Da Vinci Code Numbers

[TeddyKGB]

There are nerds out there that would beat you down for saying that, but with the exception of the loss of the poetry, I would agree.

I know Tolkein is a fantasy reader's deity, but come on. It takes sixteen pages to get from Weathertop to Rivendell, we learn the full verse of seemingly every elfin hymn, Tom Bombadil shows up to do nothing but act insane for thirty pages and give the hobbits weapons, but the battle of Helm's Deep gets two paragraphs.

Quite obviously, Tolkein was not writing for a big-screen future.

 

[Caylin]

Movies I consider superior to the book counterparts include The Bourne Identity and The LotR trilogy. There are more that I can't think of at the moment.

Really? You like the Bourne Identity movie better than the book? I thought Mat Damon was ok, but I didn't like the way the took the story in a differnt direction than the book.

 

[Harpuia]

I'll take average Joe's opinion over movie critic's any day.

Then take it from my opinion.

DaVinci Code was okay. Not great, not spectacular, not horrid, just okay.

Which, considering Tom Hanks and what I thought of him in Forrest Gump, would be below average for his acting skills.

 

[HisEagle]

You never mentioned you did not want to hear anything from a film critic....and why is the average joe's opinion thought of more highly than someone who knows more about good movies than anyone else?

You came down pretty hard on him and he just provided the info.

Ginny, out of all due respect, I stated in post #22...

"Who cares what RottenTomatoes says. Who pays attention to reviews anyway? Don't people know how make up their own mind? Form your own opinion. Quit letting it be formed for you."

It should have been obvious from that post that I don't pay attention to film critics or reviews. If Jipsah had read my post, he wouldn't have felt the need to point out those reviews. I specifically stated in my subsequent post that I hadn't heard anyone THAT HAS SEEN THE MOVIE say that it sucked. To me, the average Joe's opinion of a movie or book is much more valid than some critic who only watches with the intent of picking it apart. "Professionally trained" (presumably the "someone who knows more about good movies than anyone else" that you refer to) doesn't impress me in the slightest least little bit. The average person who watches a movie does so for the entertainment value and what they get out of it. They aren't watching it with the intent to "grade it" based on some arbitrary criteria that governs what makes a movie good or bad. As someone said, there are many movies that critics have ripped apart that I personally find to be great films, some of which are my favorites and have affected me in wonderful ways. If I paid attention to what critics said about them, I never would have seen them.

 

[Borealis]

I don't need to hear William Hung sing to know that he couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. Nor do I wish to subject my ears to such a cacaphony of grotequeness. I also don't need to read Mein Kampf to know that it's a racist, hate-filled screed written by one of the most diseased minds of the 20th century. I don't need to watch a Christina Aguilera video to know that it's something my ten-year old son has no need to see.

So don't tell me that I can't make a decision based on outside sources about a movie I already know is blasphemous to my faith. If a very high percentage of movie critics say that the movie is just plain bad, I'm going to trust the aggregate opinion and not waste my money. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to refuse to support something I find offensive.

 

[KerrMetric]

The Da Vinci Code is unorthodox not blasphemous.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Really? You like the Bourne Identity movie better than the book? I thought Mat Damon was ok, but I didn't like the way the took the story in a differnt direction than the book.

It was a weird evolution. I read the book years before I first saw the movie, and I didn't like the movie. Then I reread the book and noticed that there were some things I didn't care for at all, namely the Marie in the book vs. the Marie in the movie. For a while I found the book and movie about equally likable, now I like the movie better.

 

[Caylin]

It was a weird evolution. I read the book years before I first saw the movie, and I didn't like the movie. Then I reread the book and noticed that there were some things I didn't care for at all, namely the Marie in the book vs. the Marie in the movie. For a while I found the book and movie about equally likable, now I like the movie better.

Thats cool I guess. To each their own.

 

[HisEagle]

I don't need to hear William Hung sing to know that he couldn't carry a tune in a bucket. Nor do I wish to subject my ears to such a cacaphony of grotequeness. I also don't need to read Mein Kampf to know that it's a racist, hate-filled screed written by one of the most diseased minds of the 20th century. I don't need to watch a Christina Aguilera video to know that it's something my ten-year old son has no need to see.

So don't tell me that I can't make a decision based on outside sources about a movie I already know is blasphemous to my faith. If a very high percentage of movie critics say that the movie is just plain bad, I'm going to trust the aggregate opinion and not waste my money. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to refuse to support something I find offensive.

I honestly am scratching my head in disbelief at some of what you wrote! I'm talking about a MOVIE, for Pete's sake! Some opinions you pay attention to because they have been proven to be correct. Others are based on conjecture. People are going to disagree with you regarding your notion that the movie is blasphemous.

I don't even know how to respond to your comment about William Hung. It blows my mind that you would dismiss how someone sings based solely on what other people have said about him. How fair is it to judge the way someone sounds when you haven't even HEARD them sing? You just automatically base your opinions on what other people tell you to think. That's pretty scary to me. No, I don't think William Hung is a good singer. But that's my opinion, and I formed it myself because I've HEARD him sing. But I also acknowledge that there are people out there who like him.

Your reference to Mein Kampf is understandable, although I must say that it's not quite the same thing as watching a fictional movie based on a controversial subject. Its racist, hate-filled content is blatantly obvious, not surmised. The premise of the Da Vinci Code (while claimed to be a fictional work) is based on a subject that is speculative. It's neither proven, nor conclusively disproven. (At least not to me.)

And my only comment about Christina Aguilera is that you are once again guilty of judging based on what you presuppose something to be, not what it might actually be.

 

[Rochir]

It WOULD be nice if all the attention given to the Da Vinci Code and homosexuality were instead focused on the poor, wouldn't it?

But alas, being poor isn't a controversial subject. I don't think Christians are happy unless they are trying to pluck splinters out of everyone's eyes.

Preach it, brother! You make some very good points!

 

[Rochir]

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard this before.

Of course!

Peter Lunn
Da VinCi Code decoded
2004
Chapter 7, "The facts and fiction", pp. 97 - 104

It's one of the book which tries to bring light of what lies behind Dan Brown's book and claims. Very interesting!

 

[Rochir]

No, I haven't. But perhaps you should re-read what I said in post #22 above. I don't pay attention to film critics. People need to watch the movie and form an opinion about it on their own, not based on what critics say. At the very least, those who haven't seen the film have no right to say whether it sucks or not.

 

[JPPT1974]

Can you believe how much money it grossed all over the world? It is sickening!

 

[Nightson]

Can you believe how much money it grossed all over the world? It is sickening!