the Catholic Church changed their collective minds about that claim, but many many people haven't heard about it. This is covered - however eye-blinkingly fast - in the movie. Which can only be good news.
It also brought up the sacredness of women and how sex can be a liberating and holy act - the heiros gamos was shown only briefly in the movie - but Hollywood and the Puritanism of America stepped in again.
After much thought, I imagine they cast fatherly/neutral Tom Hanks instead of some stud muffin like Hugh Jackman/Clive Owen in order to protect the Sophie character from any hint of lust which is quite obvious in the book.
Which considering her pedigree might have been a little too much for some people to take.
I don't agree that one must LOOK intelligent. Many people have a perpetual 'd'oh' expression on their faces, but it doesn't make them idiots.
Oh and I think Memorial Day Weekend in the States will be blockbuster for this movie. After that, we shall see how it does boxoffice wise on its own merits. After all, I hardly think the fanboy sect is the demographic aimed for for this movie.
Weighing in on the 'taste' thing. Everything is relative. After all, if you look throughout history, things that were tasteful and meaningful centuries ago, hardly carry the same feelings these days. Movies thought 'Best Picture' 20-30 years ago are laughed at now. [shrugs]
slayers_creek_oth:
Well I guess what I mean by personal taste is its a matter of opinion....my wife didn't like the movie not because of the quality of the film but because it was not her kind of movie...she's more the Notebook kinda person....and that right there is a personal taste...
Now I understand that you didn't like the movie but that is your personal opinion and I respect the hell out of that...I for one did enjoy the movie - granted I agree its definetely not what it could have been had there been a stronger director and maybe even a stronger lead actor attached but there wasn't....and I think they made the best out of the situation....again that is JMO...
I guess I think that it could have been a LOT worst...
But IMO it is a matter of personal taste....virtually everything is these days....and just because it didn't suit your taste doesn't mean that it didn't suit others....that was my only point...
We're on a disagreeing streak here and thats a good thing....I enjoy hearing others opinions... :)
slayers_creek_oth:
Mona Lisa's smiling at the vast millions The Da Vinci Code reaped out of the gate as the publishing phenomenon translated into a theatrical blockbuster.
The Da Vinci Code divined an estimated $77 million from 3,735 locations, the second biggest opening weekend ever among adult-geared pictures behind The Passion of the Christ and 13th overall. Sony's $125 million adaptation of the Dan Brown novel that reportedly sold nearly 60 million copies worldwide handily marked personal best debuts for director Ron Howard and star Tom Hanks.
On the global front, The Da Vinci Code played nearly everywhere and claimed the highest-grossing foreign start in history, raking in $147 million since Wednesday to narrowly surpass Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith's $145.5 million from the same period last year.
From BoxOfficeMojo
Lots of people saw this film....even surpassed my expectations...I thought Juan might be interested in this...
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version