Our BetterMost Community > Chez Tremblay
OT: It's a BUST guys: DA VINCI
sparkle_motion:
As my 3 year old niece tells me all the time:
You're bein' such a fussy head!
I really enjoy reading what you guys have to say. I think you're all smart (I love smart people!) and opinionated (I love opinionated people too) which makes for some interesting discussions/debates/arguments.
rtprod:
From Box Office Mojo:
"In its second weekend, The Da Vinci Code dove 56 percent, the steepest fall of star Tom Hanks' career following his biggest opening, which was boosted by millions of eager readers of the blockbuster novel."
Whoops...
JCinNYC2006:
True, but in two weeks it's managed to make more than MI3 has in four. Those built in audiences count for something.
Juan
slayers_creek_oth:
--- Quote from: JCinNYC2006 on May 30, 2006, 12:46:00 am ---True, but in two weeks it's managed to make more than MI3 has in four. Those built in audiences count for something.
Juan
--- End quote ---
Exactly...and it will top 200 million + over the next month....where as MI:III will hault at about 140 million....its obvious which Tom has the true Hollywood power....LOL
Besides...its 56% drop was actually lower then expected...with the negative critical reviews and HUGE opening with X3 it was expected to drop at least 60%....56% is in the lower end of modest...MI:III dropped 49% in its second weekend....
JennyC:
Ok, here is a quick review from me (not related to the box office :)).
I saw both The Da Vinci Code and MI3 last Friday. The Da Vinci Code is what it is, a C+ movie. The movie, for the most part, religiously copied the storyline from the book. You can say it’s lack of creativity, but if you are a fan of the book, it may not be a bad thing. I felt the movie was pushing though solving the puzzle parts to get the story moving. It didn’t take time to explain the ins and outs of the clues/puzzles that were left by Sauniere, therefore the audience did not get the same appreciation to how well the puzzles were designed and what it took to solve them. This is what made the book so fascinating to me, which I felt is missing in the movie.
That said, I still enjoyed the movie (and managed to not fall into sleep after MI3 :)). You see, I am a visual person. When I read the book, I was trying to imagine all the paintings, the artifacts, the places mentioned in the book. The movie helped me visualize all the things and places. I particularly enjoyed the part where Teabing explained the hidden code of “The Last Supper” in his study. As others have already commented on, Ian McKellen is the only memorable actor in the movie. He actually made Teabing more interesting than the book version. Overall, the movie is worth the money I paid for.
So if you like the book, you may still find the movie enjoyable. If you have not read the book, but plan to see the movie anyway, just set your expectation low and you may want to reference the book for some details later.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version