MERGED --> Da Vinci Code - What's up??? + 'The Da Vinci Code' Fizzles at Cannes - Page 8 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-16-2006, 09:57 PM   #106
New Yorker
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,158
Local Time: 07:12 AM
*ooops a few typos...tried to edit....not working i guess*


'The Da Vinci Code' Fizzles at Cannes
__________________

__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 10:00 PM   #107
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:12 AM
I hated those who deified "The Passion of the Christ," and I'm already hating those who are vilifying "The Da Vinci Code."

They're movies. Not scripture. Not timeless masterpieces. I'd suggest directing one's goutrage where it actually matters.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2006, 11:31 PM   #108
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 12:12 PM
It's not that the Last Supper wasn't very well preserved, it's that it has had several "retouches" over the centuries b/c parts of the painting were fading. The big deal is that for the first time, the technology has been developed to successfully strip away all the layers of paint down to what Da Vinci actually painted, without damaging it. And the portrait of "John" that has emerged is radically different than the image that is in most art textbooks (at least the ones that a vast majority of today's generation has been presented with.) All I can say is....yes, men often look feminine in his paintings (he WAS gay) but they weren't as small as "Mary", didn't have such obviously feminine features, delicate hands, I could go on and on....for someone who's never seen the updates image, just tell me that that is NOT a woman....


About Opus Dei....I think the "secrecy" that critics accuse it of is a lack of actual understanding about what members do. Are they missionaries, working in remote villages in Africa, for instance? Teachers? Where do they teach and preach? Are members connected to the Vatican? What exactly ARE their duties? This is the one thing that all the stories on OD and their website) STILL don't open up on. We've never seen an image of, or read an interview by, your average Opus Dei memeber talking about what they do. There's never been a photo spread of The Typical Working Day of Your Average Member. And when we see actual photos of things like "the discipline", and read interviews that imply it is still in usage and "it inflicts no more pain than a bee sting" or whatever, that makes me suspicious, anyway.

And I'm glad someone knows what I'm talking about! My head was spinning like Linda Blair when I put down that series, about 6 yrs ago. In the 2nd book, I thought, "Okay, the enemy is the Catholic Church, and I can understand why he attacks them", like I said, the "pro-femenist" slant of the book and its ideas predate DVC. But like LiveandLuv said, in the 3rd book, the actual enemy is the Christian God, and the premise of the book is "we have to work to establish not the KINGDOM but the REPUBLIC of Heaven", thus implying that Christianity by its very nature is demogoguic and tyrannical and anti-humankind. You want to fling the thing from your room but the beautiful, budding love story between Jack and Lyra keeps you glued, and while I won't spoil the ending, it has one of the most tear-jerking endings (revealed in poisonously, heart-stoppingly beautiful prose that will haunt you for days)...I use the word "poisonous" because after you finish the 3rd book you feel as if you've mentally drained a draught of sweet wine from a lead-encrusted ancient Roman goblet. The beverage is a delight to the palate but you are being poisioned also. It's a horrible inversion of Tolkien and Lewis...the exact opposite of Tolkin's "hope without guaruntees." It would have been so much easier to swallow if Lewis had been an athiest, b/c athiest are bigger "believers" than most believers. it takes courage to think you do not believe in God. It is a conscious choice and almost always made from great personal pain. Thus, they have hope of redmeption. But someone who has simply lost faith and is bitter against God is far more difficult to redeem. That, to me, is Pullman.

I wouldn't recommend the series to any child under 12. Not because they couldn't understand it (heck, I was reading James Michener's "The Source" at 12 and understanding it just fine) but b/c they're a lot smarter than you think and this series is possibly the absolute most damnable (and persuasive) argument AGAINST Christianity itself I have ever read. It's brilliant propaganda, wrapped within the confines of a charming love story. THE DVC isn't anti-Christian, it's merely anti-Catholic. But this series really is openly anti-Christian. You'd have to read it to see what I mean. It really does put DVC to shame. If it was an adult series, and sold as such, people would be firebombing his house. I had to go a week without reading ANYTHING to cleanse my head of it.

Oh and BTW.....Najeena....nice to see you in this thread!

You got my card I hope?
__________________
Teta040 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 02:04 AM   #109
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,874
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bonsai


I agree. I do not beleive all the controversy that surrounds the death of Princess Diana, the JFK assassination, 9/11 or the moon landings. However, there have been some conspiracies that have turned out to be true (ie: Watergate, cigerettes impact on health) or at least partially true (ie: aspartame toxity, the involvement of Nixon and Henry Kissenger in the overthrow of Allende in Chile).

I think it's nieve of people to believe that someone is
always innocent and any bad things that occur is by circumstance or coincidence. I have had to do a report on the involvement of Western corporations in third world countries and what impact this has on the global economy for my International Marketing module at uni, and I did come accross some of the history of the US government envolvement. My view is that Nixon was a very shaddy character who tried his upmost to prevent left-wing governments comming to power in Latin American countries because of America's business interests.
Yeah, that's the thing though. All the "real" conspiracies (e.g. Watergate etc) are clumsily done and only marginally successful.
__________________
maycocksean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 08:42 AM   #110
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,837
Local Time: 08:12 AM
I've just been reading on several sites that the audience was laughing and jeering and that several critics panned it. I'm surprised that Ron Howard made a bad movie out of this if it's really that bad.
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 08:43 AM   #111
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,763
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MrsSpringsteen
I've just been reading on several sites that the audience was laughing and jeering and that several critics panned it. I'm surprised that Ron Howard made a bad movie out of this if it's really that bad.
Well, that's a whole other story. If it's a bad movie, regardless of any religious controversy, then it deserves jeers just like any other bad movie.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 08:57 AM   #112
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,070
Local Time: 05:12 AM
deep cited Fox News...
__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 09:05 AM   #113
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,837
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
deep cited Fox News...


http://www.filmstew.com/Content/Arti...tID=14090&Pg=2

"It's safe to say that most of this Friday's reviews of The Da Vinci Code will deem the flick a disaster. Critics from large U.S. media outlets were overheard tonight in Cannes calling the film a “snore”, a “bore” and giving it an Ebert & Roeper-worthy big thumbs down."

I didn't watch the Opus Dei special last night, I was too busy watching American Idol
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 01:28 PM   #114
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,837
Local Time: 08:12 AM
http://newsbusters.org/stories/dv.html?q=node/5402

"Lauer took the bull of controversy more directly by the horns when he interviewed the cast and director Howard today. Said Lauer:

"There have been calls from some religious groups, they wanted a disclaimer at the beginning of this movie saying it is fiction because one of the themes in the book really knocks Christianity right on its ear, if Christ survived the crucifixion, he did not die for our sins and therefore was not resurrected. What I'm saying is, people wanted this to say 'fiction, fiction, fiction'. How would you all have felt if there was a disclaimer at the beginning of the movie? Would it have been okay with you?"

There was a pause, and then famed British actor Ian McKellen [Gandalf of Lord of the Rings], piped up:

"Well, I've often thought the Bible should have a disclaimer in the front saying this is fiction. I mean, walking on water, it takes an act of faith. And I have faith in this movie. Not that it's true, not that it's factual, but that it's a jolly good story. And I think audiences are clever enough and bright enough to separate out fact and fiction, and discuss the thing after they've seen it."

With the camera focused on McKellen, one could hear a distinctly nervous laugh in the background, seeming to come from either actor Tom Hanks or director Howard. McKellen's stunning bit of blasphemy is likely to test the adage that all publicity is good publicity."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 01:37 PM   #115
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,837
Local Time: 08:12 AM
Time Magazine critic says it's not very good

http://time.blogs.com/movies/?cnn=yes
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 03:06 PM   #116
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,313
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
deep cited Fox News...
i am glad you enjoyed that

don't we all love that "fair and balanced" reporting


from time to time I quote Rush, too.
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 03:30 PM   #117
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,313
Local Time: 04:12 AM
Opus Dei has a lot of power.

They are most likely influencing the reviews so the movie will tank at the boxoffice and go away.

They may have even had their people involved with the editing just to mess things up.


one of the interns in the editiing room was named Fibonacci
__________________
deep is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 04:27 PM   #118
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,133
Local Time: 12:12 PM
I'll be seeing the movie on Sunday with a group from my church and then we're going to order pizza and discuss it after. I'm excited about seeing it, hopefully it will be good. There are several movies that I like that critics loathed.

It's fiction, I'm going to see a (hopefully) good movie with an interesting plot, I don't care what anyone else says.
__________________
U2democrat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 04:28 PM   #119
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 12:12 PM
Hey, when the VATICAN is leading the charge agsinst the film, if they had panned THE PASSION in advance, I'd bet a lot of critics would know where their bread was buttered, and write accordingly. It seems like some of the critics at least have a politcal agenda. When normally We always have something good to say about any film: Variety takes to attacking the score and the cinematography in two (count 'em ) sentences, you know something's up. When Drudge has a scathing attack on the albino monk character from an albino advocate society BEFORE the film has even been seen (I mean, come on, he could have put it up on the site the moment the book's filming was announced, and I read Drudge daily), you know they're digging for something. It's not like people had no idea who the Silas character was for 3 yrs. A big compalint about the film seems to be "it's no FUN", a couple people have used that word.

To be honest, I didn't like the choice of director or actor. I'm sorry, folks, but I have no sentimental fondness for Opie. A Beautiful Mind was a big fat snooze, (Apollo 13 was similarly slow-paced; the suspense of the story itself luckily propelled it forward.) Tom Hanks has lost alot of his mojo, though he is redeemable IF he gets inot a role. The whole project, from the director to the actors to the screenwriter, was handed to people who haven't had a hit since the 2001 Oscar high and needed a hit badly. Brown wanted ralph Fiennes for the role but of course in a big Hollywood blockbuster the lead HAS to be played by a Yank....

So I'm not one of those who was ready to praise the film to the skies before it opened, on the basis of the artistic merit. For me, it was fifty-fifty. It was also a question mark of critical response; after the fiasco of BBM not winning the Best Pic Oscar this yr I knew they were a bunch of spineless cowards. I also know they're not above politcs.

And to those people (like the NY Times) who ask questions like "So does Tom Hanks 'become' Robert Langdon?" it 's a silly question to ask, since Langdon and Sophie have all the character development in the book of a paper bag. The Harrison Ford comment was about all. The book was a real snooze on that account, and for me, that's a big account. I wasn't saying the book was well written by any means. It isn't.

Part of the "politcal agenda" (at least in the US) might be this: recently such films such as The Passion and Narnia, the so-called "Christian" community has been recognized as a vital new box-office force in a time of shrinking profits. If DVC is a massive hit, then it would be just like the TIME review said: the first "secular humanist hit." The mag's use of that word is interesting and very revealing. It's not in the habit of throwing it round liberally.

Maybe the chemistry between Hanks and Toutou is missing. Maybe the acting is wooden. Finding the film a little too long at 2 1/2 hrs is suspicious since other 3-hr + films have been tolerated nicely. Even films with bad acting and a bad script (Titanic anyone?) Maybe the film feels long and drawn-out, and that's a major screenwriting flaw. It can't be as bad as the "disaster" they're calling it...the Fox review was honest. But people are not drawn to the novel for its being a rip-roaring murder mystery. They're drawn for IDEAS. And believe me, it's much easier to lose interest in a long, slow-paced book these days (Umberto Eco anyone?) than in a slow-paced film that leaks the same ideas. People are not going to see this film b/c of the suspenseful plot (and Friedman says the suspense is there.) They're going to see what the controversy is about. And they sure are NOT expecting the movie to be "fun" (!!). So that ploy may not work. In the end, the only thing will be word of mouth. And the film has a very strong score (Zimmer hasn't gone worng yet.)

I think the film would have been attacked if it WAS as good as, say, Fellowship of the Ring (another popular novel with a huge fan base not easily adapted to the screen.) I think many in the politcal and cultural arena are just afraid of a film that forces people to THINK and ask questions...esp if they go against the party line...and no matter how good or bad it is, technically. Are summer films supposed to be fun? God forbid anything in America makes you THINK these days. And that is the big question mark.

As to the film's box office success....the critical (and political) establishment hopes that a torrent of negative reviews will have the same effect on box office as they did with King Kong and Munich. And beleive me, if the film is doing very well next week, the more money it makes, the more savage will the attacks become. It'll be like Revenge of the Sith all over again. But Everyone knew the story of King Kong so they didn't go, and Munich was about terrorists (n the poluar mind) so it wasn't good entertainment. This one though has the potentail to be interesting and entetaining. But this film has a far higher awareness base and there are few people out there who don't know the story. I suspect the critics who laughed and jeered at the "Princess Sophie" line had not read the book....one reviewer said he deliberately hadn't read it. The general public knows apparently what these benighted individuals don't. If you hadn't read the book, and if the acting is as wooden as they say, that might make you laugh. "THIS is what it's all about?!?!" But the public won't be surprised. As one reviewer wrote, "They'll take it very seriously."

It all boils down to this: is the public as hungry for a film about IDEAS as Howard and his spottily-skilled team think they are, or is the American public to be forever served a diet of cinematic McDonalds to keep them fat, lazy, and stupid? We will see. It is the fact that this film is challenging the Political-Religious Complex that what makes it so dangerous, whatever its technical flaws. Even if the film is slow-paced, with lousy acting, a dragging script and other flaws, even if it's a "bore", I'm one of those who will support it for this reason. There's much at stake. I'm a fan of the book's general premises about women and the church, NOT the specifics. I could care less about the symbols etc. I'm not a rabid Brown worshipper, like some fans are. And I'm not defending his book from crtics who say it is a well-written as a dime store pulp novel. Most best-sellers aren't these days. But someone had to do it. And with the controversy, the public who is holding out on seeing it b/c of bad reviews may wonder how it is a bore.

If the filmmakers have tapped into something in the public, if they sense a public hungry for ideas, and the film does very well, then it will join the long pantheon of deeply flawed films that have been panned by critics but have been popular classics. The most famous of these being a film that the New York Times, in its first review, famously called "The Sound of Mucus" (and which most critics still don't like.) I admit, that film is a little too sugery-sweet for my taste, though I enjoy much of it.
__________________
Teta040 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2006, 05:48 PM   #120
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,070
Local Time: 05:12 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
Opus Dei has a lot of power.

They are most likely influencing the reviews so the movie will tank at the boxoffice and go away.

They may have even had their people involved with the editing just to mess things up.


one of the interns in the editiing room was named Fibonacci
Were gonna need a new acronym for this conspiracy!
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com