DA VINCI CODE: The Real Turkey of 2006?

[AndyDursin]

Sounds like the potential turkey the trailers hinted at...though if it's that bad, now I may have to see it! (Notice already a running theme that Zimmer's score is likewise a dud).

Critics cruxcify 'Da Vinci Code' in Cannes
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.

Thus book's detractors will no doubt be comforted to hear that when Hanks reveals who is supposedly the last surviving descendant of Jesus, the Cannes audience couldn't hold back their laughter.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/1 ... 43ky2.html

Reuters:Cannes critics left cold at Da Vinci Code screening
While the protests have provided studio Sony Pictures with the kind of publicity money can't buy, the reaction at the first press screening in Cannes was largely negative, and loud laughter broke out at one of the pivotal scenes.

"Nothing really works. It's not suspenseful. It's not romantic. It's certainly not fun," said Stephen Schaefer of the Boston Herald.

"It seems like you're in there forever. And you're conscious of how hard everybody's working to try to make sense of something that basically perhaps is unfilmable."
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsartic ... rss&rpc=22

Variety review
...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.

Part of the quick deflation is due to a palpable lack of chemistry between Hanks and Tautou, an odd thing in itself given their genial accessibility in many previous roles. Howard, normally a generous director of actors, makes them both look stiff, pasty and inexpressive here in material that provides them little opportunity to express basic human nature...

Hans Zimmer's ever-present score is dramatic to the point of over-insistence at times...
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout ... =1&s=h&p=0

[Paul MacLean]

I never read the book, but I was put-off by the self-important tone of the trailer -- the way it infers this is a monumentally important film (and the loud, "important" music didn't help -- did Hans Zimmer score the trailer as well?).

But hey, I'm glad for the guy who wrote the book. Apparently all his attempts to get a musical and otherwise creative career off the ground were a failure until he wrote "Da Vinci Code" around the age of 40. And he gets a film made of it too! Certainly gives me hope!8)


Paul

[romanD]

well, I havent read the book.. a story like this is not very exciting for me... but after seeing the trailer yesterday again I thought what a bad marketing it is... it gives away who the villain is!!! I mean, ok, maybe you know that from the start, though it doesn't look like it in the trailer.. you just have to look closely (well, not that closely actually) in one scene and you can see who is the villain... bad bad bad...

Ive never liked any RonHoward film and Im sure this one won't be different... I may have to watch it.. you know date-wise... lol

sigh

[DavidBanner]

Ron Howard usually does okay with uncomplicated comedies or adventures. He presents scenes that anybody can understand and doesn't look too deeply at anything. I personally think his best movie was "Night Shift". But I have to admit that "Cocoon" and "Splash" were decent as well. And they certainly did well at the box office.

As far as his attempts at more serious cinema, he's had a much harder time. "Apollo 13" is a good movie unless you remember the crucial context that is absent from the film. (By the time Apollo 13 was launched, the country was involved in a pretty big debate about the space program - we had already landed on the moon - and much of the country was in a complete political divide regarding Nixon, Vietnam, etc.) By ignoring the context of the events, Howard's film loses the point of telling that story. By the same token, "A Beautiful Mind" is a really uplifting story - but it isn't really the story of John Nash. Nash's life was far more complicated - he was openly bisexual, for one thing - and his achievements are too complex to be boiled down to a "Love Conquers All" story. (As one critic in LA said at the time "It's really a shame to see such a beautiful mind being presented by such an ordinary one") I personally wonder what could have been accomplished if a more mature director like Peter Weir or David Cronenberg or Anthony Minghella had worked on the project.

With "Da Vinci Code", it sounds like Howard is back on simple ground, which should be good news. If it's just a summer potboiler, it should be fine - maybe a more expensive version of "National Treasure". So long as he's not trying to make a Statement, I'm sure the movie will be alright. But I haven't seen it, and I'll wait to see what the feedback is. Certainly "Poseidon" got a good bollocking when it came out...

[AndyDursin]

With "Da Vinci Code", it sounds like Howard is back on simple ground, which should be good news. If it's just a summer potboiler, it should be fine - maybe a more expensive version of "National Treasure". So long as he's not trying to make a Statement, I'm sure the movie will be alright.

That's a good analysis David and I'd agree with it. DA VINCI, though, does have aspirations of being "something more" than just fluff...even if it's a pulpy kind of thriller. The subject matter IS pretentious and from the sounds of it it's not exactly fast-paced but leaden, dull, and endlessly talky...which isn't a good recipe for summer fun, necessarily.

[Carlson2005]

It seems caught between Brown's pomposity and instance that it's based on documented facts that will change the world and Hanks selling it as a scavenger hunt rollercoaster ride. I must say, the 'fun' aspect is the thing I find most bizarre about Tom Hanks' pitch for the movie - "It's fun! You're not meant to take it seriously!" Yep, sounds like fun to me: the biggest of all the Christian Churches is built on a lie, they're still killing people to keep it a secret because they hate women! Come on, it's a happy time!

[AndyDursin]

Zimmer's score continues to be trashed in every other review you'll find, too...

Now I may have to see it after all!

[Carlson2005]

Zimmer's score continues to be trashed in every other review you'll find, too...

Yes, but with the musical illiteracy of most critics that could just mean it's a fine piece of composition. But I'm getting that Bonfire of the Vanities feeling here - iconic bestseller + miscast Tom Hanks + the wrong director = ...well, you can fill in the gaps!

[Eric Paddon]

Just to respond to the point about "Apollo 13" ignoring the national divide at the time. I think the film did a good job touching on the fact that interest in the space program was waning at that point, and that was really all that was necessary. Just because a movie is set during a particular time period doesn't mean you have to touch base on every critical thing happening in society at that time, especially if they're not connected to the major story being depicted.

[DavidBanner]

Eric, you are absolutely correct to note that a movie set in a particular era doesn't have to mention every single thing about that period. I completely agree with you. And I should qualify my comments regarding Ron Howard's films. I wouldn't want to fault the man's competence. He is quite proficient at filmmaking - the films of his that I have seen have always been well made. He knows how to use a camera, and he knows where to put it. He casts his films well, and always gets a solid performance from each of his actors.

But the issue here isn't competence, and it isn't a matter of talking about everything that was happening in 1970. The problem with "Apollo 13" is that it really doesn't address much of anything about the time. It's a simple story of the men trying to get home, the wife worrying at home, and the controllers at NASA sweating through the situation. As a simple story, it's fine. But if you're looking for anything a bit more complex, such as a sense of irony, you won't find it here. And that was my point regarding Ron Howard's films. They are simple to a fault. For a movie like "Night Shift", that's fine. For a movie that's purporting to be about an historic moment, that won't quite do it for me.

You are correct to note that the film "touches on" the idea that interest in the space program was waning. But that's only the start of the issue - it had only been a year since the celebrated landing on the moon, and within that time massive debate had sprung up asking why we were spending millions on the space program. Where the space program was one of the most inspirational ideas going in the 1960's, by 1970 there was so much disillusion in the country that even a moon landing wasn't going to distract everyone. And when the mission went bad enough that it nearly killed the astronauts, it didn't help the situation. I don't mean that the filmmakers should have been making a documentary about 1970 America, but it would help to establish this story within the context of the times.

So you are absolutely right to note the strengths of this film. It's not a bad movie by any means. It's a crowd pleaser, and it's effective in making the situation suspenseful when we already know the outcome. It's just not anything I would retain after leaving the theater. If all "DaVinci Code" is trying to do is just be a popcorn gobbler, then I'd say more power to everyone involved. If it's intended as a serious piece of art, I would be afraid - very afraid.

[AndyDursin]

I liked APOLLO 13 just fine but like a lot of Howard's films, I've felt little need to revisit it over the years. It's kind of the difference between that movie and THE RIGHT STUFF -- one film was well-executed and a "summer blockbuster" that worked fine on that level, but the other was a multi-layered, brilliant film that went above and beyond what it set out to accomplish.

[DavidBanner]

I agree Andy. The comparison with "The Right Stuff" is one that was made upon the release of "Apollo 13", and it's still valid.

Again, this isn't to say Ron Howard is a bad director. He isn't. He's just a nice director. He makes nice movies, movies that you wouldn't mind bringing home to meet Mom and Dad. And I think that's a big part of why his movies make a lot of money. There are a lot of people out there who just want to see a nice movie that won't offend them or push them too hard. Let's face it, if you're going to see something like "Parenthood" or "The Cinderella Man", you're not expecting a Peter Greenaway movie.

On the other hand, if Peter Greenaway had directed "A Beautiful Mind", you would have had one heck of a movie. (And we would still be trying to figure out what he was saying...)

[MarkB]

Turkey or not, it took in a whopping $30 million on Friday alone. This could be one of those critic-proof movies. (Of course, next weekend will be the real determiner, once the word-of-mouth kicks in.) Personally, based on the reviews, I've decided to hold off on seeing the movie. I think I'll read the book first -- I hear it's a lot more fun.

Mark

[AndyDursin]

Turkey or not, it took in a whopping $30 million on Friday alone. This could be one of those critic-proof movies. (Of course, next weekend will be the real determiner, once the word-of-mouth kicks in.) Personally, based on the reviews, I've decided to hold off on seeing the movie. I think I'll read the book first -- I hear it's a lot more fun.

Mark

It'll be critic proof at least for the opening weekend, but if it's as bad as they say, word of mouth from those who see it will extinguish the fires quick.

Still Mark, you're dead on,, this weekend alone will ensure some kind of gross upwards of $200 million, I would imagine domestically, since it could get halfway there virtually in 3 days!

I imagine it could eventually join the club of movies that did $100-$200 million domestically that nobody likes (or talks about now), like THE FLINSTONES, PLANET OF THE APES and GODZILLA '98.

[Monterey Jack]

I imagine it could eventually join the club of movies that did $100-$200 million domestically that nobody likes (or talks about now), like THE FLINSTONES, PLANET OF THE APES and GODZILLA '98

Dammit, I liked Burton's POTA.