Variety/Cannes:"DaVinci Code" not fun

[Dr Mordrid]

http://www.variety.com/VE1117930534.html

....director Ron Howard and screenwriter Akiva Goldsman have conspired to drain any sense of fun out of the melodrama, leaving expectant audiences with an oppressively talky film that isn't exactly dull but comes as close to it as one could imagine with such provocative material; result is perhaps the best thing the project's critics could have hoped for.

"cricified" by Cannes critics;

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/16/060517004155.mxm43ky2.html

The most hotly-awaited movie of the year "The Da Vinci Code" failed to crack an audience of movie critics here at a sneak preview ahead of Wednesday's opening of the Cannes Film Festival.

Several whistles instead of applause were all that greeted the end of Ron Howard's 125-million-dollar film, and worse than that, the 2,000-strong audience even burst out laughing at the movie's key moment.

"I didn't like it very much. I thought it was almost as bad as the book. Tom Hanks was a zombie, thank goodness for Ian McKellen. It was overplayed, there was too much music and it was much too grandiose," said Peter Brunette, critic for the US daily The Boston Globe.

Owwwwwwww......

[MultimediaMan]

And, I might add, a poor smear of what Opus Dei really is about. This coming from Ron Howard is nothing short of amazing. Hopefully, this gets his "meanness" out of him.

[Jammrock]

Almost done with the book. Don't see what all the hubbub is about. The book is .. eh, okay. The writing is decent, the plot twists are usually pretty easy to pick up on. The guy can't stop blabbing about the sacred femanine and the evilness that is the Catholic Church. And his main character is trying to be very wimpy Indiana Jones. Makes me wonder how it sold 40 million copies. Nut I guess if Harry Potter can seel that many...

[Dr Mordrid]

Detroit News critic Tom Long is even harder on it;

'The Da Vinci' dud

All talk and little action make for a movie that doesn't live up to the hype

Tom Long / Detroit News Film Critic
>
>
Here's the gospel on "The Da Vinci Code": It's a total snore.

It's so boring it could be called "The Dull Vinci Code." It's so dumb it could be called "The Duh Vinci Code."

It's the worst film ultra-reliable director Ron Howard has ever made. It turns the most likeable actor in America, Tom Hanks, into a stodgy cipher. It makes the most charming actress in Europe, Audrey Tautou, about as appealing as gum surgery. Together they have the chemistry of buttermilk.

And get this: They may be the best things about the movie, just because you keep waiting for them to get better.
>
>

[Jammrock]

Harsh.

[Jessterw]

Well what we have is a toned-down movie based on a book that just isn't all that great from a literary standpoint. Nevermind that it's just laughable even to those who would love for it to be true. Brown uses 'history' that even the Catholic Church has come around and said is incorrect (a hundred or so years ago at that).

People who know nothing of the history behind the book read it and go, "aha!" as if they've suddenly been enlightened, when all they've taken in is a poorly written book of fiction.

[Dr Mordrid]

Thnk Tom Long was harsh? Try this;

John Beifuss (Memphis Online)

You know a movie's a dud when even its self-flagellating albino killer monk isn't any fun.

Washington Post

The most controversial thriller of the year turns out to be about as exciting as watching your parents play Sudoku.

IGN.com

A jumbled, joyless affair that neither entertains nor enlightens.

OUCH!!

RottenTomatos.com only gave it 15%

The reviews are way better than the movie

[Gurm]

Well people like the book because it's controversial. And because people don't know anything about history, so they easily confuse fiction with real history.

But there are some interesting issues raised. While I'm not into the whole "sacred feminine" thing - I tend to think that our supreme being is most likely genderless or omnisex or something - it is a GIVEN that Jesus was both married and sexually active. I know, I know - that makes Christians cringe, because sex is dirty and linked with "original sin" and whatnot, but let's face the facts:

1. Jesus was, without question, one of the preeminent rabbis of his time. Whether you accept his divinity or not, he was regarded as "teacher" wherever he went.

2. If you know anything about Jewish culture 2000 years ago... a 33-year-old Rabbi without a wife? No credibility. None. Zero. Zip. NOBODY would have listened to him no matter how inspiring he was.

Now, was there an "heir" or "scion"? Who the f*** knows. But the idea of a celibate Christ is based in the idea that there's something "sinful" about intercourse... which is a purely "Christian" invention of the past couple thousand years.

[Dr Mordrid]

You're forgetting His connection to the Essenes, who looked on celebacy far differently than others at the time. In fact many scholars think that both Jesus and John the Baptist were, at least at one time, Essenes or had spent time with them. This because of the many similarities between their teachings and those of the Essenes. There were also differences, but the similarities are striking.

Many think that the Essenes were confined to Qumran where they compiled the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this is not so. There were Essene communities in & around Jerusalem and other parts of the region.

[Nowhere]

Gurm, question - but wouldn't it be possible that his wife was playing along, and they didn't have intercourse? (OK, I know, there's this "Jewish wife is entitled to sexual pleasure" thing or something...but it's possible that she plays along, no?)

[Rakido]

2. If you know anything about Jewish culture 2000 years ago... a 33-year-old Rabbi without a wife? No credibility. None. Zero. Zip. NOBODY would have listened to him no matter how inspiring he was.

speaking out of experience?

[Dr Mordrid]

Gurm, question - but wouldn't it be possible that his wife was playing along, and they didn't have intercourse? (OK, I know, there's this "Jewish wife is entitled to sexual pleasure" thing or something...but it's possible that she plays along, no?)

You mean like half of "normal" marriages today?

[Nowhere]

Thankfully, I wouldn't know...

[schmosef]

You're forgetting His connection to the Essenes, who looked on celebacy far differently than others at the time. In fact many scholars think that both Jesus and John the Baptist were, at least at one time, Essenes or had spent time with them. This because of the many similarities between their teachings and those of the Essenes. There were also differences, but the similarities are striking.

Many think that the Essenes were confined to Qumran where they compiled the Dead Sea Scrolls, but this is not so. There were Essene communities in & around Jerusalem and other parts of the region.

Last time I was in Qumran I spoke with an archaeologist who told me that excavation of Essene communities and grave sites revealed significant evidence of children. The modern conclusion is that either what was thought to be known about the Essenes (from sources like Josephus and Philo) is incorrect/incomplete or that the Essenes didn't practice what they preached.

[Jammrock]

Gurm, question - but wouldn't it be possible that his wife was playing along, and they didn't have intercourse? (OK, I know, there's this "Jewish wife is entitled to sexual pleasure" thing or something...but it's possible that she plays along, no?)

Probably not. The phrase "multiply and replenish the Earth" was/is the point for being married. i.e. to have kids and raise them in the Abrahamic covenant. If, which I do think he was, Jesus was married he would be expected to have several children. Which is also why many believe that Jesus had siblings of his own, many hinted at in the New Testament.

So while they may not have had sex for pleasure (no one can know), they would not have been celibate.