Support NeoGAF

[Yamauchi]

Worst things surrounding this whole DVC nonsense:

- Catholics hating it, banning it, etc.
- The other side which believes that there is TEH SECERT TRUTH in the book.

The vast majority of the people in the middle and don't care at all, but even in this thread you can see instances of the latter.

 

[Flynn]

I often disagree on his overall good/bad opinions, but Ebert is probably the best film critic ever. I like his style, a lot. The best thing I can say about his writing is that his real knowledge of film and all its aspects always come out in his writing, mostly in very clever ways.

Look into Pauline Kael.

 

[AltogetherAndrews]

I can't believe there are people out there who get paid, and even recognized, primarily for their abilities to break, or in some cases tear apart the creative work of others. Talk about top hat roaches.

 

[Socreges]

Ron Howard is mediocrity personified.

I probably shouldn't entertain this, but..... wha?? Overrated maybe, but not the least bit mediocre. I just saw A Beautiful Mind (finally) the other day and came away very impressed. Give Ron Howard some credit. Apollo 13 was also very good and I'm sure Cinderella Man was as well.

 

[Amir0x]

Well, it pretty obvious why Catholics are offended by it. It's like some author using your own family members in a fabricated story based on their lives, and then selling it to millions of people. Some people will think its funny, and some people will understandably get angry.

I'm not Catholic!

 

[El Papa]

Apollo 13 was also very good and I'm sure Cinderella Man was as well.

Cinderella man was good.

 

[empanada]

I'm not Catholic!

I was just making a general statement. I'm Catholic and I realize its fiction but I might go see it anyway.

 

[Dupy]

I can't believe there are people out there who get paid, and even recognized, primarily for their abilities to break, or in some cases tear apart the creative work of others. Talk about top hat roaches.

Not nearly as bad as people who get famous for merely talking about ACTUAL famous people. ESPN and Access Hollywood I'm looking at you.

This book was certainly an interesting read, but anyone who thinks its characterization (or lack thereof), plot development, and pacing were any good need to actually, you know, read a good book sometime.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Ichirou_Oogam's taste is craptastic personified. If he likes it then it probably sucks.

 

[sefskillz]

Luckily, Ron Howard is a better filmmaker than Dan Brown is a novelist;

That's easily the biggest rip on Brown in the review. I mean, damn. If someone told me I'm sub-Ron Howard in anything I'd probably pull a liquor store run of Leaving Las Vegas proportions.

 

[Bearillusion]

To the people who says Christians shouldn't be offended because it's just a movie/book I say the following. If I wrote a book claiming that your mother was a whore and your father a child molester and then defended it by saying it was just a story, how would you feel? I know my example is silly but I think you can still see my point.

Edited - just saw that someone pretty much already said what I said. Carry on.

 

[Socreges]

To the people who says Christians shouldn't be offended because it's just a movie/book I say the following. If I wrote a book claiming that your mother was a whore and your father a child molester and then defended it by saying it was just a story, how would you feel? I know my example is silly but I think you can still see my point.

Something tells me you don't want conversation venturing into that territory. :lol

 

[Bearillusion]

I should edit it to read 'former head of Sega'.

 

[Solo]

Ron Howard is mediocrity personified.

True that. Well, I'd say bland and pedestrian defined, but we're at least barking up the same tree. Ive heard him referred to as a "paint-by-numbers" director, which is an apt description.

Apollo 13 says shut up.

Is this really the counter-argument? Is there some bizarro world in which Apollo 13 is considered anything but a middle of the pack blockbuster from a decade ago?

 

[Canadian Psycho]

Wow. That's the first time I've found an Ebert review actually intelligent.

Go Ebert.

You must seldom read his reviews then.

 

[Gantz]

It's fucking fiction folks!!! Cripes :lol

So who has actually watched it?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

What bugs me about the Da Vinci code is that it raises some interesting questions, but in a way to make them incredible (in the original sense of the word). It is interesting that Constantine and the early Church did make changes to the religion for politcal reasons. And (as an atheist) I find it worth examining the life of Jesus from a skeptical standpoint. But the Opus Dei stuff (which Dan Brown conveniently makes *not* the bad guys in the final parts of the book) is just silly. As is the 2000-year-old consipracy, etc.

This weak speculation will reinforce ignorance in the long run. Most people don't even seem to get that Jesus was a Jew and Christianity was taken as a Jewish cult for quite some time, or that "breaking bread" refers to unleavened bread, ie, matzoh bread. If most people don't know that, there's little hope for discourse on the topic.

 

[Justin Bailey]

The movie works; it's involving, intriguing and constantly seems on the edge of startling revelations.

yay

Reading his review, it seems the movie is just like the book - good ol' fashioned entertainment. Fuck all those pansy-bitch critics with an agenda. Most of them have forgetten how to simply sit back and enjoy a movie. Stupid-ass film school dropouts.

 

[LordMaji]

Damn, i didnt think Dan Brown was a horrible writer, he's a good story teller. Da Vinci code is a good fiction novel. But Angels & Demons is the shit.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If people want good old fashioned entertainment, I recommend renting National Treasure. Dumb-but-fun the same way the DaVinci Code novel was, but doesn't take itself as seriously or make itself so laughable.

 

[Jonnyboy117]

Funny review although Ebert is in the minority of critics who actually like the movie. It's tanking hard on Rotten Tomatoes. I haven't read the book and don't plan to, but I was going to see the movie if it turned out to be decent. Guess I'll skip it now. 2.5 hours of melodrama = no sale.

I think it's true that the book is generally adored by people who don't usually read books and loathed by people who read regularly. That's true of my friends, at least. And they don't automatically hate popular books -- there is much love in the group for Harry Potter, Agatha Christie, James Frey, etc.

 

[Xenon]

Sorry duder. The general concensus is that The Da Vinci Code is only a good book for people that don't like to read much. That doesn't give it very high marks.

literary snobbery FTL =(

 

[radioheadrule83]

I really enjoyed it. I don't know what people expected to be honest. People always have these quibbles with adaptations, but I would argue they always have unrealistic expectations as well.

Silus, Leigh, Neveu and Langdon were all well cast in my opinion, and as has been the early-word -- McKellen is particularly good.

A lot of the criticisms -- that it borders on dull for instance -- I just can't agree with. It followed the book as close as possible in a two hour sitting. I also read some criticism of Howard using historical-flashback style sequences and so forth, but I felt they necessarily abridged a rather difficult story reasonably well. Narrative just isn't the same in a movie as it is in a book. And besides which, it looked good. I liked how they merged imagery of old London with new London for example, I enjoyed the closing moments at Le Louvre, and visualising Langdon's thought processes on the screen worked as well.

There are people who go and see movies with their critic hat on -- then there are people that just go to be entertained. The Da Vinci Code is good enough to win over less jaded crticis, and less hardened fans of the book, and its good enough to entertain people.

Its not an incredible movie, but its an enjoyable one. I don't feel ripped off having paid 5 pounds to see it. Not in the least. I'd recommend ignoring the backlash.

 

[Kung Fu Jedi]

I haven't read the book, but the things that Brown weaves into his story are really nothing new. There have been some historians who have made similar claims for years, but Brown has put them altogether and rolled it up into a conspiracy theory, and fictionalized it to sell books. I was raised a catholic, but I have no problems with his story, nor do I feel that it's some big threat to the catholic church. Some people just need to relax and chill out. It is just a story, but it also has elements to it that may actually have been true.

 

[LordMaji]

literary snobbery FTL =(

qtf. I read often and I still thought the book was decent.

 

[ckohler]

I can't believe there are people out there who get paid, and even recognized, primarily for their abilities to break, or in some cases tear apart the creative work of others. Talk about top hat roaches.

You can't belittle them simply because they make a living doing it. Face facts dude. If people didn't want to hear what he had to say, Ebert would have lost his job long, long ago. Supply and demand.

 

[Diablos]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette gave it two and a half stars. I dunno if they featured Ebert's review or did their own.

 

[ScientificNinja]

Watched the movie about two hours ago - I agree with the part about Ron Howard being a better film maker than Dan Brown is a writer. The book was very average; the journey itself is more exciting than the conclusion they reach. Whereas the movie changed the ending a bit to make it a little more sensational, even though it still remained rubbish.

Too many leaps of logic in the film, though - it's extremely average viewing, but not utter shite.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I thought the book was pretty terrible *and* I would recommend it as a guilty leasure to anybody.

Liking it != thinking it's good.

That said, I don't think I'll see the movie. Maybe on video. Sounds like it captured all the lamest aspects of the book, plus, havinng read it, I'm far less compelled to get to the end and the big reveals since I know what they are. That's the candy, and I already ate it. The journey itself was fairly ho-hum.

 

[winter]

qtf. I read often and I still thought the book was decent.

The novel isn't artfully written at all. Fortunately for Dan Brown, books don't need to be artfully written to be entertaining.

 

[Solo]

qtf. I read often and I still thought the book was decent.

I think what White Man and literary elistists mean is that Dan Brown, in terms of actual structure and command of literary techniques, is a bad writer (which I agree with), not that his stories aren't interesting. But yeah, it seems blatantly obvious he wrote the book with a movie in mind.

 

[bud]

what the hell is apollo 13?

:lol

 

[Phobophile]

Wow. That's the first time I've found an Ebert review actually intelligent.

Go Ebert.

It still doesn't make up for the fact he gave The Phantom Menace four stars and found it better than the original trilogy.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

That's easily the biggest rip on Brown in the review. I mean, damn. If someone told me I'm sub-Ron Howard in anything I'd probably pull a liquor store run of Leaving Las Vegas proportions.

Oh... right... because he's popular and a solid director. eyerolleyerolleyeroll

Ron Howard is not bad by any means. He just doesn't take big risks and is lacking a personal style, as White Man said. He's like the Sony PlayStation of movies.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I don't particularly trust the review, given the other ones I've read. They don't seem like backlash so much as "this doesn't make a very good movie despite the fact that you think it would."

Oh, that and Ebert's history of liking crap.

 

[Instigator]

Ron Howard is not bad by any means. He just doesn't take big risks and is lacking a personal style, as White Man said. He's like the Sony PlayStation of movies.

So... whose idea did he steal then?

 

[Boogie]

It still doesn't make up for the fact he gave The Phantom Menace four stars and found it better than the original trilogy.

You're a damn liar.

He gave it three and a half stars. And nowhere in his review does he state he thinks it better than the OT.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

The Da Vinci Code paperback is mediocrity personified.

Fixed. This guy has gotten great mileage out of the ambiguity of his fictional claims, but I for one don't blame him. He's made great sacks of money off mass market tastes.

 

[lachesis]

Well, I could care less about the what the storyline of DaVinci Code was. It was like B-class movie with "please make me into a movie" attitude, which I hated. The part I was really intrigued was the actual hidden Da Vinci code and existing secret society, etc. Wheter true or not, I think it's not a bad thing to taking a good look at what has formed into our modern western society. I highly doubt this book would do any changes so fundamental in mass scale though.

 

[Cronox]

Oh, that and Ebert's history of liking crap.

Watch Dark City.

 

[Kabuki Waq]

Christians have a right to be angry i mean really do you not remember the uproar Jewish ppl tried to make over Passion of the Christ? Muslim Uproar over the cartoon?

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Christians have a right to be angry i mean really do you not remember the uproar Jewish ppl tried to make over Passion of the Christ? Muslim Uproar over the cartoon?

Maybe, but this book was the number #1 best seller for nearly 3 straight years at the same time! I guess most people don't blow a casket and take it for entertainment and/or hot controversial topic.

 

[Alex Teh Lerge]

I dont have problem with the book, but the movie will be seen by more people meaning more idiots who'll think it's true. Obviously people who read have enough intelligence (I hope) to take the book for what it is.

 

[LakeEarth]

So... whose idea did he steal then?

K I guess he isn't EXACTLY like Sony.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Watch Dark City.

I own and love Dark City. Because he loved one great movie does not mean he doesn't have a history of liking crap.

 

[Phobophile]

You're a damn liar.

He gave it three and a half stars. And nowhere in his review does he state he thinks it better than the OT.

Well then I read the wrong Sun Times seven years ago.

 

[Prospero]

I own and love Dark City. Because he loved one great movie does not mean he doesn't have a history of liking crap.

Quoted for truth. I still haven't forgiven him for his four-star review of Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.

He's a smart guy, and his reviews are interesting, but his opinions shouldn't be taken as fact (or anyone else's, for that matter).

 

[ckohler]

I dont have problem with the book, but the movie will be seen by more people meaning more idiots who'll think it's true. Obviously people who read have enough intelligence (I hope) to take the book for what it is.

What difference does it make if anyone and/or everyone believes this story? If religious groups are truly secure in their own beliefs, why should they care what others believe?

I'll tell you why. Because with a normal difference of opinion, each person can politely concede to "agree to disagree". But with religion, a difference of opinion is known as "sacrilege".

 

[LizardKing]

What difference does it make if anyone and/or everyone believes this story? If religious groups are truly secure in their own beliefs, why should they care what others believe?

I'll tell you why. Because with a normal difference of opinion, each person can politely concede to "agree to disagree". But with religion, a difference of opinion is known as "sacrilege".

well that and that a religions existance depends on people believing in it. they are simply looking out for their own necks.

 

[Boogie]

Well then I read the wrong Sun Times seven years ago.

Indeed you did. His reviews are archived. You can go back and check for yourself