|
|
Or, use your gamerDNA username: (more...)
| ||||||
| |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #17 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,769
| Quote:
Its popularity has nothing to do with people's negative feelings on the basis of its value as a piece of literature. Its just plain bad. The "facts" are wrong, it tells not shows, the descriptions are one liners that reference movie stars, and the mystery was mind-numbing.
__________________ I eat grass like an ox and shat like a fox. | |
| | |
| | #19 (permalink) | |
| hates O RLY Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,378
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #20 (permalink) |
| upper management material Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 2,035
+8 Internets | I thought it was pretty good and was mostly faithful to the book. I can see how if you didnt read it though some parts might have been confusing. There were a few things they could have explained more clearly. Couple things: - dont think Tom Hanks was right for the part - french girl was hot - flashbacks were a little overdone Someone mentioned that many reviews slagged it: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/da_vinci_code/ However the collective reviewers monitored by RottenTomotoes have little credibility for the most part as evidenced by: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/signs/ |
| | |
| | #21 (permalink) |
| Unregistered User Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 151
| Good MOVIE. If you take the whole thing seriously you are an idioit. This movie had good action, good story and was interesting to watch. Ofcourse there are idiots who take is as something else and start to flame it. You are retarded. A good example is the passion of the christ. Horrible movie, dumb plot, most dumbasses loved it. However I dont consider paying money for a ticket to see a guy getting his as handed to him for 2hrs a good use of my money.
__________________ Good bye. |
| | |
| | #23 (permalink) | |
| Never Go Full Retard Join Date: May 2002 Location: Hell
Posts: 5,871
| Quote:
Now that I've had a couple days to reflect on the movie and why I disliked it so much, I've decided it was the handling of the end that pissed me off. Howard had a chance to fix Dan Brown's novel by just taking the basic plot synopsis and rebuilding it from there as a movie; he didn't, instead choosing to make the first 130 minutes follow the book nearly verbatim. However when it came to the end, he chose to tack on a conversation between Langdon and Sophie that wasn't in the book and changed the big reveal, plus Langdon seems to have 'faith' throughout the movie that he didn't have in the book, making his dropping to his knees at the end have a much different meaning--done to pander to the Catholic church/Christians/whatever other whackos are offended by DVC as if a few concessions at the would change anyone's opinion of it. They formed their opinions with the book, nothing was going to change that. The one thing I actually did like about the book was that Brown was at least unflinching in his 'attack' on the church, right to the end. The movie can't even claim that much. Last edited by Vorph : 05-21-2006 at 12:02 PM. | |
| | |
| | #25 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 403
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #27 (permalink) |
| X-D Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 828
+4 Internets | I didn't read the book but I have been exposed to these ideas since I was pretty young. I really don't get the controversy. There have been Discovery Channel specials on more controversial things for as long as I can remember, including plenty of theories about Jesus having kids (and so on) floating around. So whatever, the plot was what it was but come the fuck on, as a movie it was bullshit. I haven't been considered that stupid by a movie in as long as I can remember. People saying "it could have been confusing if you didn't read the book" are hopefully underestimating humanity. How many times did Amelie have to be like, "wait, I don't understand" before it was painfully obvious that they were talking directly to the audience? (Correct: once!) Hey Ron and writer(s), I've got a great idea of how to handle this movie! 10 minutes of action, 20 minutes of exposition, rinse and repeat. Bullshit and you all know it. The entire movie was like the 20 minutes in Silent Hill where they stopped to tell the audience what the fuck was going on. I haven't read the book because I had a feeling that most of the controversial subject matter was stuff I had already heard and I was right. That alone isn't reason enough to kill a story/movie for me, but this one was just clumsy all around. I've liked Ron Howard in the past for the most part and most of the cast as well, but as my roommate commented, "it felt like everyone involved knew that this was a free money press".
__________________ |
| | |
| | #29 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 258
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #30 (permalink) | |
| Registered User Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,466
| Quote:
And it wasn't as bad as he makes out. It made sense within the context of the book. Just another pseudo-intellectual bashing DVC because it's popular. | |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |